Ads


Why the News Makes Us Dumb

The period between Christmas and New Year’s Day is often described as a “slow-news week.” We use that phrase without considering that world-historical events seem to take a vacation during the period when journalists are on holiday. Could it be that most of what is considered news is a product created for consumption when we are most likely to be paying attention?

Most of us realize that the events of last week’s news cycle—just like the previous fifty- one other news cycles this year—will probably not have a significant impact on our lives. Indeed, if we were pressed to be truthful, most of us would have to admit that what is sold as news—on newspaper pages, the Internet, or cable news programs—is rarely newsworthy at all. For those news-junkies who disagree, I suggest asking this two-part question about any news article: What makes this story important and what distinguishes it from mere gossip or trivia?

One aspect of any answer would have to include an explanation of how the story fits into a broader narrative or has an air of permanence. But how often does this apply to our weekly, much less daily, news? How much of what happens every day is truly that important? How many have ever stopped to question the fact we even have daily news, much less the impact it is having on our culture?

C. John Sommerville is one brave soul who has dared to ask such questions. In the October 1991 issue of First Things, Sommerville explained “Why the News Makes Us Dumb”:


What happens when you sell information on a daily basis? You have to make each day’s report seem important, and you do this primarily by reducing the importance of its context. What you are selling is change, and if readers were aware of the bigger story, that would tend to diminish today’s contribution. The industry has to convince its consumers of the significance of today’s News, and it has to make them want to come back tomorrow for more News—more change. The implication will then be that today’s report can now be forgotten. So News involves a radical devaluation of the past, and short-circuits any kind of debate.

In the book based on the article, Sommerville points out:


The product of the news business is change, not wisdom. Wisdom has to do with seeing things in their largest context, whereas news is structured in a way that destroys the larger context. You have to do certain things to information if you want to sell it on a daily basis. You have to make each day’s report seem important. And you do that by reducing the importance of its context.

This focus on change has a deleterious effect on all forms of conservatism—whether cultural, political, or religious. Once we believed an essential part of our mission as conservatives was, as William F. Buckley claimed, to “stand athwart history yelling ‘Stop.’” Change was something to be undertaken slowly and with reflection. After all, the important institutions—family, religion, government—shouldn’t change on a whim. But the focus on dailiness has led conservatives to adopt attitudes that were once the province of hyper-progressivism. We don’t just ask what government has done for us lately, we ask what it has done for us today. We don’t just ask for change when it is needed, we ask for it to change—for the better presumably—on a daily basis. We are addicted to the process of change.

The most disconcerting consequence of this addiction is the belief that it is normal, and that those who aren’t tuned into a daily news feed are ill-informed. Take, for example, an article Steve Outing wrote a few years ago for the Poynter Institute in which he describes an “experiment in mainstream-media deprivation.”

Outing documents how Steve Rubel, a blogger and public relations executive, conducted a news experiment in which he gave up his regular media habits and learned what was going on in the world solely by checking blogs. Rubel claims that he “definitely lacked the depth of knowledge of current events” gained in a normal week. “I felt a little naked,” he says, “having received the basics of the week’s news from blogs, but not getting the real meat.”

What was this “real meat” Rubel missed out on? Outing gave him a quiz,


While knowing why President Bush hired a criminal lawyer last week, and the official reasons cited for George Tenet’s resignation from the CIA, Rubel missed actor Daniel Radcliffe’s statement that he thinks his Harry Potter character will die at the end of the J.K. Rowling book series. He didn’t catch ex-Beatle Paul McCartney’s admission that he tried heroin and was a cocaine user. And he missed more obscure stories, such as one of Seattle’s famed monorail trains catching fire.

Six years after that article was published, how much of that information would now be considered newsworthy? Who truly believes that Rubel was ill-informed for not being aware of such trivia?

But it isn’t just gossip-type “news” that is unimportant. Most of what occurs on a daily basis is inconsequential. At the end of his article Sommerville concluded:


Still dubious about all this? Consider the proposition: If it is no longer worth your while to go back and read the News of, oh, September 22, 1976, then it was never worthwhile doing so. And why should today be any different?

As a Christian, I’m expected to take an eternal perspective, viewing events not only in their historical but also in their eschatological context. But I can’t do that while focusing on the churning events of the last twenty-four hours. Events that are truly important are rarely those captured on the front page of a daily paper. As Malcolm Muggeridge, himself a journalist, admitted, “I’ve often thought that if I’d been a journalist in the Holy Land at the time of our Lord’s ministry, I should have spent my time looking into what was happening in Herod’s court. I’d be wanting to sign Salome for her exclusive memoirs, and finding out what Pilate was up to, and—I would have missed completely the most important event there ever was.”

Joe Carter is web editor of First ThingsHis previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.

RESOURCES

C. John Sommerville, Why the News Makes Us Dumb.

Steve Outing, The Blog-Only News Diet .

Comments:

12.29.2010 | 5:11am
Reading this blog post has ironically made me wiser about how and why keeping up with the news is making me dumb!
12.29.2010 | 5:15am
Martin Snigg says:
We needed another reason to avoid the lame stream news?

They're virtually 100% pro-abortion (seriously if one gets that wrong why listen to anything they have to say?) and particularly unconscious of their own ideological commitments; they behave as dogmatic churches of liberalism but are mostly unaware when they're preaching. How dumb can you get? I think they're among the most damaging group of people in society. Other groups surely just aren't in the same position to wreak as much havoc.

I haven't watched TV for pretty much the whole decade, but that shouldn't be happening, a vital unifying responsibility has been derogated by the media. They've opted instead for divisive cultural warfare, by mechanisms Prof. Codevilla beautifully illustrated recently and again James Kalb in 'Tyranny of Liberalism' explains elegantly.

PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE PRESS
2007 SURVEY OF JOURNALISTS
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf

page 55 shows how philosophical liberalism almost completely dominates the media. Virtually no religious commitment (Indians ruled by Swedes). But this in THE very institution that has its raison detre a kind of fourth estate review? This in THE very institution that the first Amendment declares essential to the proper functioning of the civil order? how free is this 'free press' in its most important sense, dominated as they are?

Thank God for First Things. Godbless you Fr RJN.

P.s. Page 42 gives their thoughts about the 24-hour news cycle.
12.29.2010 | 5:22am
@Joe Carter: Yes, the news can make us dumb. I feel dumber after watching the half-hour network news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC. I also feel dumber after watching the prime time line-up on FOX with O'Reilly and Hannity. So, I seldom watch television news. Only PBS's News Hour makes me smarter because of its in-depth analysis. The journalists on the News Hour care enough to be what Nietzsche calls "friends of lento [slow]" in an age of hurry and perspiration. They report on the day's news as if opening a gift rather than authoring and controlling time.

On occasion, I've felt the guilt associated with being unplugged from the "daily news feed." And yet, I know I'm not "ill-informed" for two reasons. The first is that the NY Times' "Week in Review" reinforces that it's best to wait the duration of a week to reflect on the daily headlines. The second is that all human beings, and not just Christians, are what Kierkegaard called a synthesis between the temporal and eternal. So, if my other-worldliness makes me ill-informed, to the hell with this-worldliness.
12.29.2010 | 6:37am
Orlando says:
There are no really news in America, because you people make them up.
12.29.2010 | 8:51am
Jim says:
And that is why weather and sports, two aspects of the news which (1) are guaranteed to change; and (2) are easily put into an appropriate context by viewers, are always the last two segments of your local news.
12.29.2010 | 9:17am
K.D.Kennedy says:
I once heard that in the 1930s, a BBC radio nightly news report (I think at that time there was only one each day) opened and closed with the report that there was no news that day.
12.29.2010 | 10:22am
I actually do not watch the TV news or even read it regularly on news website. I mostly focus on blogs and websites about theology and culture (not pop culture though), and if there is really any important news, then I trust that there will be multiple references to it on Facebook or Twitter. If something shows up in my feed for the umpteenth time then, it might be worth clicking through to find out about. Outside of that, I think I stick my nose back into theology.
12.29.2010 | 10:32am
Mark says:
PBS? The folks at PBS are amongst the worst offenders.

The modulated voices and the slow stroking of the chins, accompanied by the intelligent pauses, are all meant to whisper to those who stand above the rabble, "Now, this is important... and you, the viewer, and we, the fonts of all wisdom, are so much better than all the rest."
12.29.2010 | 10:48am
Buzz says:
What's really fun is reading the nine-month-old issues of Time and Newsweek in the doctor's office and seeing (a) how wrong they were in their predictions and (b) what was considered important then that is utterly forgettable now.

Christopher Benson, "News Hour" is merely a more pretentious version of what ABC, NBC, and CBS are already doing--passing on conventional wisdom and bias, albeit with much chin-stroking to add gravitas.

I highly recommend Bret Baier's "Special Report" on Fox News. It is in-depth, balanced, and the commentary at the end is far from the usual conventional-wisdom bantering and spin-doctoring you get on most news-and-analysis shows.
12.29.2010 | 11:17am
Carl Eppig says:
We gave up TV for Advent, tho I did check headlines on Google New every other day or so. The net result was that we missed nothing. Even the stock market was easy to catch up on this past Monday. Oh, we do check New Advent everyday so we can keep up with God.
12.29.2010 | 11:20am
Daniel Boorstin argued a variation of this case in 1982 (in Reader'd Digest, of all places). See his article, "Homo-up-to-Datum Is a Dunce."
12.29.2010 | 11:47am
Howard says:
So, to avoid gossip, turn to blogs? Really?

And, I suppose, just because knowing what the interstate between Knoxville and Lexington looks like is of no importance to me now, it must not have been important for me to keep my eyes open while driving that stretch. Likewise, since I have no interest now in how much money I had in the bank in 1994, it must have been a waste of time for me to check my balance then. Since no one will remember this blog in a decade, why are you writing it now?
12.29.2010 | 12:20pm
andrew says:
"Still dubious about all this? Consider the proposition: If it is no longer worth your while to go back and read the News of, oh, September 22, 1976, then it was never worthwhile doing so. And why should today be any different?"

while i agree that we ought to pursue wisdom and the examined life, sommerville's challenge quoted above does not convince me.

for example, my wife often asks me what difference it makes that i watch the arsenal football matches on tv, or follow formula 1 closely, or even watch NCAA women's volleyball.... granted, i can't quite recall what happened the last time arsenal played liverpool or who won the 2010 grand prix of bahrain, but who cares? my aim in studying such activities is to pursue excellence and to learn from virtuoso individuals, whether they be athletes or mechanical engineers.

granted, it is possible i might be simply making excuses, but i sincerely believe watching arsenal and formula 1 to be educational experiences leading to wisdom. contemplating excellence is part of living an examined life.

the upshot is that anything can be turned into "mere entertainment." but it is also true that anything can be turned into an object deserving of considered study and contemplation, ideally leading to wisdom and understanding.

accordingly, screwtape advises wormwood to make sure his "patient" does not develop any hobbies, for anything that makes his "patient" think about something other than himself is a victory for the "Enemy." i happen to think c. s. lewis is right.
12.29.2010 | 1:07pm
Tabs says:
"News" isn't newsworthy. The most important things are the things that keep us in the moment, not the things that distract us, and MSM is mostly distraction. I like some programs that let me know what the weather is going to be like and tell me what's going on in the world, but I steer clear of MSM for the most part and wing it. I think more and more people are doing that, too.
12.29.2010 | 1:48pm
TimH says:
Much of the news we read is not news, per se, but press releases faxed or emailed from public relations firms to news agencies wich reformat and then regurgiate them.
12.29.2010 | 2:09pm
CS Lewis did not read the papers, noting that they were frequently inaccurate and slanted in retrospect. If some large happened, he found there were always plenty of others who wished to tell him about it.

I like being current with certain threads of news, but not all threads. We haven't had a TV since 1979, and don't take a newspaper or news magazine. The internet has certainly inveigled me into more intense following of some news, but I still find most supposedly popular topics uninteresting.

As to blogs, I think it is a mistake to think of people reading them as skimming over some clearinghouse or blog aggregate site and reading whatever is hot at the moment, Howard. Blogs certainly produce much of the most foolish, banal, inaccurate, or infuriating material, but they also provide the best information and commentary - it depends which blogs one is referring to. People who "read blogs" do not read them at random. Your comment about checking account balances is well-taken. Some things are not worth storing in long-term memory but are nonetheless important in the moment. Whether one will remember them decades later is not a good measure of importance. Sentimentalists like to trade on that measurement to encourage us to attend to More Important Things. That's a good aim, but a bad technique.
12.29.2010 | 2:17pm
Mars Laurus says:
Ha! The question can be reduced to one:

"What do you remember of the news from last week?" (or rephrase: "What was the great news item of last week?")

I have asked this question of others. Usually they return a blank stare to me, or simply answer, "Well, uh, ... I don't know!"

And if by chance they take a stab and give me an answer, however insubstantial it might be, I ask a follow-up:

"So, based upon this 'news-worthy news item' :) - what changes have you made in your life as a result of this new information? Doing anything different?"

And, of course, the answer(s): None and No.

Neil Postman wrote well about this in "Amusing Ourselves To Death" (1985) and "How To Watch TV News" (1992). A bit dated technologically, but the thesis of each book still stands.

IF I watch the news, well, it's only for entertainment. Really, no joke, just for entertainment. I love to see how stupid the news becomes, so periodically I'll turn the telly on just to watch ... Stupid! It's a tough task though, and I can only handle it in increments of just a few minutes.

Last year I finally bought a very nice (and large) digital flat screen. Hardly watch it. Only bought so that when my dad comes over he can watch football. Prior to that, for almost two years I was without a television. I gave away the old one. Was interested to see what life was like without the Idiot Box. And the world kept turning ... amazing. Ha!

I don't even have cable (only digital broadcast). Refuse to buy the service. All those channels?! And with what time?! Cable television has got to be absolutely one of the poorest returns on entertainment investment that I know of. I'd rather rent the occasional DVD. Or better yet, read a book.

Want to really learn about life, about history? Then read, not just any book, but biographies. Folks, history is about people, not things or events. History is about how man, and the individual man, makes pilgrimage in this life.

Each lifespan is a drop in the bucket! Here today, gone tomorrow! And then we stand before the Creator.

GOD: "My son, what did you do with thy life?"

SOUL: "Well, Lord, I really learned some cool things about Lindsey Lohan, and what a mess she made of her life. Really great stuff. BTW, Lord, do you have cable up here?"

Folks, same thing about the Internet - Facebook, Twitter, texting, blogging ... just wait, there's another new-thing-gotta-have-it right around the corner, waiting to steal what little is left in your mind.

So ... heard the latest news?

Ha, ha, ha ... there coming to take you awaaaaaaay!!!
12.29.2010 | 4:09pm
Mike says:
I have family members scattered throughout the States. We have a standing family joke. When it rains in Florida, and the news makes it sound like Florida is doomed, we call our Florida family and ask desperately if their is anything we can do to help. When it snows in the east we call our family there and when there is a fire in the Rockies the family calls here. Always the reports of doom from the news are grossly exaggerated.
12.29.2010 | 4:40pm
Ted Olsen says:
Why Food Makes Us Fat: McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's are all horrible for your bodies and almost completely devoid of nutrition. Occasionally I indulge in something more refined, like Subway or Chick-Fil-A, but I find it better not to eat at all.

Likewise, I find that so many politicians are corrupt that I've stopped voting.

And so many people have let me down that I've essentially ended all friendships and familial relationships.

Dropping these things has left me so much more time for the better things of life.
12.29.2010 | 5:31pm
J SHARPE says:
I have fasted "news" about three times this year; Lent, 40 Days for Life and Advent. Each time, I have come to my "news" habit grudgingly. Why?, I ask myself, do I return to the fount of unenlightened opinions and thoughtless dialogue. What do I really need to know about so that I can walk with the Lord in love and truth? Does the "news" give me the inner meaning and purpose of things? No, I don't think any of us believe that. So why do I return? I am now contemplating a longer fast. It is remarkable how my associates will keep me informed on any really noteworthy news and I can always watch the flag at the post office.
Have a good Christmas season.
12.29.2010 | 6:09pm
What? If I don't pay attention to the noise—er, news—I won't be able to focus on other people's mistakes/problems, rather then my own. I don't want to focus on my own sins! It's much easier to grouse about corruption, pollution and war than to correct my kids' writing assignments, repair our toilet or catch up on my paperwork. And at work, if we weren't switching operating systems or moving to a new office, we might—horror of horrors—actually have to talk to our customers.
12.30.2010 | 8:04am
Apparently, this is a problem for those unable to rapidly identify ephemera and irrelevancies, and to then disregard them. These include the vast majority of wire-service news, as well as all but a vanishingly small trace of television news. Of course, a somewhat-sophisticated historical understanding is essential in developing the ability to sort out what is which.

Writing as someone required to maintain continual awareness of important events as part of my job, I am willing to concede that most people lack both my motive and the historical knowledge that I have acquired out of necessity. Of course, those are the same folks who will express strong opinions about important events, and elect similarly informed representatives to make decisions about what I should be told to do. The recent Onion article "Manmohan Singh - The First Sikh Prime Minister Of... Okay, Here's What A Sikh Is" summarizes the predicament well.
12.30.2010 | 8:36am
teomatteo says:
I've always thought that the news (reading Time, Newsweek, etc.) made me smarter when i read it a year after it was printed. It just seemed that i could gain MORE wisdom from what the authors thought then and what has happened since to see the folly of placing too much in what they write. Getting a time perspective seemed to give me more.
12.30.2010 | 8:57am
Buzz says:
Ted Olsen

Well said! I once tried giving up breathing for Lent, what with all the smoggy air, but darned if I didn't pass out and start breathing again.

Stupid motor reflexes!
12.30.2010 | 1:38pm
Albert says:
A great bit of wisdom, sorely needed. Thanks, Joe.
12.30.2010 | 3:42pm
John2 says:
Joe, I am living it. I decided to live without cable for a month, and never went back. Total waste, even for me, a sports fan.

In the ensuing three years, I have read a library (bible and commentary, catechism, encyclicals, Church fathers, John Henry Newman, ChesterBelloc, Knox, Dorothy Sayers, Sheed, Keating,...). The riches are inexhaustible and the felt improvement in my thinking and acting is a "revelation".

Suddenly I am more effective both at home and on the job. I have the interest, patience, and the time to consider the various devotions and sacramentals in depth. I say the rosary daily after (too many) years without. Remember the scapular? It took a few hours of online research to bring it all back and start wearing it again.

You get the picture. You make a great point. My life is infinitely better for dropping TV.
3.7.2011 | 10:11am
Read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by the late Neal Postman.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140094385?ie=UTF8&tag=scribblings0d-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0140094385
5.31.2011 | 9:47am
I actually do not watch the TV news or even read it regularly on news website. I mostly focus on blogs and websites about theology and culture (not pop culture though), and if there is really any important news, then I trust that there will be multiple references to it on Facebook or Twitter. If something shows up in my feed for the umpteenth time then, it might be worth clicking through to find out about. Outside of that, I think I stick my nose back into theology. I highly recommend Bret Baier's "Special Report" on Fox News. It is in-depth, balanced, and the commentary at the end is far from the usual conventional-wisdom bantering and spin-doctoring you get on most news-and-analysis shows.
6.1.2011 | 7:02am
Bylor says:
My take on this is that the three worst parts of the news aren't really news at all. They include polls, statistics and opinions of "experts". I think the only thing that is news is the reporting of actual events, not the predictions of the public, statisticians or experts. I have witnessed many occasions in the past where these predictions have had a detrimental effect on our economy, our elections, our health and our everyday decisions.
9.1.2011 | 3:37am
@Joe Carter: Yes, the news can make us dumb. I feel dumber after watching the half-hour network news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC. I also feel dumber after watching the prime time line-up on FOX with O'Reilly and Hannity. So, I seldom watch television news. Only PBS's News Hour makes me smarter because of its in-depth analysis. The journalists on the News Hour care enough to be what Nietzsche calls "friends of lento [slow]" in an age of hurry and perspiration. They report on the day's news as if opening a gift rather than authoring and controlling time. I haven't watched TV for pretty much the whole decade, but that shouldn't be happening, a vital unifying responsibility has been derogated by the media. They've opted instead for divisive cultural warfare, by mechanisms Prof. Codevilla beautifully illustrated recently and again James Kalb in 'Tyranny of Liberalism' explains elegantly.
4.6.2012 | 12:54am
Geordie says:
Most of what i see on the news, especially here in America (i'm from the UK), is trival and meaningless drivel and celebrity garbage - only a very small percentage of what is reported is actually newsworthy. There are too many networks, newspapers and Internet sites trying to find enough content to attract the masses that they report on anything and everything, regardless of whether it falls into the category of actual real news, or not.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact