[quaist]

One cannot help but realize how privileged we all are in the Western world when following the news and international politics, I find.

And Sunny, I am pretty confident that social media's the 'culprit'. For it's by far not just our board that's experiencing lower traffic than a few years ago.

[GardenSirens]

yeah, social media takes away the need to search for news. it's all right there in one place

[sunnykerr]

^ That is so scary. The idea that people would trust social media as a source for news.

Anyway, the preponderance of social media sounds like a good explanation for why people don't seem interested in discussing the news here.

Glad it's not just me, then.

[GardenSirens]

I really think you need a crash course in social media. Every EVERY EVERY EVERY single news outlet in the WORLD is on twitter reporting their news there before their websites or tv shows (or publications). I think you think social media is where people talk about justin bieber or somethign. Don't be afraid to try it, Sunny. By social media, I mean Twitter and Google Plus (facebook is for middle aged people playing games). But yeah, I learn of everything on twitter before people who aren't on twitter. Probably why I'm so calloused as I get to hear about everyone getting murdered to start my day, lol.

[sunnykerr]

Thanks but no thanks.

I certainly hope social media is spent on other things beyond the Biebster. Because it would be tragic if he was in any way representative of what goes on there.

But I have seen CNN report that the Boston Marathon bombers were "reported" to be dark-skinned, under arrest, and so forth days before it was revealed that, check it out, they're literally Caucasian and they're still on the run.

I wouldn't trust news on social media.

Did you know that Walter Cronkite waited till he'd spoken to the priest who administered the last rites to JFK before announcing his death to the world? He waited till he's literally spoken to someone who could, beyond the shadow of a doubt, confirm the veracity of the news before broadcasting it.

That's my kind of journalism. And it is dying alread, between these half-cocked "be your own reporter" things they have where they ask the public to "Tweet us what you see" and "bring us your stories."

So, no. I have much respect for social media in terms of its power to connect people, but I would never go to it as a source for news.

[GardenSirens]

Well you literally couldn't name one reliable news source that isn't on twitter reporting the news there before it's on their site, lol. it's powerful and getting more powerful. All news sites said it was middle eastern brown guys who did the boston bombing. They said that about the oklahoma city bombing, too. People are just racist, lol. I knew Phillip Seymour Hoffman was dead about an hour before it was on any major sites. The only validation is that sometimes news is broken that isn't true like when Nelson Mandela fell really ill about a month before he actually died; people were saying he was dead. It goes both ways like the actual news. If every news site waited until they had a full 100% confirmation of events, we would never hear of anything. But it's not for everyone. I like being informed immediately and filling in the blanks later. 99% of news is subjective anyways.

If you ever get a twitter, I will be proud to be your first follower, just sayin'!

[sunnykerr]

I guess I don't mind not being the first to know.

I'd rather know as close to the truth as you can expect human beings to deliver.

So, yeah, I'd rather wait for my news and have it be vetted a little more carefully.

[GardenSirens]

I'm impatient, lol. If I don't learn something right when it happens, I won't care as much. I like seeing how things unfold. Like Sandy Hook. I followed that on Twitter for about half an hour before news statiosn broadcast it. Seeing the investigations and procedures, especially live on tv, interests me very much. It's kind of a sick form of entertainment as I like watching it but that's because I believe good will always prevail!

[sunnykerr]

I tend to care less when things I've been told were true turn out to not be.

Makes me question any and all things that source told me.

[GardenSirens]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I read all the news sites you read (or at least post on here). Associated Press, CNN, Huffington Post, BBC just to name four I have favorited off the top of my head. Are you discrediting them as legitimate?

[sunnykerr]

I am not.

I'm saying I studied the evolution of a story when I was in journalism school.

I wouldn't trust the first version of any "breaking news" coming through the wire, which seems to be what you're describing as the advantage of social media distribution of news.

The news business has become so interested in getting the scoop that they now routinely have to go back and correct earlier "facts" which they stated, evidently without bothering to double check.

That's what I have a problem with.

Mind you, I should say that I don't find CNN to be a reliable source of news.

Oh, they report on the news. But they've become way too focused on the sensational aspects of a story to be a true source of information. They are more interested in quoting eye witnesses than in finding experts and officials to explain or put events in context.

[GardenSirens]

I don't trust any news until it's "news' for a full day. Stories develop, sure...but even police now release information before it's conclusive. We're in such a state of urgency it's not cool. I f'n hate twitter.

[sunnykerr]

Police have to release information before it's conclusive.

That's how they find persons of interest, witnesses and suspects.

It's part of how they do their job.

Reporting on what they release as though it were a complete fact is where the news media fails to do its job.

As the fifth estate, the news media isn't there as some sort of information sieve. It ought to give context, interpretation and proper represenation of what the news is and what it means.

[GardenSirens]

Right on!

[sunnykerr]

Well, it's what I believe.