Does the news define us?

[Joseph41]

Inherently, there is so much going on in the world. News outlets choose what they consider to be "newsworthy".

What impact does this have on our lives?

For example, on the front page of the ABC website right now, there are stories on:
- The process and tradition of making cricket bats
- Indonesian tourism
- A movie I've never heard of until now
- The fact that there will soon be zombie emojis, but not redhead emojis

I mean, there's no doubt that there exist different types of news. And due to sheer quantity, not everything can be reported. I guess my question is this: do news outlets have a responsibility to report on what they truly deem important news? Or should they be free to fish for as many clicks as possible?

(A related but independent question: how do you consume your news?)

[heids]

I intentionally don't consume any news, though this unfortunately leaves me socially out of the loop haha.

EDIT: lol I just realised I didn't even answer your question.

Have an essay on news and media!

Firstly, I don't trust news to portray things accurately. I want to know what's going on, but I don't think news tells me that accurately haha. A false understanding is no better than no understanding.

Secondly, it spotlights less important things and ignores more important things. Apart from rubbishy celebrity shit and other clickbait junk, just... major world issues can be covered in a line while smaller ones are hyped up because they're more "newsworthy" (get more clicks and thus income, in other words). I get frustrated when one person's death is made a huge thing and ten thousand people dying elsewhere are worth nothing.

Thirdly, it goes in fads. "Coconut oil is a health superfood", but later "Coconut oil has never been healthy!" And on any issue, not just health and diet. A lot of flip flopping and contradiction and groupthink.  And I don't want to be manipulated into more groupthink than I can help.

And finally, it just... doesn't tend to be edifying. News is mostly fear-based or dopamine-reward-based and just generally lowkey negative and toxic. No thanks. Let me spend my time thinking about oxytocin in peace

[strawberries]

(A related but independent question: how do you consume your news?)

via Twitter (following journos and stuff many whom are biased but w/e) but I also sign up to some newsletters though

Yeah I agree some news are clickbaity, but idk - is there some sort of data saying what most Australians would like to hear news about?
any Australians particularly upset/have opinions about particular news outlets?
Like personally I find all the stuff about diets and fads annoying but yeah.
I also don't care about celebrities and stuff, but I know other people do.

do news outlets have a responsibility to report on what they truly deem important news?

probably something like the ABC do, but other than that, I guess it depends on what viewers want.


but yeah I will admit I probably have been 'brainwashed' or persuaded by some news

[Bri MT]

I actively read news online thorough various outlets. I do think that newspapers have a responsibility to fact-check what they are saying and clearly state if an article is an opinion piece, sponsored etc.

[Joseph41]

I actively read news online thorough various outlets. I do think that newspapers have a responsibility to fact-check what they are saying and clearly state if an article is an opinion piece, sponsored etc.

Do you think there's a difference in that regard between print and digital media?

[Bri MT]

Do you think there's a difference in that regard between print and digital media?

No, online is just more accessible for me. The only real difference is that online can spread faster more easily and be updated to reflect information as it unfolds.

[Calebark]

I think there's a bit of a give-and-take. The news can certainly control the flow of information, but we can control what they do too -- I mean, there'd be no point publishing the floppy, unimportant articles mentioned if people didn't keep reading them.

Ideally, the news would be a lot more objective.

Tell me what happened. Don't tell me an opinion unless it's explicitly an opinion piece. I can form my own opinion after I read the news.

[tloos1999]

I would say, that to a degree news defines us, but some more than others. Whilst we are saturated with true of false stories, I think it all comes down to the individual, in the sense we can determine to what extent it can have on our lives.

[NinjaDatHSC1]

Well when you say "news defines us" - to what people are you referring to? If someone doesn't touch the news at all, how can something independent and irrelevant define you?

but for someone who regularly watches the news, to a degree their perceptions will be moulded into the opinions and subjective truths offered by the news.

[mixel]

I mean, there's no doubt that there exist different types of news. And due to sheer quantity, not everything can be reported. I guess my question is this: do news outlets have a responsibility to report on what they truly deem important news? Or should they be free to fish for as many clicks as possible?

I think the rise of 'unconventional media' means that we shape the media a lot with our opinions; or at the very least there's more of a reciprocal relationship than before. Because social media and the internet has made it so much easier to pick and choose what news sources we read, there's a bit of consumer sovereignty in that massive mainstream media sources like the ABC have to publish clickable inconsequential content to maintain an online presence. If that stuff isn't newsworthy, I think we only have ourselves to blame for it supplanting actual news assuming it wouldn't be published if people didn't read it.

That kinda begs another question, though: is it good for people to have the power to regulate the media sources they see? On the one hand it gives so much more freedom of opinion than if people like Murdoch and Hearst still had monopolies over information, but there's also a worry that people will just build echo chambers around themselves by passively or intentionally censoring out news sources that don't reinforce their opinions in favour of those that do.

[howey]

I guess my question is this: do news outlets have a responsibility to report on what they truly deem important news? Or should they be free to fish for as many clicks as possible?

An interesting one. In a perfect world, news would be much more objective and simply prevent the facts. However, at the end of the day, news organisations are also businesses that have to support themselves (the vast majority, anyway), so it's hard to blame them for looking for clicks (and therefore income), particularly with the way the news industry is heading at the moment.

I think a lot of responsibility lies with the consumer - if people read more 'serious' news more regularly then that would generate more clicks - whereas at the moment clearly more people are reading celebrity news etc, and you can't blame the business for adapting their product to suit the most consumers.