> The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating.
Honestly, I think the standards you seem to be setting for yourself are too high. As far as I know, none of us are God, so it is completely impossible for us to know what's going on in the world.
> according to a handful of corporations whose job it is to turn the smallest amount of factual raw material into maximally entertaining spectacle.
Which ones are you referring to, specifically? While there are certainly some companies that just want to turn the news into "entertaining spectacle," I think it's over-cynical to say they all do. I try to focus on the ones that seem to feel they have a duty to report on the news and columnists who seem to feel they have something important to say (and whose columns are interesting enough that that may actually be true).
> There is not a technical solution to any of this. "Decentralization" into forums and social media and whatnot is not a solution. At best it's a good way for some of us to discuss the problem among ourselves as it unfolds. Decentralization is better termed "de-professionalization." The institutions which used to, at the very least, dedicate serious resources to going out into the world and gathering facts no longer function properly or just don't exist.
I totally agree with you here about de-professionalization, but I'm less dejected about traditional news gathering institutions. They're definitely on the decline, but they're not dead yet. Some are still soldiering on and functioning reasonably well, especially if you're interested in national/international news or live in a major city.
Not just about corporations turning the news into "entertaining spectacle". Its scary from a climate change perspective that in my country (Australia), that people invested in the mining and fossil fuel industries are also investing in TV.
The NYTimes definitely prints stuff that is factual. A lot of the entertaining stuff is factual. It just depends on your goals. For example, if you read NYTimes every day since March, you'd sell at the bottom of the fastest stock market recovery in history.
Things can be factual and yet point you in the 200% wrong direction. And since that direction, for the average person, really means, on average, making tons of money, the average news source's pessimism (the actual continuity between 1807 and now) is going to... lose you a ton of money.
I think it makes perfect logical sense though. Any (large) business is vulnerable to the government. Having a large amount of control over the media allows those companies to mitigate the risk from the government a little.
I think wire services are generally pretty good, and Wikipedia Current Events Portal has a decent roundup of wire reports (AP, BBC, Reuters, etc) for stuff going on in the world.
There's a great deal that can be criticized about the journalism provided by mainstream media outlets (which news is considered newsworthy, which experts are consulted, etc.), but I don't know of any evidence suggesting that the standards for factual reporting have slipped any. The question of who can be trusted to provide analysis is as relevant as it's ever been.
Also... I feel for GP. I check out all kinds of sources because there are all kinds of biases. It's crazy how clickbait has changed the news business.
That... and thinking about it --- the REMOVAL of brand authority from media. Instead of democratizing, it has devolved in some ways - though clearly empowered in others.
It sounds like you're suggesting that it is possible to get unbiased factual information about the world? Am I correct in that assessment? I think that's what the parent comment was saying is not really possible to do and I think is the salient point and something that I agree with.
Honestly, I think the standards you seem to be setting for yourself are too high. As far as I know, none of us are God, so it is completely impossible for us to know what's going on in the world.
> according to a handful of corporations whose job it is to turn the smallest amount of factual raw material into maximally entertaining spectacle.
Which ones are you referring to, specifically? While there are certainly some companies that just want to turn the news into "entertaining spectacle," I think it's over-cynical to say they all do. I try to focus on the ones that seem to feel they have a duty to report on the news and columnists who seem to feel they have something important to say (and whose columns are interesting enough that that may actually be true).
> There is not a technical solution to any of this. "Decentralization" into forums and social media and whatnot is not a solution. At best it's a good way for some of us to discuss the problem among ourselves as it unfolds. Decentralization is better termed "de-professionalization." The institutions which used to, at the very least, dedicate serious resources to going out into the world and gathering facts no longer function properly or just don't exist.
I totally agree with you here about de-professionalization, but I'm less dejected about traditional news gathering institutions. They're definitely on the decline, but they're not dead yet. Some are still soldiering on and functioning reasonably well, especially if you're interested in national/international news or live in a major city.