You are what you eat?

Original source, with the authors explanation of how the metrics are determined.



I came across this lovely diagram today, which attempts to place media organisations on a spectrum of both political leaning and "quality" on a vertical scale. The website in question has a fairly detailed explanation of how the various sources are placed where they are, and how the various metrics are determined. At a crude level, the take away is that sources below the yellow/orange line should be avoided if you want a "fair" perspective on the news. Sources below that line have proven themselves to be factually inaccurate, to portray facts selectively in a biased way, or to essentially mislead.

Without wanting to get into any detailed conversation about left/right on the graph, I have this question to pose:

As a community, and as individuals, that look to develop "better than organic" means of food production, and general living, should we apply those same standards to the forms of media we choose to consume? If our food diet affects our health and quality of life, is it not reasonable to think that our information diet may do the same?

The most interesting thing about the news shows is; they are so full of themselves that they have not even realized it yet, but no one is watching them anymore.

I stopped watching the news about 5 years ago, and I am hardly alone.

Travis Johnson wrote:The most interesting thing about the news shows is; they are so full of themselves that they have not even realized it yet, but no one is watching them anymore.

I stopped watching the news about 5 years ago, and I am hardly alone.

I think the "news shows" that you are referring to (which don't really exist in the UK) are better considered entertainment than news.

Michael Cox wrote:

Travis Johnson wrote:The most interesting thing about the news shows is; they are so full of themselves that they have not even realized it yet, but no one is watching them anymore.

I stopped watching the news about 5 years ago, and I am hardly alone.

I think the "news shows" that you are referring to (which don't really exist in the UK) are better considered entertainment than news.

I do not know.

I know I used to travel globally a lot, and people from other countries would want to get into a lot of discussion on American Politics. I always thought this was interesting because as I would tell them, "You are far more interested in American Politics then American's are".

"You are what you eat?"

I'm in line with what Michael Pollen says in reference to his book The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

“Eating is an agricultural act,' as Wendell Berry famously said. It is also an ecological act, and a political act, too. Though much has been done to obscure this simple fact, how and what we eat determines to a great extent the use we make of the world - and what is to become of it. To eat with a fuller consciousness of all that is at stake might sound like a burden, but in practice few things in life can afford quite as much satisfaction. By comparison, the pleasures of eating industrially, which is to say eating in ignorance, are fleeting. Many people today seem perfectly content eating at the end of an industrial food chain, without a thought in the world; this book is probably not for them.”  

It's difficult though.
I think whether we can accomplish this or not it is important to be mindful about just what that is we are eating and it's source and impact.

Judith - I think my original post wasn't sufficiently clear. I was intending "you are what you eat?" to me a metaphor, in the context of news media consumption, not a literal comment on diet! I've adjusted and bolded my final question/statement which may make it clearer.

Michael Cox wrote:Judith - I think my original post wasn't sufficiently clear. I was intending "you are what you eat?" to me a metaphor, in the context of news media consumption, not a literal comment on diet! I've adjusted and bolded my final question/statement which may make it clearer.

Then I took it correctly the first time but changed my mind in the middle of my thought...I began a reply and when I began listing my favorite news sources from the chart I was far to the left but not off into conspiracy...then I saw the title and rewrote thinking I had misinterpreted.

News sources, food sources...I think it's all one song when it comes to living our beliefs....I think all of those choices affect our health and well being and have a ripple effect outward....

I believe that exposure to television news media has an affect on people and their minds, very similar to the relation of eating poorly & being sick vs eating well and being healthy. As an example, I'd like to share a little about my dad. My father retired in 1997 and died in 2011 and spent most of his retirement sitting in a chair in front of the tv listening to the spoon fed palaver of fox news. I think there must have been some degree of psychological addiction and I never did understand why one man would concern himself to such an extent with television politics. Sometimes I would happen by the house during the lunch hour, and my father would have the tv muted, reading the ticker across the bottom of the screen while listening to the trifling billingsgate of Rush Limbaugh. I once asked him why he watched so much “news” and he replied “it’s important to be informed”. I never brought it up again knowing that questioning my dads intransigent beliefs would be pointless and only upset both of us. My dad appeared (and I believe was) miserable and depressed, and spent his remaining years filling his mind during his waking hours with the unpleasant prattle and fearful propaganda of the media. Now looking back, it was more sad than anything, letting the gift of being alive each day and the beauty of nature pass him by. I try to learn from others, and years ago quit watching the news, reading the news and listening to the news. I now don’t even own a tv, and perhaps not coincidentally I am the happiest and have the most positive outlook on life than I’ve ever had in my past. I choose to spend some of my spare time around kind, positive people and reading positive information in enjoyable books, helping to reinforce positive thinking. I think I have one chance at this life, and my life is what I make of it.

I think too much media of any sort is bad for human health.

For many people, trust in what the media is telling them has replaced trust in anything else. They seem to think what they see on television or read in a newspaper is the truth, and won't hear anything that contradicts it, I think this is very dangerous.

As far as I know, all newspapers are relying on advertising revenue. Writers even get told to change their article length based on the ad sizes that will appear on the page. I don't think the media would want to cover anything that would rock the boat with the corporations that are funding them, so we're unlikely to hear much about the environmental issues around excess consumption, the destructiveness of the current "normal" way of things and that there are big ways to change this that we can do, but people still think they are hearing "the truth" and "the news" from these sources.

My aunt used to leave her TV on whatever Channel carried the 700 Club then she would listen to Pat Robertson's version of the news. I told her, she might as well listen to the music news on MTV. Both organizations would decide what is newsworthy and then feed it to those interested.

I am definitely not against this sort of entertainment. If my aunt had any sort of real political power, there would be blood in the streets. Instead, she watches her news shows and mutters to herself. Pretty harmless.