For Two Months, I Got My News From Print Newspapers. Here’s What I Learned.

from NYTs

I first got news of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., via an alert on my watch. Even though I had turned off news notifications months ago, the biggest news still somehow finds a way to slip through.

But for much of the next 24 hours after that alert, I heard almost nothing about the shooting.

There was a lot I was glad to miss. For instance, I didn’t see the false claims— possibly amplified by propaganda bots — that the killer was a leftist, an anarchist, a member of ISIS and perhaps just one of multiple shooters. I missed the Fox News report tying him to Syrian resistance groups even before his name had been released. I also didn’t see the claim circulated by many news outlets (including The New York Times) as well as by Senator Bernie Sanders and other liberals on Twitter that the massacre had been the 18th school shooting of the year, which wasn’t true.

Instead, the day after the shooting, a friendly person I’ve never met dropped off three newspapers at my front door. That morning, I spent maybe 40 minutes poring over the horror of the shooting and a million other things the newspapers had to tell me.

Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too. Because I had avoided the innocent mistakes — and the more malicious misdirection — that had pervaded the first hours after the shooting, my first experience of the news was an accurate account of the actual events of the day.

This has been my life for nearly two months. In January, after the breaking-newsiest year in recent memory, I decided to travel back in time. I turned off my digital news notifications, unplugged from Twitter and other social networks, and subscribed to home delivery of three print newspapers — The Times, The Wall Street Journal and my local paper, The San Francisco Chronicle — plus a weekly newsmagazine, The Economist.

More here.

, , ,

30 Responses to For Two Months, I Got My News From Print Newspapers. Here’s What I Learned.

  1. Nathaniel Valyo March 16, 2018 at 2:49 pm #

    I will never forget the headline of a CNN update I received on my phone just hours after the Las Vegas shooting in October of last year that read, “Mass Shooting in Las Vegas Strip is the Deadliest Shooting of Trump’s Presidency.” No specific details about the attack or the attacker had been released yet; the only information anyone had was that there was a shooting in Las Vegas, leaving many dead and many more wounded. The largest shooting in modern American history had just occurred, and CNN instantly saw a platform to directly criticize Trump, as if he was some sort of direct cause of the shooting. While this headline was not entirely fake news, since it legitimately was the largest shooting in his presidency, the fact that a reputable news source like CNN spun the tragedy so quickly to make it appear as if Trump was the one at fault struck me, and made me question the validity of receiving news updates as an event is unfolding.

    It is headlines like these that the author of this article describes as news that “does more to distort your understanding of the world than illuminate it.” The news is an invaluable source of information which everyday people like myself rely upon to keep up with the world and make appropriate judgments on. If the sources of news are set up so that we only receive one person’s opinion on an event, like the author of the CNN article’s opinion I received a notification for last October, inaccurate judgments of society will be made by the average person who relies on the news to keep up with the world. News companies like CNN have an ethical obligation to prioritize facts over interpretations of the facts.

    It is not the speed of an article being released that matters most, but rather the quality of the content provided, as the article insists. Hours after a news-worthy event happens, the internet is filled with commentary on the event, which can easily turn to conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, leaving an inaccurate depiction of the event in the minds of readers. When the facts of a situation are gathered thoroughly, then and only then should reputable news sources like CNN release stories on it, no matter how long it takes to gather them. Facebook and Twitter are not reputable sources for news, only attention-seeking perceptions of it. Deep, fact-rich stories about an event will always be more valuable than quick, fabricated ones found on the internet.

    • Tanner Purcel March 16, 2018 at 5:24 pm #

      I agree with your first paragraph on how the media spins news and stretches the truth to favor their political views. With technology, the first thing we see is the headline, and unlike newspapers, we cannot just skim over the section to see what it says. We must click the link in order to go to the article, which many people are too lazy to do. This is why people turn to paper news instead. There are no alerts informing you of news that might or might not be confirmed. When the paper comes out the next day, it is usually all confirmed facts of the incident. There is no guessing or assuming. News sources always try to beat out each other to release a story, which leads to mistakes or unfinished news. Everyone wants to be able to say “You heard it here first.” With the newspaper, news cannot be released until the next day anyway, so there is no rush to beat out competition. These newspaper actually take the time to confirm there facts before publishing. There is also much more fake news on the internet than in papers. People can post fake articles about anything and people will think it is real. With paper news, this isn’t as much of a problem.

  2. Olivia Mason March 16, 2018 at 7:39 pm #

    We live in a world centered around the instantaneous. Whether that be communication, transactions, or as in the case of this article, news. The speed of which the information can be delivered is arguably almost more valuable than the quality of said information; we can wait later for more in-depth details. On the surface, this ability to have instantaneous news seems like a great accomplishment of modern technology; we have the ability to know exactly what is happening all over the world at any given moment. As the article points out however, this is not always a good thing.
    One of the arguments made in favour of relying on less instant sources (in this case the author turned to print newspapers) was that it made it seem like there was less “breaking news”. When all of the information was contained and only checked once, it made the information seem much more manageable and less overwhelming. Personally, I think this was a relatively weak argument against instantaneous news. In today’s world, most casual conversation revolves around what is happening in the news, and if you want to be able to communicate effectively, you can’t be a day behind.
    The best argument made in favour of print newspapers (and against instantaneous news) was that “real life is slow; it takes professionals time to figure out what happened”. A very common occurrence with “breaking news” online today is to see “developing story” underneath it asking to check back for updates. When articles are released within a few mere hours of a disaster, like that of the Vegas shooting, it is impossible for true facts to be released. Discoveries and decisions don’t get made that quickly in police investigations, so all that’s left is personal opinion and speculation to report. Oftentimes when disasters occur, political parties- while both agreeing it is a tragedy- will either directly or simply hint blame towards their opposition. This leads to drastically different coverings of the same tragedy, and thus leading people to have very different “information” when it comes to that story. When you wait to read about these occurrences, then the stories you do read from reputable sources contain information that has been fact-checked (this also can’t occur properly with instantaneous media), that can be free from speculation because there are enough facts to base the story on.

  3. Don R March 16, 2018 at 7:39 pm #

    I admire the mans’ Don Quixote style of fighting the digital giant of notifications and destruction of cultural norms. I only wish that our technocrats would agree to slow down the digital giant they created. I miss reading the Times with coffee and a bagel (cappers, lox, red onion). But the monopoly on the news has been shaken so hard by the digital transformation of information in a general sense, that the once-elite commentary class has now become a realistic employment opportunity. This diffusion of “professional” life commentaries is even shown in this article, the most glaring part from our commentary class friend at the Times was the fact that there was a logical fallacy when the author calls a person friendly that they have never met. The likes of Youtube are even replacing digital word journalism. That was the first thing to Urk me. The unrealisticness of pushing for Digital destruction is a tall order to say the least, not impossible. I personally have deleted my facebook and ignored social media the past weeks, and I can absolutely agree that the lighting charger is more of a bondage chain than a tool. The author’s point that “Technology allows us to burrow into echo chambers, exacerbating misinformation and polarization and softening up society for propaganda” sone of those golden nuggets of Times commentary that makes them a golden staple in our entertainment world. Hopefully, the technology detox will be a rising trend in popular culture. We are in a world of diets and fads, one of the best examples the importance of going “off the grid” is shown through Dave Rubin’s Yearly technology 30-day detox via youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp6hM4W8oHU ). There will always be a market for the vintage for of print news, but as that market sadly “dies” off the question will become will there be a return after the outrage over the notification machines in our pockets. There are “dumb phones” that you can now drop $200 for the privilege of only talking and texting. Via lightphone.com (https://www.thelightphone.com) I think there will be a return to print news, but it will take time, as the new papers have indeed tarred their reputations (at least in the younger generation’s eyes). For tarred reputation see h3h3 and Wallstreet Journal controversy.

  4. Lucas Rodriguez March 16, 2018 at 8:26 pm #

    As we continue to live amid such a seemingly modern industrial booming era, we have shifted our priorities towards that of full internet based security and comfort; the information we receive, our deepest protections from outward threat, and our most intimate communication systems seem to linger throughout this current technological revolution, whether we fully notice it or not. We have relied so heavily on the internet to deliver such critical “world updates” from our various news platforms that influence our daily lives, that these media sources have started to act as oxygenic tools sustaining our daily existences; we are so engaged and involved with our communities and national environments because of our ever-growing mobile devices which house such news related applications. The second a critical news story is released, we are automatically brought into the situation, most times as it is currently occurring. This involvement makes us feel connected to our communities, as if without it we are lost and stranded among an unknown universe. But with such an omnipotent force, it may become a manipulative battlefield from which each competing news source adds on its own “twist” or fabrication of such events. The internet modernly has become a platform vulnerable to complete false news advertising, such as popular online systems such as “TMZ”, which is a source that branches off of actual occurring news and makes the story they illustrate more appealing to the younger generation of audience. But despite this plague of misinformation, the internet provides crucial means for informing local inhabitants on what their society may be experiencing at a present moment. As the author touches upon throughout his article, huge new stories such as mass shootings especially in regards to the Parkland shooting the article expresses re streamed almost immediately through these devices. And because of such crucial and almost immediate publications, families and individuals related to the situations, or somehow involved, could immediately satisfy some of the concerns that they may gather, and potentially voice out data. Even with the transition to more archaic forms of media related services, such as the local paper delivered to an individual’s home, most people have already likely heard about a situation before they read it. This is caused by the “word of mouth” effect, as the author describes in his experience with a stranger, in which individuals could learn about certain stories or areas of news coverage from their environment. This explains the extent to which the technological era has affected our lives, even if you decide to go against this realistically helpful plague of innovative creation, you cannot escape the depths of the root from which you exist in any region, your local community. If you decide to spend two months and adventure into an isolated state of complete and utter old-fashioned resource, you will find certain troubles that may prevent your “purifying” experience, away from all the noise and fake news, from fully being a pleasant encounter. The whole purpose for evolving toward more efficient ways of gathering knowledge, such as the internet or your mobile smartphone, is to provide an easier and more rapid pathway to direct information without the additional day delay you may receive from home delivered newspaper subscriptions. Without such critical devices, as the world around you continues to thrive you may develop anxious sensations which derive from your created darkness from the outside world; it will be as if you boarded up all of your windows, turned off all of your industrial creations, and stationed yourself in front of your house door, staring at the mail slot waiting for an update on the environment that surrounds you.

  5. Brianna Avery March 16, 2018 at 8:46 pm #

    The amount of people who read print newspapers have significantly decreased over the years. Today, millions of people have chosen to read their news digitally, through various news app and visiting popular news media websites (The New York Times and The Washington Post for example). Having the news at the touch of a button everywhere you go is very convenient but there are downsides. In the article “For Two Months, I Got My News From Print Newspapers. Here’s What I Learned” writer Farhad Manjoo discusses his experience with reading print newspapers. Manjoo found he spent less time reading about the news when he read print newspapers. A lot of the time, many digital news sources put out half-baked news reports just to be the first one to publish a story. Often their stories contains inaccurate information and as the true story unfolds then publishers go back in to fix what they got incorrect just because they know they are able to. If you like to read news reports from the very beginning, you would have to keep checking on updates before you find the truth, which is tedious. Trying to figure out what is “fake news” can be tedious as well. Fake news is a term to describe misinformation that is being passed as real. If you use Facebook, then I am sure you have come across a few news articles just to further your research and find out it was actually fake. I personally prefer to read news articles on my cell phone but I usually wait a day or so to read it to make sure the information I am reading is as accurate as possible. Reading news article online saves paper as well as money (Manjoo states newspaper subscriptions can easily be $81 a month). Print newspapers as well as digital news both have their pros and cons it just all depends what works for an individual. If digital news is what your prefer you just have to verify what you’re reading is in fact accurate.

  6. Sylwia Marut March 17, 2018 at 12:34 pm #

    The author of this article highlights the importance of recognizing “fake news” and how social media distorts news stories and has a large influence on people’s perspectives. Social media plays a big role in the deliverance of news. As soon as something newsworthy happens, people are quick to jump online and provide statements based off of opinion or personal belief. I think social media platforms are great for purposes such as catching up with friends and following your favorite celebrities. However, what these celebrities say and do can provide a subconscious influence. For example, companies pay big-name celebrities to go on sites such as Twitter and tweet about how much they like a product or how large of a difference it makes on their lives. This is a clever advertising ploy, because it is not a conventional ad, but it catches and deceives many people.
    The same rules apply to news and world events. Celebrities are often provided incentives to promote a certain person or political campaign. It is important to educate yourself and create your own opinions and thoughts based off of credible sources instead of using social media as a news medium. Social media distorts stories and often promotes content linked to “fake news”, such as the recent promoted stories about how the Parkland students speaking out after the shooting were paid actors. The stories get attention because they are so controversial but cause unnecessary hurt and spread false truths.
    Yes, news subscriptions can be pricey. However, due to the decline of newspaper sales, many companies are lowering their prices and providing special promotions. I think newspaper subscriptions are worth the money. They allow people to disconnect from their gadgets, which is better for health, and it is often relaxing to just sit down and read a newspaper. I believe they provide concrete news, unlike social media. Social media tries to get stories out as fast as possible without even fact-checking or receiving confirmations of events. Reading a newspaper allows one to be more educated. I am not denying that newspapers often present information in a certain way based off of views of the companies they are owned by. However, it is our responsibility to be aware, open-minded, and look at various sources to draw educated conclusions. Social media is often distracting, and if one prefers to read their news digitally, they can do so on credible newspaper sites that provide both digital and print copies of their content rather than on social media.

  7. Koyinsola Okulaja March 21, 2018 at 8:51 pm #

    With the growth of technology, it changed the way we did many things, one of the things it drastically changed was the way we get our news. All of a sudden we are able to get our news at our fingertips seconds after the story happened. Whenever there is a major new story we all feel our phones buzz and we are able to pick it up and see what has happened. This can be viewed as both a good thing and a bad thing. Firstly, this allows us to get all the news all around the world in a single moment. But one of the problem we have been facing with news from the social media sites is the fake news, since many of these sites look real, many people often believe them and start spreading the news but after a while it is often proven to be false. The writer of this article Farhad Manjoo gave a great example with the Florida school shooting. Whenever there is a big news event that happens and draws a lot of attention, before the actual news is released, many people release news of their own and spread rumors most of which are untrue. Just like he said in the article when the shooting first happened because he was not using his phone for news he was able to miss out on all the fake news and only get the real facts when it came to his door the next morning. One of the problems with online news is that many companies try and be the first to put the story out so when the mass event like the school shooting happened, even reputable sources like the wall street journal were putting out reports that were eventually proven to be false. By him only getting his news through the newspapers, it allowed him to be more informed and provided him with more free time, it also stops him from wasting countless hours on pointless news websites but instead can read the paper every morning knowing he is getting the best most accurate news. The interesting thing is that today majority of people get their news on the internet which might be why a lot of us are misinformed on what is actually happening in the world. I think if we find a better way to block out a lot of the fake news, it will make for us to be better informed citizens. I know personally that Facebook worked really hard last year to remove a lot of their fake news websites and links and I am starting to see them less and less often on the website. We should also stop running to social media for our news, majority of the news on social media is opinion based and biased in one form or another so if we want to get the best most accurate news, it is important to stay on main news websites like CNN, Fox, New York times and reliable sources like those. The most effective way to get your news is to do it like Farhad does it, read the print newspaper or the final published stories online. I think we should all try to be like him and wait till all the news stories are confirmed before we start spreading news.

  8. Nicholas Marinelli March 22, 2018 at 12:05 am #

    In an age of digital literacy, everyone expects to have their information up to the minute, and at the exact moment it occurs. However, the reality is that no matter how advanced we become, it is inevitable that we will be somewhat erroneous in relaying the news. Technology is not perfect, but some argue it is quite close to it. It is undeniably a great source of information and news, but does this reliance become too much?
    Personally, I receive my news via The Wall Street Journal mobile and computer editions rather than having a physical newspaper delivered to me. Reason being, is because it is just convenient in the fact that I am in college and can receive my information on demand; this is the basis of technology- instantaneous information sent and received by the push of a button, flick of the finger, or glance at my phone. Unfortunately, because we all want this information quickly, publishers can make “mistakes”. These mistakes can come in the form an embellished headline- something that does not often happen on a printed, published physical copy of a newspaper. A physical copy of the newspaper has all the information in a detailed, logical format without any distractions, assumptions, or “fake news” that will mislead the reader into believing something else.
    The problem with having the news delivered to your phone is the idea of being distracted. Your phone is one extensive portal to the world- this is both a blessing and a curse. When I hear the “ding” of a new Wall Street Journal update, naturally, I glance at my phone; “Breaking News” is plastered on my screen and I feel compelled to read the article. From there, I then read another article, see another headline, and before I know it 30 minutes have passed and I am on my 5th “Like” on an Instagram post. When you read a headline on a physical copy of a newspaper, you generally do not have this problem of surfing the web.
    If you end up having self-control, news on your phone can be an absolute pinnacle move; up to the minute information, direct, to your fingertips. Social media and embellishment, however play roles in the delivery methods of news. Social media can twist every article and piece of news, creating a whirlwind of information that is often untrue, and without credibility. These Tweets, Posts, and Comments create heated debates regarding subjects and often bring about fake, fictitious information for the masses; this then spreads false information to people that do not know better.
    Every person is entitled to his or her own opinion and each has varying preferences concerning technology and physical copies of news delivery. At this moment in time, I prefer to have my news delivered via my phone and digitally. I believe that it is efficient, up to the minute, and crucial depending on the information that is provided. But on the flip side of things, I do not mind reading about the news from the past week on a Sunday morning with a bagel and orange juice- it comes down to preference and if you are used to something. Utilized correctly, a digital subscription based news source has the potential to provide a great outlook on the breaking news and headlines- but it is important to note to avoid social media and fake, embellished news articles.

  9. Steven Merunka March 22, 2018 at 5:36 pm #

    Newspapers are of no stretch of the imagination “non bias”. There are newspaper publishers in which they do favor one side of politics rather than the other. However they all have something in common and that’s credibility. Verified newspaper articles who have been fact checked and editing maybe a half of dozen times to make sure accuracy is met and all information is there. And that’s what’s great about printed news. It’s not broken up in sections you only get one topic at a time, it’s everything, you get start to finish and information that is accurate and correct and you don’t have articles and blogs on the internet labeling and using falsehood to make something worse or more interesting than it actually is.
    Even in the article what was underlined was the fact that the horrific event was read during one sitting and was mourned in that window of time. With the internet you have a stream of information one after another and that moment of mourning turns into hours because of the constant flow of information rather than having the whole story at once. If you want credible newspapers are where you would lean towards as compared to the internet. Regulations are more binding and strict when it comes to print. The internet is an open market and with free speech anything can be said whether it is correct or not. With newspapers you have a process, not typing and clicking enter, people read the story, make sure you keep the facts and whether you use those facts to create an opinion. I do believe of you want news, newspaper is the way to go to retain information that is verified and reliable almost all the time.

  10. Patrick Day March 22, 2018 at 6:38 pm #

    Nowadays, there has been a significant decrease in the amount of people that would prefer to read the newspaper to receive news. Many people are now accustomed to digital news media because it is very convenient for them. Just like how the author points out in his article, “I found much to hate about print. The pages are too big, the type too small, the ink too messy, and compared with a smartphone, a newspaper is more of a hassle to consult on the go.” Many people are glad that all of their information could be given to them on their phone or laptop; but there are some like me that believe that it could make you more paranoid and addicted to the news than it has to. Just like the author states that, many people are quick to throw out misinformation and try to put propaganda behind the actual event that was happening such as a shooting. After reading Nathaniel’s comment about the CNN story, that has also struck me as well that within the one day, CNN saw an opportunity to spin the Las Vegas shooting around as if it was President Trump’s fault somehow. Before anyone knows about anything about the actual events that has occurred during an event like a shooting, people come up with their own opinions and assumptions of what has occurred there. This misinformation is all it takes for others to assume that those are the facts of the situation and that is what they believed what happened.
    The viewers would not mind how much misinformation they are given since they receive the information immediately for convenience. After reading this article and reading what the author does and does not want everyone to do, is what generally everyone does when it comes to news. Everyone gets paranoid and addicted to when the next piece of news will come out and they will be afraid that one bad event is worse than it has to be. No one takes their time to read and they jump to conclusions after glancing some main points of the incident. Everyone is on social media these days because not only that they can read the news, but also because they can express to the world how they feel about it. After the many expressions of an event, that can warp the mind of other readers of what actually happened at the event and could lead to one conspiracy theory after another. It is similar to the game of telephone where one person starts with a word and tries to maintain that word but usually in the end the last person says a completely different word. People should not be jumping to conclusions and should be patient enough to let reputable sources to send out accurate information about the event so that everyone doesn’t have to be paranoid of what is true or not. You could always be like the author and wait a couple days to receive a newspaper and not have to worry about what is happening in the world constantly on your phone.

  11. Ryan Mack March 23, 2018 at 11:34 am #

    As with every new thing, technology has its drawbacks, and society has to learn to adapt. Smartphones, social media, 4G and broadband, and push notifications have enabled us to share news and information faster than we can even obtain it. This is commonly how rumors or false information circulates and masses of people are misinformed. The internet has also enabled the rapid spread of conspiracy theories regarding several different events. Online news also has a significant amount of media bias. From little things like word choice to bigger things like the article’s focus and title, many news outlets clearly display their bias. Farhad Manjoo writes in a New York Times Article that online news is “more like a stream of never ending commentary.” Social media, especially Facebook makes it worse. According to a Pew Research Center study, more and more Americans are getting their news from social media, and it seems like it’s in those constant updates are where the most misinformation happens. It also seems like it’s difficult to find somewhere where you can just get the facts first. Moreover, there’s also the mess of propaganda bots posting fake and misleading comments reporting, supporting, or opposing a side. Not to say that print media doesn’t have its bias sometimes but a reader is most likely more influenced on one opinion without the other side of the argument when reading it through some online medium. Something I usually do when I read the news, usually only if it’s relating to government and politics, is I verify the information or check other reliable news sources to not spread wrong information or sound ignorant if I talk about it. I don’t always read the news notifications on my phone, though usually it’s because there’s too many of them; otherwise I wait until the next day or a few days later to actually read the stories. As opposed to most people today, I actually liked getting news from a newspaper. Up until very recently, an actual paper was delivered to my house. Now, we just use the digital version or the app like practically everybody else. A lot of the news you see online is rushed journalism. There are not only informational mistakes, but also grammatical and spelling errors, and repeated words. Since getting news isn’t so simple anymore, we should always consider the source and look for other views on a polarizing issue.
    https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/

  12. Mark Marino March 23, 2018 at 7:07 pm #

    Today with technology, and the use thereof allows us to experience news on another level. With the fading away of newspapers, we are able to receive up to date information on news happening around the world and in the United States. Sacrificing our smartphones does not come easy. Getting out news from Facebook and Twitter suffices enough for many people, but in the age of “fake news” we really don’t know what is true and what is not. Personally, I follow many news organizations such as Fox News, BBC, and CNN which allow me to see news happening in real time with links leading to the website of choice. In the article, it shows how the Parkland shooting in South Florida reached national headlines, even with people who do not have subscriptions to news sources on their cellular devices.

    Notifications can be annoying to some but useful to many. For the application bleacher report on my phone, I get sports updates frequently which light up my phone every hour or so. Not only does it draw on battery, if you have a smartwatch then it draws on that battery as well. This is problematic when it comes to charging your device to fulfill your needs on a daily basis.

    The scary part of the whole article is that the writer did not even have news set up on his phone but still got notifications of the Parkland shooting. As this news story reached all across America and impacts people of all ages, news outlets will do everything they can to assist in breaking the news. This is all in an effort to make money in some way. News sites are free because of the tracking they do on their viewers. Selling data now is the new trend unfortunately and even that is reaching national headlines. With Facebook now on the hot seat when it comes to data analytics, people are getting upset with the newest trend in technology and rightfully so. Tracking a users’ information is absolutely wrong in every way. We are now living in a surveillance state whether it be online or in our personal lives with Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft tracking us in every way.

  13. Adam Facella March 23, 2018 at 8:04 pm #

    After reading what Manjoo had to say about paper newspapers after the Parkland School shooting, I think it is interesting in his outlook on the whole event. Instead of getting different news from a million different sources which was not true, he only got news from a paper newspaper with only facts on what actually happened. Instead of pointing fingers at different groups it was only on the facts. I think that this is something that everyone should begin doing. I know from my experience I get most of my news from different social media sources like Twitter. But, most of these accounts have a great amount of bias and will not give the truth behind a story. If I were to actually read a paper newspaper, which I do not think I have ever done for more than an article or two, I think that overall I would be a more informed citizen. This would eliminate the buzz in my pocket telling me about “breaking news” and I would be able to focus more on the important news that I care about. Manjoo also talks about only articles as not even the actual news but the author’s opinion on what the news is. This takes away the ability of me to form my own opinion. I think that is the problem with having my generation solely relying on online news. It takes away from the young of making their own opinions and decision and taking a very right-handed or left-handed approach on what they are reading.

  14. Russell Malko March 23, 2018 at 11:00 pm #

    Farhad Manjoo decided that he was going to read the newspaper and only the news paper instead of using social media. This did not start off this way, in fact when the Parkland shooting occurred in Florida he recalled using social media to get the updates. It seems newspapers have lost their edge and apps and technology have taken over and everyone gets their daily dose of news from online sites. A friend of his dropped off newspapers and he said it was the best thing that could have happened to him. He got the full story on parkland start to finish, and not just the blips that you get when you read a million online sites and you get bits and pieces of the story.

    Turning off his apps and notifications seemingly opened him up to a new world. In another one of my classes I have a man who works for the Trentonian and his daily fear is that the print world is slowly depleting and disappearing. But I think reading this article may give him a bit of hope. I think people in today’s age would benefit from locking their phones, shutting off the app notifications and diving into a good news paper. I think this world is not dead, and as great as digital technology is it also causes us to process information in bits and pieces, and we no longer get the full story. He warns of predigestion of information of online newspapers, but he also reminds you that digital news can also give you different advantages, no big paper and ink colored paper to carry around. In the ends the both have their ups and downs.

    Adam Fecella commented on the article stating, “After reading what Manjoo had to say about paper newspapers after the Parkland School shooting, I think it is interesting in his outlook on the whole event. Instead of getting different news from a million different sources which was not true, he only got news from a paper newspaper with only facts on what actually happened. Instead of pointing fingers at different groups it was only on the facts. I think that this is something that everyone should begin doing.” It is interesting that he agrees as well, I found most comments were mixed, but many agreed that newspaper is not dead, and it provides and experience, because you are not just getting the news on one story you are being taken on a trip and learn an abundant amount of information on numerous topics.

    In the Business Journal there is an article about three reasons why print is not dead. I read it and found that it is closely related to the article found on the Shannon blog that I read, further backing up the argument that newspapers are making a comeback and I hope that people become more conscious of where they are getting their news from.

  15. Joe C. March 30, 2018 at 4:34 pm #

    I found this article very refreshing and well written by the author. We absolutely live in a time where ‘fake’ news reins king! The majority of the breaking news is delivered through lightning-fast means, such as social media or other electronic formats to our ‘smart’ devices. The problem, as pointed out by the author is that depth and accuracy is overlooked in efforts to get these stories out as quickly and widely spread as possible. The problem with this is that most facts have yet to be established and very little information is known before being shotgun blasted to the public. The resulting scenario leads to a world wind of speculation and irrelevant information that spreads like wildfire on a dry summer day. From there it just blooms into this out-of-control monster as the story is shared, reposted and retweeted millions of times. The days of fact checking are long over – we’ll believe anything we read!
    I think the author is spot on when they described our addiction to these ‘smart’ devices as a monster that has us on speed dial – ready to break into the day with half-baked bulletins. We have become much decentralized to this method and even to these “half-baked bulletins”. Giving up these devices allows us more time to get our faces out of the screen, see the world around us and realize that there is more around us than this little glowing devil-box. Although, it is probably extreme for most people to step completely away from electronic news, one thing that we are giving up is hard-checked facts and verified information.
    I read an article from the American Press Institute that polled social media users that get their news source from online and – the results are pretty eye-opening. First, the majority of users would rather trust a news article from an unknown source that comes from a person they trust (say a friend), over an article from a reputable news agency by someone they don’t trust. Pretty alarming to say the least. It goes without saying that news agencies heavily rely on who shares their content – news bots. The reputation use to come from the news agency themselves, rather than their subscribers. A big change in where we are today.
    So, the biggest question is – why do we subject ourselves to this means of news? The answer is simple – convenience. At the point of one or two click, you have full access to an unlimited and non-stop news feed that provides us unfiltered news around the clock. It’s just easy and it works! Who cares that most of the news is ‘fake’, underdeveloped or misleading – right?

    https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-social-media/

  16. Andrew Kuttin April 1, 2018 at 6:35 pm #

    BREAKING NEWS!!! As someone who does their best to stay in the loop, I see those two words on my screen multiple times per day. I follow every major cable news provider as well as my local news carriers on all of my social media platforms and have an app downloaded for almost all of them. Each app sends its notifications and I scroll through the news centered subsections of Reddit and watch videos from my favorite commentators multiple times a day. In the time it has taken me to type these few sentences, the Associated Press has sent me three notifications addressing three different current events. The efficiency of our devices has created a news cycle that is constantly spinning and almost too accessible. The news is made available whenever and whenever you want no matter how lacking in detail it may be. As the core of this article points out, modern breaking news comes at the instant that it occurs. No online news source wants to be late to the party, so details are pushed out as they come to the light before any analysis or verification can be done. In a concerning example mentioned in the article, in the immediate wake of the Parkland shooting, Fox published an article linking the shooter to Syrian resistance groups based off almost no substance. When there is a race to be the first to report something there is no time to ensure that you are the best to report it.
    As a result of this flood of possibly false or misleading breaking news, Farhad Manjoo chose to restrict himself to a news diet consisting almost entirely of print deliveries. He subscribed to three different newspapers and waited for their morning delivery to educate himself on the happenings of the previous day. As he unsurprisingly found, the delay gave time for reporters to digest and report the news in a more accurate fashion. Sticking with the Parkland example, Manjoo was able to avoid all gross and misleading conspiracy theories and read only the verified facts of the situation. In this respect, the advantage of print news is evident. The one day delay in consuming breaking news allowed for the non-relevant information to fade out. However, I find the disadvantage of a lack of opinions and voices to be just as important if not more. The endless void of opinions online makes it easy to fall in a conspiracy hole, but there are so many voices refuting those pushing false stories that there is no excuse to fall victim. I think that social media and the internet as a whole make it incredibly easy to diversify the news outlets you follow and become well rounded/informed. It is up to the individual to verify the information they are reading and form their own opinions based upon that information. While print does provide a professional and more rational voice, it definitely does not provide substantial diversity.
    I recognize that many if not most Americans do not want to spend the time necessary to become well informed online. They opt to believe whatever they read and move on with their day, rather than spending time doing their own research. I am in an odd minority that enjoys doing my own digging and fact checking, and I understand the appeal of a singular professional news voice. While I think that print is a better option than ignorantly stumbling through social media, I also believe that using the efficiency of the internet to your advantage in consuming news is necessary. This is the future of news and moving backwards in time is not the proper response. Newspaper articles, blog posts, commentary videos, and aspects of all news outlets available need to be blended together responsibly.

  17. Zachary Corby April 1, 2018 at 7:14 pm #

    This article was particularly interesting because it gave an in depth look at our changing landscape of the world, and how it has influenced how we get our news. With everything going digital that is now how the majority of people get their news, through apps on smartphones, social media, and news outlets. The problem is that people have sacrificed accuracy in the news for speed and are now so often misinformed that no one knows exactly what is going on. People want to be the first to know when something happens; it is just simply human nature. Whether that be when a mass shooting happens, or when your friend breaks up with her boyfriend, people always want to know what happened and do not care for if it is 100% accurate as long as they get the main news. What technology has provided is just this, the main news, but all the facts generally are not presented because either people do not know them or they may pick and choose what facts to put into their writing. Not everything on the internet is true, and when people so often prefer speed to accuracy, it leads to a lot of mistakes in the news that is being published. Newspapers have a lot of extra time in which they get to wait for all the facts and release them all at once, but digital news does not have that luxury. Like Ricky Bobby said “ If you’re not first you’re last” and that rings true for the digital news ring because if you do not publish the breaking news or major facts first you will lose viewership. As mentioned, a lot of times people do not simply have the facts to publish because gaining them takes time due to legal restrictions. What the internet and especially social media has caused is a ton of speculation and easily accessible opinions. Since facts are not always out their right away, people are left to speculate on what has happened which helps to create a lot of false information in a chain reaction. Additionally, social media has allowed for more opinion which help influence people’s thought processes on what they should believe in. The article uses the example of the Parkland shooting, and you can see how quickly people were able to give their opinions on gun control after that happened. Celebrities and other iconic people being able to express their opinions easier to the public through social media plays an even bigger role in influencing how to perceive news. The article brings up a ton of good reasons why to read the newspaper instead of getting your news from an online source, but in actuality, no one can live like that. Tell me what logical person would actually wait the whole day to read a newspaper and not get their news as soon as they could? People need to better learn how to adjust to what they see online instead. They need to learn what reputable news outlets and websites they can trust to report the news, and not take what they see on social media into account. While this is much easier said then done, especially when our President bashes almost every news sources for putting out fake news, it is essential for living in the upcoming years. Regular newspapers are also so costly especially given the fact that they take so long to get the news to you. The article said that it was $81 for a month of the New York Times which is absolutely insane, especially when you can subscribe online for faster and cheaper news or just get the news somewhere else. Maybe the government could also put more restrictions on giving out online news so that people would be less misinformed, but that seems virtually impossible. Overall, people just need to be better informed on how much fake news is actually put out on the internet so that they can differentiate facts from opinions and misinformation.

  18. Lauren Woodward April 3, 2018 at 2:40 pm #

    Newspapers have seemed to be a thing of the past for many years now, however they might just be the hidden gem of the news world. While it doesn’t provide news and information as quickly as online sites and social media gives, it is more accurate and simplistic than you could ever imagine. This article explains in detail how by gaining information from newspapers, the author was changed forever in that newspapers were far better than online news.
    While we might think that information coming from trusted news sites such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal are accurate sources of information, the factor of speed can lead to a distortion of facts and therefore, giving readers falsehood. It almost a form of spreading rumors, and throwing Facebook and Twitter users in the mix can’t end well. This is where the form of newspaper and print news shows more positively. The facts, a day later, are more set in stone than information that is released as the story is occurring. As we all know, slow and steady wins the race; and the newspaper seems to out-do online news in the long run.
    On my MacBook Pro, I get CNN news notifications sent to my notification center (I did it on accident a few years ago and never changed the setting). While this was by mistake, I found I was more up to date with what was happening in the world, however I got so many notifications about the same ordeal that it seemed like each story went in 17 different directions. This made understanding the story and what had happened very difficult. Although I haven’t compared this experience to reading a newspaper like the author had, his case has determined me to maybe get my news from print from now on. My parents still purchase newspapers and get one sent to their house every day. As a kid, I found that newspapers seemed pointless, and that they were only good to read horoscopes and see what the weather will be like. News was not an interest of mine at age 8, obviously. However, as a young adult I haven’t experienced the joys of newspapers, and this article has inclined me to do so.

  19. Gabrielle Pietanza April 4, 2018 at 6:40 pm #

    In this day and age news is constantly breaking and the horror that the headlines provide have the ability to frighten countless readers. I myself have turned off my news notifications due to the fact that my phone with them would never stop beeping. Headlines often hyperbolize the issues that occur across the world and the constant flow of information technology has provided only increases the number of stories we hear. I find the quality of the information we are given to be more important than the time in which it takes for us to learn of the story. Moments after a big news story hits, frightened individuals from around the world are quick to provide their opinion on the event although they may not have all the information. It takes time to fully develop a story and so the instant news that is provided today is not always the most accurate.

    In the modern world we live in many people do prefer to use their technological devices in all aspects of their lives. Technology allows for the immediate sharing of ideas and connects us to individuals around the world. In that way devices can be helpful yet this is not always the case. Technology can be used in a negative fashion fairly simply and tends to divert our attention from the place we are as we strive to record what is happening in our lives in order for us to make a memory. With telephones and such allow us to be places we are not and to have opinions regarding events and ideas we would not have known about otherwise. We as humans always enjoy being entertained, yet news is not something that should be written just for the story, yet should be the truth and retelling of actual events and facts.

    Internet and other medias in the news does allow for quick publishing yet it does not always ensure the truth. Print news has the ability to fully develop any given story in a respected way by checking the facts and get professional opinions regarding the subject and its effects. Breaking news is just that, breaking, and so we must take a step back and allow a story to develop before we try to record it.

  20. John Martino April 5, 2018 at 7:18 pm #

    In this article, author Frhad Manjoo demonstrates the importance of news outlets in our society. After hearing about the atrocious shooting of a high school in Parkland, Florida via emergency news message on his smart watch, Manjoo noted that he could not recall the shooting being talked about for most of the next 24 hours. This had positive and negative repercussions for him. While he was not up to date on all of the facts and new developments, he also was not the victim of any “fake news.” Manjoo decided to conduct his own little experiment; he would withdrawal from getting news from television networks, radio, and social media. For two months he decided to get his news only directly from the newspapers; paper print. He concluded that after this two-month trial period, that he did seem like he was more informed.

    I’m not sure if I would be able to last for two months without checking social media. My generation, centennials, as well as millennials have a social normality that involves us as individuals being dependent and attached to our phones and other technology. We have developed our culture in this day and age to be on the look out for fake news and to not believe everything that we read on the internet. Especially with the debacle that went down during the Presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. Almost daily a user could log on and see four to five videos bashing Trump or Clinton. The videos would be one sided and edited in a way that featured the opposing candidate in a negative light. Videos of speeches would be cut short so that what the candidate was saying was misinterpreted, or even using audio clips from other questions to show the candidate in a negative light about a topic that had nothing to do with what they were originally talking about.

    The author’s point that “Technology allows us to burrow into echo chambers, exacerbating misinformation and polarization and softening up society for propaganda” is greatly transitioned in this piece through his own personal hiatus of non-traditional news outlets. Through his efforts, it sheds a light on society today from a business standpoint. Businesses will go to extreme lengths to make headlines sell. As a society, it is our duty to fact check these reports. If we continue to blindly accept any report as true like sheep, we will continue to remain divided and regression is inevitable. Hopefully, the technology detox will be a rising trend in popular culture and society as a whole like Manjoo has done for this New York Times article.

  21. Jesse Rodgers April 6, 2018 at 11:47 am #

    This article was very interesting. This article is about switching from digital news outlets to the simple newspaper. To me this article provides a lot of information on what we sort of get caught up in when we all resort to these digitalized news outlets. In the article Manjoo talked about how he switched for a couple months to the newspaper form these regular news outlets that we typically see on a daily basis. He said that he was not reading the false claims that all these major news outlets present especially between the likes of CNN and Fox News. He said that he has been much better informed on the news without the malicious misdirection that we typically see in today’s digital world. I think that this is a great way to be better informed and I also think that it would male people much less addicted to the news.
    To me switching from digital news to the newspaper would be the best thing that society could do for themselves. I think that it would take away so much of this “Fake News” that we really saw come alive from this past election. Granted it has pretty much always been around but we did not really pay too much attention to it until these powerful and well known people started calling these news outlets out for it. I think people would be much more informed and there would be much less bias towards either side. This would also take so much away from these people videos that we will see form one side just bashing the other side with video clips cut short to portray something that is not true. To me this would be the best thing that we could do as a society that would take away so much of this malicious misinterpretations of people and we would be able to read real and true news.

  22. Daniel Colasanto April 6, 2018 at 1:30 pm #

    This was a very interesting article to read. Even though this is a topic that has been recycled and regurgitated over the last decade I agree with the author’s viewpoint on the matter. It is true that most people look to their phones for news and information about current events and such. However a lot of that information is just flat out not true and many people know this but still click on an article or video on social media if it has a catchy title to it. Within the initial impulse of you clicking on the video and exiting out the tab whoever wrote the article has made an unconscious impression on your thoughts and without being aware of it, when someone asks you about a popular event they saw in the news, you may be likely to share what you read in that article even if you tell that person in conversation that it was an article you came across on Facebook.
    In my opinion, sharing false news is terrible and propaganda is used mostly for power and control. What is even worse though is that the majority of the world does have college education which means they are not educated enough to know what news is real and what news is fake. And what I mean by a college education is the fact that higher education is intended to develop critical thinking skills for their students. Allowing them to decipher information in the real world in order to be add value to a business, government, or any institution. With phones having so many features built in to allow an app to buzz someone whenever they want at any time of the day, any person who has a particular news app on their phone could be bombarded with news everyday without being able to read each article in depth like they should. Like the author of the article said, newspapers give the reader depth over speed. Social media is killing the news profession and is allowing anyone with the ability to reach many people the platform to spread true or false news. Given this understanding of the way the world works today, it is in my personal opinion to stay away news on social media and responsibly research information published in reliable newspapers or websites.
    It is very sad that people who don’t know any better are being manipulated by propagandists and yellow journalism. This is a problem that I feel can only be solved with education and self control. Because I know for a fact that when I get a notification on my phone, no matter what I’m doing, I want to look to see what I received. But in this day and age I need to be knowledgeable of the scams and fake news articles anywhere on social media or online. And so I will.

  23. Alexa M April 6, 2018 at 6:09 pm #

    I picked this article because I usually get all my news information from watching TV, browsing the internet or social media and I wanted to know if maybe reading a newspaper for the to get information would be different. Farhad Manjoo, the author of this article, says he went 60 days without getting the news from any place but newspapers delivered at his doorstep. He claimed after the Parkland, Florida shooting, his phone sent him breaking news, even after he turned news notifications off. In the next 24 hours to come, he waited for his newspaper to come so he could learn about what went on and why. He read the newspaper and learned what happened and that he missed a lot of inaccurate information being portrayed on the news and on social media. There were many false claims of the shooter being a member of ISIS, a leftist, an anarchist, and even a part of Syrian resistance groups as well as Bernie Sanders reporting that this was the 18th school shooting of the year, which was also false. When he got his paper, he noticed how much better informed he was rather than if he was looking at this news on social media or TV the day before. He missed the mistakes and the false information to get the real story the next morning. He wanted to be informed more in depth and accuracy rather than speed. I tied this to how quickly news spreads right after something major occurs and how inaccurate these news stories are because they are based on speed of reporting it and not the accuracy of reporting it. I never realized how many times in my life I have been missing out on the real stories of what actually happened when breaking news comes to surface on our TVs or phones.

    I also liked how Manjoo decided to get off social media for this experiment and tell how it impacted his life. He said that he had so much free time to take up his hobbies and spend more time with his family that it was extremely beneficial to his role as a husband and a father. He left a few pointers for the readers of his article on the lessons he has learned from, what he realized are the disadvantages of digital news and how to avoid them. He learned that news in print is much more narrow and gives a mix of ideas you can’t find online. He also gives advice that when you see digital news you aren’t just seeing the news, you’re seeing more commentary than real news and it distorts our comprehension of what is actually going on in the world. The news stories we are seeing digitally are stories that have been “predigested” and people are posting their own take on the information. He figured out that digital news is quicker news and is not as accurate as printed news. I like this point he makes because we fail to realize that technology is fast and real life is slow. It takes time to figure out what really happened. I also agree with him on the point he makes about how when you watch digital news you have to put the pieces together to figure out what we don’t know yet, after waiting, professionals have figured it out for you plain and simple for you to read. He states that he learned that during the election of president trump, only 3% of Americans reported using print for their primary source of campaign news. To me this is crazy because of all the fake news that was circling around and this means that 97% of people could have been basing their votes on fake news or inaccurate news.

    I found this experiment Manjoo conducted very helpful for how I get my news. I have subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times but being a millennial, I gain most of my knowledge on current events from social media. After reading this article, I learned many things about the differences between news on TV, social media and in newspapers. I have learned that not every news story has all the details and that even if they claim they do in such a short period of time, they probably do not have the real story. I also learned that even though newspapers can be expensive, if you really want to know the accuracy of what’s going on the newspaper looks like your best option. Current events are quite important in this world and this article taught me how to get a better understanding of them.

  24. Rain Cornelius April 6, 2018 at 7:11 pm #

    There is a very big difference between the news we see in newspapers and the information we get from the internet.The quantity of the news we can receive had increased, but the quality of the news is declining as news platforms feel obligated to release something as we can get our news at all times due to, phone applications, the internet, television, social media, etc.

    Because we can get information on the internet so quickly, sometimes stories are made out of insignificant events, exaggerating the details and adding unwarranted speculations without thorough research. Also,since the internet is so vast, online outlets create crazy, eye catching headlines with often embellished details in order to get their articles to stand out from competition.Conversely, since daily newspapers are not put into the public as quickly, the content is of more quality and the articles usually do not try to make something out of nothing. News papers mostly prioritize accuracy over speed. The downside of television or internet sources is the spread of misinformation as part of the 24-hour news cycle.

    Additionally, online information can be a large amount of commentary, not news. We see this on sites like Facebook and Twitter, a place where for many it is the only pale they get their news: quickly skimming through all the headlines looking for the most eye catching ones. On these online sources like Twitter, there are many predigested stories, where the writer provides their own views, blurring the difference between the facts and opinions. Overall, it is important to look the facts from reputable sources and form our own thoughts about breaking news. These days, it is very easy for the facts to get distorted and false details to be spread because of the 24-hour news cycle and the speed information travels at.

  25. Timothy Guerrero April 19, 2018 at 8:51 am #

    The beauty of print newspapers and means of accessing news is stated right within this article – the print nature allows for more precision, fewer mistakes and malicious intent, and a method of being better informed in less time than consuming hours of news. To appreciate this beauty, I’d recommend watching the first ten minutes or so of CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. By all means, Wolf Blitzer is fantastic at what he does, as he drills into dangerous substance without infusing much bias or emotion into his journalism, however, CNN uses this to sell his show as if the audience were actually receiving a Presidential daily briefing in the Situation Room of the White House. Between intensive graphics, music more dramatic than the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl – and oh, the fact that every hour of his show starts with the graphic “This is CNN Breaking News,” even when often there isn’t any, The Situation Room showcases what the mainstream media is all about. It’s not news, it’s spectacle. It utilizes the implicit bias of television which is to entertain, and does just that to generate its wealth. There’s even a Vox video on how this comes to a crescendo during a terror attack or mass shooting, as studies show we watch the news for hours upon hours and even new graphics are created to sell this as a sports event of some sort rather than a shocking, tragic event. Also when taken to the web, headlines are generated too quickly, and a circus of misinformation can spread like cancer when inaccurate reporting is done. This is why I am going to take a try at what Manjoo has done and tried a newspaper as opposed to my CNN alerts and similar means of consuming news. No, it isn’t perfect, and perhaps there’s a bias in print news as well. However, a print newspaper is fundamentally different to the preference of television, which makes this challenge worth a shot.

  26. Jessica Williams April 27, 2018 at 6:23 pm #

    I found the article to be very insightful on the issue of misinformation in online news outlets. After reading the differences that the author detailed from physical newspapers to online articles, I can see the differences between the two a lot more clearly, besides the obvious physical differences.

    The author makes a point about how, after transferring from paper articles to online, many news sources feel more pressure to release news at a much faster rate, which leads to greater amounts of misinformation. In addition, many news articles feature posts made by others that usually express a personal opinion on the subject, which newspapers rarely do. And we don’t usually check our news from a physical paper anymore, which means that we have become accustomed to this way of receiving our news.

    Having read many news articles, from those relating to politics to updates from my favorite video games, I’ve noticed that this has become a trend for online articles. In addition to some of the facts presented in an article, there are also a lot of opinions, most of which originate from posts on Twitter. And many articles get updated with the facts frequently, instead of having the facts from the moment the article is posted.

    For example, I received an alert on my phone regarding the trial for Bill Cosby’s sexual assault case. I did not click on the article when it first popped up, since I was busy at the moment. However, when I got back on my phone roughly one half hour later, the same article popped up with a different heading that said: “EDIT,” then proceeded to update with the correct information. Having done research on current events for multiple school-related assignments, I’ve also noticed that the bolded “edit” sign posted at the top of online articles seemed to be littered all over the internet.

    This is a very concerning issue, and perhaps one of the more efficient ways of handling it would be to resort to newspapers, as the author did. While it would be a better way of receiving news due to the lack of an “edit” option, it’s unlikely that many would revert back to reading the newspaper. Online articles are simply more efficient, as they are essentially instantaneous. In a technologically driven age with the threat of “fake news” or propaganda looming over our heads, it’s important that individuals stay vigilant and always check facts before believing everything an article says, and basing opinions off of the opinions of others instead of fact.

  27. Kelly L. May 19, 2018 at 8:10 pm #

    For much of my life I have been surrounded by the idea of reading printed newspapers as opposed to reading the text online. My father has worked in the newspaper industry his whole life and could tell the tale of how rapidly the media world has turned digital. Everyday he would bring home the paper from that day and point out important articles of events that occurred. As I got older I switched to the idea of reading the latest articles straight from my phone as a convenience strategy.
    One thing I learned from doing so, as mentioned throughout this article, is how hard it is to actually get the facts. As a new story unfolds, everyone is so eager to be the first one to tell the story that they avoid the presence of the actual truth. The stations being offered via television or radio have decided which stance they take on the spectrums of politics and formulate their stories around those biases. It becomes extremely difficult to hear the true story and even reach the root of the problem at hand. It has become instinct to take those biases and create a cause of the event, however that does not help to prevent problems from occurring again. This becomes a topic that not many want to consider because we have learned the names of the stations and spend much time following their recent activity. We create our own bias towards who we trust to even give us the information. Which again loops back to having the convenience of the technology to feed us these stories. At the end of the day, not having another reason to be glued to your device also creates less stress or anxiety. Having these stories and updates constantly buzzing makes us anxious to do the things we love to do or live our lives because we may be victims next.

  28. Gary Dinmore June 8, 2018 at 5:06 pm #

    The decision to have three different newspapers is one of my favorite pieces of this article because not only was the reader able to discern differences among the story and piece together a unique idea of the matters detailed in the news, but he was also able to find stories that ranged from within his own small community to the entire world news. The age of information has become very skewed ever since the introduction of the internet, every news station or blogger is attempting to bring the best most exciting stories that are sure to get attention even if that sometimes means lying or twisting stories.

    At one point in the article, the writer begins exclaiming of a recent story he had heard of in the news and how he was sure he was gathering more accurate and valuable information from the non-tech news sources, mostly newspapers.
    “…I had avoided the innocent mistakes — and the more malicious misdirection”

    It’s important to understand that not all reports of news that are incorrect are malicious, there are plenty of mistakes out there that occur due to word of mouth and telephone that degrades the story until it is something different entirely. So even when we trust the source they can still make the mistake of interviewing the wrong people or having an untrustworthy source of their own. In the end, the news is whatever story you decide to believe until the truth is finally revealed for certain.

  29. ConradK June 13, 2018 at 12:45 pm #

    I disagree with the writer here that social media as a news source should be our only news source. Social media provides a forum where we get the perspectives of other experts not just the ones who were selected by certain newspapers to be the spokesperson. While I may engage in Facebook and Twitter, I can say that really important and necessary commentary is offered primarily on Twitter. There are experts there such as academia, journalists and regular people who are not just “giving comments”. The feedback given there allows you to have “dialog” regarding these articles you could not get otherwise.

    This seems to be an effort to merely steer people away from news sources that are not in print. Rather than do that, why won’t the NY Times champion the solution to this concern by managing its own digital news alerts? Since their only solution seems to be actual printed paper I can’t help but think that this is more about control and having a monopoly rather than being about the quality of our news.

    I would also say that with the advancement of technology we should understand that there may be good and bad contributions. We as consumers are rightfully given the choice of weeding out the good from the bad as I think the benefits of social media for news far outweighs the negatives. There is something positive to be said about getting the news in a format that is quicker than what a newspaper can provide. In the age that we live in so much happens that people should be able to know about events sooner than waiting until the next morning to find out. While I do see the need for printed news I too see the significance of social media as a news source. The information gathered by all sources is valuable in the collective and one should not be deemed better over the other. Consumer choice is important and I believe these other means of information play a vital role in how we get that information.

Leave a Reply