Care to expound on this thought? I’d argue that not watching news hardly makes someone uninformed. For example, Sinclair communications owns something like 200 local tv stations in the US, and they all parrot the exact same right wing BS on the local market nightly news. Nexstar is another example - they write a BS diatribe and every news station they own repeats nonsense disguised as news.
I’d argue that being able to distinguish propaganda from “news” is an important part of critical thought, more important than being informed by local “news”.
This survey is about people who do not engage with news at all, not just syndicated, local news stations. People in the comments here are likewise also talking about how they don’t read any news. What part of my comment did you take to imply I was encouraging people to beuncritical in their choice of news?
Advocating that people distinguish news from propaganda is only something you can do, if you actually read news. If you step away from news altogether, you have by definition lumped actual news and propaganda together as “things you don’t engage with”.
And if you’re not engaging with any (non-propaganda) news, how exactly are you planning to remain informed?
News is:
newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events.
If you get it from another person, who is monitoring news sources, then you’re still engaging with news, just second-hand, and without the ability to verify information or choose sources for yourself. If you don’t get news, you are by definition ‘without noteworthy information especially about recent or important events’, i.e. “uninformed”.
Sadly, an uninformed populace is a controlled populace, so this aligns with monied interests very well.
Care to expound on this thought? I’d argue that not watching news hardly makes someone uninformed. For example, Sinclair communications owns something like 200 local tv stations in the US, and they all parrot the exact same right wing BS on the local market nightly news. Nexstar is another example - they write a BS diatribe and every news station they own repeats nonsense disguised as news.
I’d argue that being able to distinguish propaganda from “news” is an important part of critical thought, more important than being informed by local “news”.
This survey is about people who do not engage with news at all, not just syndicated, local news stations. People in the comments here are likewise also talking about how they don’t read any news. What part of my comment did you take to imply I was encouraging people to be uncritical in their choice of news?
Advocating that people distinguish news from propaganda is only something you can do, if you actually read news. If you step away from news altogether, you have by definition lumped actual news and propaganda together as “things you don’t engage with”.
And if you’re not engaging with any (non-propaganda) news, how exactly are you planning to remain informed?
News is:
If you get it from another person, who is monitoring news sources, then you’re still engaging with news, just second-hand, and without the ability to verify information or choose sources for yourself. If you don’t get news, you are by definition ‘without noteworthy information especially about recent or important events’, i.e. “uninformed”.