I don’t know much about FlipBoard or its CEO, but I can confidently say that I do not look at Apple News, at all. I go directly to the handful of sources — WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, AI, The Economist — I turn to every day and I have need for little else.
I think Apple may have been way late to the news game anyway. And, given that they really have no way or desire to monetize it — either through ads or a subscription — it’s just not clear to me what purpose it really serves in the Apple ecosystem. Seems like a bit of wasted effort.
On the other hand, I check out Apple News a dozen times a day and go directly to a couple other sources regularly. I tried FlipBoard a few years and and thought the eye-candy-to-utility was way too high. Apple News could be better, but I find it a useful addition to the core set of first-party iOS apps.
flip board became too annoying for me. happily using apple news, I just appreciated the layout. interestingly enough-- I am really digging the olympic medal count. apparently they think the Koreas might be reunited, there is a Korea listing, NK listing and a SK listing. (sorry the pics are huge, I do not know how to make them thumbnails.
[images]
It's not about the counties (politically) being united, but that NK and SK do have a join team event for the first time since their split, which is wonderful.
I don't know if it's wonderful or not, but I feel bad for the women on the South Korean team that must have lost their spots to make room for some PRK players.
I don’t know much about FlipBoard or its CEO, but I can confidently say that I do not look at Apple News, at all. I go directly to the handful of sources — WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, AI, The Economist — I turn to every day and I have need for little else.
I think Apple may have been way late to the news game anyway. And, given that they really have no way or desire to monetize it — either through ads or a subscription — it’s just not clear to me what purpose it really serves in the Apple ecosystem. Seems like a bit of wasted effort.
I am glad to see you are staying within your news bubble. And I did see your "i used it for a week and it was not good" comment, you do know that Apple evolves their products over time. Maybe next time you offer an opinion make sure you tell everyone it based on nothing more than distance observations. Just so you article have ads and some content provide blast you with ads to they are definitely making money on ads, Apple is not but that is not their business model.
Here is what I learn about Apple News over the last few years of using it, Apple must be using AI within it, I notice the news articles were being served up in a way that appears to be close to my reading habit. Just to give you an idea, when I was looking at more CNN article it served up even more of this content and similar content as well as when when the elections were happen I tended to read more political content now that is all I am getting. which bother me since it was only giving me one view. Then I started looking at Fox to get the counter view and it switch to more Fox content. But I just upgraded to iOS 11 and they redid news completely and I think Apple is now trying to avoid the news bubble issue that people like yourself fell into. Even though I have particular content preferences, Apple is serving up a variety of content providers which I kind of like since I am now reading stuff I most likely would not have gone out and searched for.
I notice you come here a lot: do you get AI (by which I mean AppleInsider) on AN? How often?
And, while I loathe their stuff, what about Breitbart News and the like? Or is it essentially same pile of stuff that shows up in Google News? Leaving aside the issue of privacy, what exactly is different about AN compared to GN in terms of coverage, ability to customize, or dig deeper? I am still mystified.
Btw, I don' know what you mean by "news bubble" -- I don't think you mean it as a compliment -- but the spectrum of my news sources, from The Guardian to the WSJ, covers a pretty darn good range of viewpoints. In fact, I am guessing it covers a vast majority of political and economic viewpoints one might encounter in normal, civilized, day-to-day life. I can't stand the news outlets representing the extremes on either side.
Add: And, even though I stopped looking at it after the first week or so, I am on the mailing list for AN, so I get a blast of all the key/highlighted new items every week. I've never really noticed anything there that I have not already seen during then week. Haven't clicked on a story once!
1) I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" since I didn't read the comment, but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same outlets. It's like if I all I read was AppleInsider, AndroidCentral, and ZDNet for tech news; they all have a very different focus, but only reading those three is still a bubble unto itself. I like Apple News because I get access to sources I'd either never actively look for and sometimes didn't even know existed.
2) I'd try to give Apple News another chance. That isn't to say that you should remove any of your current media sources, but you may have find that it adds some depth to what you are reading while also being convenient.
"I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" ... but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're
still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may
differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same
outlets"
Once upon a time "The News" was a factual and, as much as possible, accurate and complete account of what was happening in the world. About 20 years ago some channels began mixing opinion, editorializing and even propaganda with the news. And today, many people no longer see a distinction between news and propaganda -- particularly those who watch and listen mostly to the propaganda sites. They present a one-sided, tilted view of reality -- and the faithful who follow it have come to replace actual reality with the alternate reality created by the propaganda.
But, there are impartial news sites still reporting, to the best of their ability, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of those the poster you're responding to mentioned: The Wall Street Journal. Even though it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it has maintained it journalistic integrity. And, when you read it's news section you can be generally assured that it is (mostly) accurate and impartial. If however, you venture into its opinion section, you get a strong conservative bent. But, the Journal has kept opinion and spin out of its news section.
So yes, it is possible to only read a select batch of "news" sources and not be in a "News Bubble" -- as long as you select those sources carefully.
I don’t know much about FlipBoard or its CEO, but I can confidently say that I do not look at Apple News, at all. I go directly to the handful of sources — WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, AI, The Economist — I turn to every day and I have need for little else.
I think Apple may have been way late to the news game anyway. And, given that they really have no way or desire to monetize it — either through ads or a subscription — it’s just not clear to me what purpose it really serves in the Apple ecosystem. Seems like a bit of wasted effort.
I am glad to see you are staying within your news bubble. And I did see your "i used it for a week and it was not good" comment, you do know that Apple evolves their products over time. Maybe next time you offer an opinion make sure you tell everyone it based on nothing more than distance observations. Just so you article have ads and some content provide blast you with ads to they are definitely making money on ads, Apple is not but that is not their business model.
Here is what I learn about Apple News over the last few years of using it, Apple must be using AI within it, I notice the news articles were being served up in a way that appears to be close to my reading habit. Just to give you an idea, when I was looking at more CNN article it served up even more of this content and similar content as well as when when the elections were happen I tended to read more political content now that is all I am getting. which bother me since it was only giving me one view. Then I started looking at Fox to get the counter view and it switch to more Fox content. But I just upgraded to iOS 11 and they redid news completely and I think Apple is now trying to avoid the news bubble issue that people like yourself fell into. Even though I have particular content preferences, Apple is serving up a variety of content providers which I kind of like since I am now reading stuff I most likely would not have gone out and searched for.
I notice you come here a lot: do you get AI (by which I mean AppleInsider) on AN? How often?
And, while I loathe their stuff, what about Breitbart News and the like? Or is it essentially same pile of stuff that shows up in Google News? Leaving aside the issue of privacy, what exactly is different about AN compared to GN in terms of coverage, ability to customize, or dig deeper? I am still mystified.
Btw, I don' know what you mean by "news bubble" -- I don't think you mean it as a compliment -- but the spectrum of my news sources, from The Guardian to the WSJ, covers a pretty darn good range of viewpoints. In fact, I am guessing it covers a vast majority of political and economic viewpoints one might encounter in normal, civilized, day-to-day life. I can't stand the news outlets representing the extremes on either side.
Add: And, even though I stopped looking at it after the first week or so, I am on the mailing list for AN, so I get a blast of all the key/highlighted new items every week. I've never really noticed anything there that I have not already seen during then week. Haven't clicked on a story once!
1) I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" since I didn't read the comment, but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same outlets. It's like if I all I read was AppleInsider, AndroidCentral, and ZDNet for tech news; they all have a very different focus, but only reading those three is still a bubble unto itself. I like Apple News because I get access to sources I'd either never actively look for and sometimes didn't even know existed.
2) I'd try to give Apple News another chance. That isn't to say that you should remove any of your current media sources, but you may have find that it adds some depth to what you are reading while also being convenient.
"I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" ... but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're
still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may
differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same
outlets"
Once upon a time "The News" was a factual and, as much as possible, accurate and complete account of what was happening in the world. About 20 years ago some channels began mixing opinion, editorializing and even propaganda with the news. And today, many people no longer see a distinction between news and propaganda -- particularly those who watch and listen mostly to the propaganda sites. They present a one-sided, tilted view of reality -- and the faithful who follow it have come to replace actual reality with the alternate reality created by the propaganda.
But, there are impartial news sites still reporting, to the best of their ability, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of those the poster you're responding to mentioned: The Wall Street Journal. Even though it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it has maintained it journalistic integrity. And, when you read it's news section you can be generally assured that it is (mostly) accurate and impartial. If however, you venture into its opinion section, you get a strong conservative bent. But, the Journal has kept opinion and spin out of its news section.
So yes, it is possible to only read a select batch of "news" sources and not be in a "News Bubble" -- as long as you select those sources carefully.
1) Is that accurate? One of the being things about William Randolph Hearst is that he controlled the newspapers. Then you have a news conglomerate that you've probably never heard of unless you watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (segment linked below).
2) But even if you pull from the "left" and the "right" of US news you're still in a bubble because there's still so much more than what the US will cover. Even if you do pay attention to what's going on in the world, there's only so much time in a day that you can put towards understanding any nation's issues that you will always been in some sort of bubble (i.e.: isolated from certain topics). We are finite beings living in a world that is about 510 million square kilometers (71% being land), with approximately 192 countries, with around 50,000 cities (not including anything smaller), using somewhere in the ballpark of 6,900 living languages, with countless cultures for 7.6 billion people. How many Americans do you think are even aware of the devastating floods that displaced 40 million people across India, Bangladesh, and Nepal last year?
I don’t know much about FlipBoard or its CEO, but I can confidently say that I do not look at Apple News, at all. I go directly to the handful of sources — WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, AI, The Economist — I turn to every day and I have need for little else.
I think Apple may have been way late to the news game anyway. And, given that they really have no way or desire to monetize it — either through ads or a subscription — it’s just not clear to me what purpose it really serves in the Apple ecosystem. Seems like a bit of wasted effort.
I am glad to see you are staying within your news bubble. And I did see your "i used it for a week and it was not good" comment, you do know that Apple evolves their products over time. Maybe next time you offer an opinion make sure you tell everyone it based on nothing more than distance observations. Just so you article have ads and some content provide blast you with ads to they are definitely making money on ads, Apple is not but that is not their business model.
Here is what I learn about Apple News over the last few years of using it, Apple must be using AI within it, I notice the news articles were being served up in a way that appears to be close to my reading habit. Just to give you an idea, when I was looking at more CNN article it served up even more of this content and similar content as well as when when the elections were happen I tended to read more political content now that is all I am getting. which bother me since it was only giving me one view. Then I started looking at Fox to get the counter view and it switch to more Fox content. But I just upgraded to iOS 11 and they redid news completely and I think Apple is now trying to avoid the news bubble issue that people like yourself fell into. Even though I have particular content preferences, Apple is serving up a variety of content providers which I kind of like since I am now reading stuff I most likely would not have gone out and searched for.
I notice you come here a lot: do you get AI (by which I mean AppleInsider) on AN? How often?
And, while I loathe their stuff, what about Breitbart News and the like? Or is it essentially same pile of stuff that shows up in Google News? Leaving aside the issue of privacy, what exactly is different about AN compared to GN in terms of coverage, ability to customize, or dig deeper? I am still mystified.
Btw, I don' know what you mean by "news bubble" -- I don't think you mean it as a compliment -- but the spectrum of my news sources, from The Guardian to the WSJ, covers a pretty darn good range of viewpoints. In fact, I am guessing it covers a vast majority of political and economic viewpoints one might encounter in normal, civilized, day-to-day life. I can't stand the news outlets representing the extremes on either side.
Add: And, even though I stopped looking at it after the first week or so, I am on the mailing list for AN, so I get a blast of all the key/highlighted new items every week. I've never really noticed anything there that I have not already seen during then week. Haven't clicked on a story once!
1) I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" since I didn't read the comment, but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same outlets. It's like if I all I read was AppleInsider, AndroidCentral, and ZDNet for tech news; they all have a very different focus, but only reading those three is still a bubble unto itself. I like Apple News because I get access to sources I'd either never actively look for and sometimes didn't even know existed.
2) I'd try to give Apple News another chance. That isn't to say that you should remove any of your current media sources, but you may have find that it adds some depth to what you are reading while also being convenient.
"I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" ... but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're
still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may
differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same
outlets"
Once upon a time "The News" was a factual and, as much as possible, accurate and complete account of what was happening in the world. About 20 years ago some channels began mixing opinion, editorializing and even propaganda with the news. And today, many people no longer see a distinction between news and propaganda -- particularly those who watch and listen mostly to the propaganda sites. They present a one-sided, tilted view of reality -- and the faithful who follow it have come to replace actual reality with the alternate reality created by the propaganda.
But, there are impartial news sites still reporting, to the best of their ability, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of those the poster you're responding to mentioned: The Wall Street Journal. Even though it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it has maintained it journalistic integrity. And, when you read it's news section you can be generally assured that it is (mostly) accurate and impartial. If however, you venture into its opinion section, you get a strong conservative bent. But, the Journal has kept opinion and spin out of its news section.
So yes, it is possible to only read a select batch of "news" sources and not be in a "News Bubble" -- as long as you select those sources carefully.
1) Is that accurate? One of the being things about William Randolph Hearst is that he controlled the newspapers. Then you have a news conglomerate that you've probably never heard of unless you watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (segment linked below).
2) But even if you pull from the "left" and the "right" of US news you're still in a bubble because there's still so much more than what the US will cover. Even if you do pay attention to what's going on in the world, there's only so much time in a day that you can put towards understanding any nation's issues that you will always been in some sort of bubble (i.e.: isolated from certain topics). We are finite beings living in a world that is about 510 million square kilometers (71% being land), with approximately 192 countries, with around 50,000 cities (not including anything smaller), using somewhere in the ballpark of 6,900 living languages, with countless cultures for 7.6 billion people. How many Americans do you think are even aware of the devastating floods that displaced 40 million people across India, Bangladesh, and Nepal last year?
So, your saying because FauxNews, MSNBC and Sinclair (and others) are spreaders of politically motivated propaganda that all news outlets are politically motivated spreaders of propaganda? Isn't that like the first grader claiming: "Well everybody does it!"
And, that because you can't know everything completely and perfectly, that you then "live in a bubble"?
Nah, that's just an excuse for those who prefer to live in a bubble. But, thanks! You did reminded me: I had forgotten to check the FauxNews response to the murder of those 17 students yesterday. I like to keep tabs on the propaganda sites just to understand what excuses I'll be hearing from their brainwashed cult members in the coming weeks and months. .... OK, got it: The excuse du jour is: "Loner, mentally disturbed bad guy kills good kids..."
What is Flipboard? Never heard of it really to be honest. I would say, I love Apple News app and use it all the time. In fact I stopped going to different sites and apps and just use News app for all my readings.
I don’t know much about FlipBoard or its CEO, but I can confidently say that I do not look at Apple News, at all. I go directly to the handful of sources — WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, AI, The Economist — I turn to every day and I have need for little else.
I think Apple may have been way late to the news game anyway. And, given that they really have no way or desire to monetize it — either through ads or a subscription — it’s just not clear to me what purpose it really serves in the Apple ecosystem. Seems like a bit of wasted effort.
I am glad to see you are staying within your news bubble. And I did see your "i used it for a week and it was not good" comment, you do know that Apple evolves their products over time. Maybe next time you offer an opinion make sure you tell everyone it based on nothing more than distance observations. Just so you article have ads and some content provide blast you with ads to they are definitely making money on ads, Apple is not but that is not their business model.
Here is what I learn about Apple News over the last few years of using it, Apple must be using AI within it, I notice the news articles were being served up in a way that appears to be close to my reading habit. Just to give you an idea, when I was looking at more CNN article it served up even more of this content and similar content as well as when when the elections were happen I tended to read more political content now that is all I am getting. which bother me since it was only giving me one view. Then I started looking at Fox to get the counter view and it switch to more Fox content. But I just upgraded to iOS 11 and they redid news completely and I think Apple is now trying to avoid the news bubble issue that people like yourself fell into. Even though I have particular content preferences, Apple is serving up a variety of content providers which I kind of like since I am now reading stuff I most likely would not have gone out and searched for.
I notice you come here a lot: do you get AI (by which I mean AppleInsider) on AN? How often?
And, while I loathe their stuff, what about Breitbart News and the like? Or is it essentially same pile of stuff that shows up in Google News? Leaving aside the issue of privacy, what exactly is different about AN compared to GN in terms of coverage, ability to customize, or dig deeper? I am still mystified.
Btw, I don' know what you mean by "news bubble" -- I don't think you mean it as a compliment -- but the spectrum of my news sources, from The Guardian to the WSJ, covers a pretty darn good range of viewpoints. In fact, I am guessing it covers a vast majority of political and economic viewpoints one might encounter in normal, civilized, day-to-day life. I can't stand the news outlets representing the extremes on either side.
Add: And, even though I stopped looking at it after the first week or so, I am on the mailing list for AN, so I get a blast of all the key/highlighted new items every week. I've never really noticed anything there that I have not already seen during then week. Haven't clicked on a story once!
1) I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" since I didn't read the comment, but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same outlets. It's like if I all I read was AppleInsider, AndroidCentral, and ZDNet for tech news; they all have a very different focus, but only reading those three is still a bubble unto itself. I like Apple News because I get access to sources I'd either never actively look for and sometimes didn't even know existed.
2) I'd try to give Apple News another chance. That isn't to say that you should remove any of your current media sources, but you may have find that it adds some depth to what you are reading while also being convenient.
"I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" ... but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're
still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may
differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same
outlets"
Once upon a time "The News" was a factual and, as much as possible, accurate and complete account of what was happening in the world. About 20 years ago some channels began mixing opinion, editorializing and even propaganda with the news. And today, many people no longer see a distinction between news and propaganda -- particularly those who watch and listen mostly to the propaganda sites. They present a one-sided, tilted view of reality -- and the faithful who follow it have come to replace actual reality with the alternate reality created by the propaganda.
But, there are impartial news sites still reporting, to the best of their ability, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of those the poster you're responding to mentioned: The Wall Street Journal. Even though it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it has maintained it journalistic integrity. And, when you read it's news section you can be generally assured that it is (mostly) accurate and impartial. If however, you venture into its opinion section, you get a strong conservative bent. But, the Journal has kept opinion and spin out of its news section.
So yes, it is possible to only read a select batch of "news" sources and not be in a "News Bubble" -- as long as you select those sources carefully.
1) Is that accurate? One of the being things about William Randolph Hearst is that he controlled the newspapers. Then you have a news conglomerate that you've probably never heard of unless you watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (segment linked below).
2) But even if you pull from the "left" and the "right" of US news you're still in a bubble because there's still so much more than what the US will cover. Even if you do pay attention to what's going on in the world, there's only so much time in a day that you can put towards understanding any nation's issues that you will always been in some sort of bubble (i.e.: isolated from certain topics). We are finite beings living in a world that is about 510 million square kilometers (71% being land), with approximately 192 countries, with around 50,000 cities (not including anything smaller), using somewhere in the ballpark of 6,900 living languages, with countless cultures for 7.6 billion people. How many Americans do you think are even aware of the devastating floods that displaced 40 million people across India, Bangladesh, and Nepal last year?
So, your saying because FauxNews, MSNBC and Sinclair (and others) are spreaders of politically motivated propaganda that all news outlets are politically motivated spreaders of propaganda? Isn't that like the first grader claiming: "Well everybody does it!"
No.
And, that because you can't know everything completely and perfectly, that you then "live in a bubble"?
Yes. If you want to believe otherwise that's your prerogative, but all it really shows is your ignorance for neither realizing nor accepting that your ability to absorb and comprehend data is ultimately limited.
Nah, that's just an excuse for those who prefer to live in a bubble.
That's your excuse for thinking that a handful of local news organizations are giving you a wide breadth of media.
But, thanks! You did reminded me: I had forgotten to check the FauxNews response to the murder of those 17 students yesterday. I like to keep tabs on the propaganda sites just to understand what excuses I'll be hearing from their brainwashed cult members in the coming weeks and months. .... OK, got it: The excuse du jour is: "Loner, mentally disturbed bad guy kills good kids…"
Funny that you should reference yesterday's school shooting. You probably know the nam of the shooter, but do you know a single name of any of the victims? Chances are you don't. Are you even aware of the other horrific incidents that happened yesterday resulted in lives in being cut short? I'm guessing your don't. That's the bubble that you say doesn't exist.
Ok, I have to agree with him on that, Apple News pretty much sucks.
But... Flipboard ain't exactly that great of an app either. Ever tried to publish to it, or even get any info about how to publish to it? (I tried, for many lost hours, even spent some money on special tools. A friend had told me it was the hot new thing I should have my sites on. Have they finally fixed it, or is it still a steaming pile of dung?)
I don’t know much about FlipBoard or its CEO, but I can confidently say that I do not look at Apple News, at all. I go directly to the handful of sources — WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, AI, The Economist — I turn to every day and I have need for little else.
I've tried to use it a few times. I see an Apple News article on my Twitter feed, and when I click it, it just tells me it can't open it. (Yes, because I'm on macOS.... but this is even worse than a walled garden, it's a walled garden with a big iron fence down the middle where all the produce is on the side you're not on at the moment.)
I don’t know much about FlipBoard or its CEO, but I can confidently say that I do not look at Apple News, at all. I go directly to the handful of sources — WSJ, NYT, The Guardian, AI, The Economist — I turn to every day and I have need for little else.
I think Apple may have been way late to the news game anyway. And, given that they really have no way or desire to monetize it — either through ads or a subscription — it’s just not clear to me what purpose it really serves in the Apple ecosystem. Seems like a bit of wasted effort.
I am glad to see you are staying within your news bubble. And I did see your "i used it for a week and it was not good" comment, you do know that Apple evolves their products over time. Maybe next time you offer an opinion make sure you tell everyone it based on nothing more than distance observations. Just so you article have ads and some content provide blast you with ads to they are definitely making money on ads, Apple is not but that is not their business model.
Here is what I learn about Apple News over the last few years of using it, Apple must be using AI within it, I notice the news articles were being served up in a way that appears to be close to my reading habit. Just to give you an idea, when I was looking at more CNN article it served up even more of this content and similar content as well as when when the elections were happen I tended to read more political content now that is all I am getting. which bother me since it was only giving me one view. Then I started looking at Fox to get the counter view and it switch to more Fox content. But I just upgraded to iOS 11 and they redid news completely and I think Apple is now trying to avoid the news bubble issue that people like yourself fell into. Even though I have particular content preferences, Apple is serving up a variety of content providers which I kind of like since I am now reading stuff I most likely would not have gone out and searched for.
I notice you come here a lot: do you get AI (by which I mean AppleInsider) on AN? How often?
And, while I loathe their stuff, what about Breitbart News and the like? Or is it essentially same pile of stuff that shows up in Google News? Leaving aside the issue of privacy, what exactly is different about AN compared to GN in terms of coverage, ability to customize, or dig deeper? I am still mystified.
Btw, I don' know what you mean by "news bubble" -- I don't think you mean it as a compliment -- but the spectrum of my news sources, from The Guardian to the WSJ, covers a pretty darn good range of viewpoints. In fact, I am guessing it covers a vast majority of political and economic viewpoints one might encounter in normal, civilized, day-to-day life. I can't stand the news outlets representing the extremes on either side.
Add: And, even though I stopped looking at it after the first week or so, I am on the mailing list for AN, so I get a blast of all the key/highlighted new items every week. I've never really noticed anything there that I have not already seen during then week. Haven't clicked on a story once!
1) I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" since I didn't read the comment, but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same outlets. It's like if I all I read was AppleInsider, AndroidCentral, and ZDNet for tech news; they all have a very different focus, but only reading those three is still a bubble unto itself. I like Apple News because I get access to sources I'd either never actively look for and sometimes didn't even know existed.
2) I'd try to give Apple News another chance. That isn't to say that you should remove any of your current media sources, but you may have find that it adds some depth to what you are reading while also being convenient.
"I don't know what the OP meant by "news bubble" ... but even if you're reading a a wide array of media if you're
still only reading the same select sources—no matter how much they may
differ—it could still be defined as a bubble since it's still the same
outlets"
Once upon a time "The News" was a factual and, as much as possible, accurate and complete account of what was happening in the world. About 20 years ago some channels began mixing opinion, editorializing and even propaganda with the news. And today, many people no longer see a distinction between news and propaganda -- particularly those who watch and listen mostly to the propaganda sites. They present a one-sided, tilted view of reality -- and the faithful who follow it have come to replace actual reality with the alternate reality created by the propaganda.
But, there are impartial news sites still reporting, to the best of their ability, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of those the poster you're responding to mentioned: The Wall Street Journal. Even though it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it has maintained it journalistic integrity. And, when you read it's news section you can be generally assured that it is (mostly) accurate and impartial. If however, you venture into its opinion section, you get a strong conservative bent. But, the Journal has kept opinion and spin out of its news section.
So yes, it is possible to only read a select batch of "news" sources and not be in a "News Bubble" -- as long as you select those sources carefully.
1) Is that accurate? One of the being things about William Randolph Hearst is that he controlled the newspapers. Then you have a news conglomerate that you've probably never heard of unless you watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (segment linked below).
2) But even if you pull from the "left" and the "right" of US news you're still in a bubble because there's still so much more than what the US will cover. Even if you do pay attention to what's going on in the world, there's only so much time in a day that you can put towards understanding any nation's issues that you will always been in some sort of bubble (i.e.: isolated from certain topics). We are finite beings living in a world that is about 510 million square kilometers (71% being land), with approximately 192 countries, with around 50,000 cities (not including anything smaller), using somewhere in the ballpark of 6,900 living languages, with countless cultures for 7.6 billion people. How many Americans do you think are even aware of the devastating floods that displaced 40 million people across India, Bangladesh, and Nepal last year?
So, your saying because FauxNews, MSNBC and Sinclair (and others) are spreaders of politically motivated propaganda that all news outlets are politically motivated spreaders of propaganda? Isn't that like the first grader claiming: "Well everybody does it!"
No.
And, that because you can't know everything completely and perfectly, that you then "live in a bubble"?
Yes. If you want to believe otherwise that's your prerogative, but all it really shows is your ignorance for neither realizing nor accepting that your ability to absorb and comprehend data is ultimately limited.
Nah, that's just an excuse for those who prefer to live in a bubble.
That's your excuse for thinking that a handful of local news organizations are giving you a wide breadth of media.
But, thanks! You did reminded me: I had forgotten to check the FauxNews response to the murder of those 17 students yesterday. I like to keep tabs on the propaganda sites just to understand what excuses I'll be hearing from their brainwashed cult members in the coming weeks and months. .... OK, got it: The excuse du jour is: "Loner, mentally disturbed bad guy kills good kids…"
Funny that you should reference yesterday's school shooting. You probably know the nam of the shooter, but do you know a single name of any of the victims? Chances are you don't. Are you even aware of the other horrific incidents that happened yesterday resulted in lives in being cut short? I'm guessing your don't. That's the bubble that you say doesn't exist.
LOL... How's that bubble you're living in? Kinda small? But, the delusion that it's real (backed by random, irrelevant and cherry picked "facts) provides you with security and comfort? That's sweet....
GeorgeBMac said: LOL... How's that bubble you're living in? Kinda small? But, the delusion that it's real (backed by random, irrelevant and cherry picked "facts) provides you with security and comfort? That's sweet....
If you're depending on the MSM to know what's going on, you're in a bubble.
GeorgeBMac said: LOL... How's that bubble you're living in? Kinda small? But, the delusion that it's real (backed by random, irrelevant and cherry picked "facts) provides you with security and comfort? That's sweet....
If you're depending on the MSM to know what's going on, you're in a bubble.
Yeh -- but only if you are so gullible as to believe the Russian trolls / Right Wing media.
GeorgeBMac said: Yeh -- but only if you are so gullible as to believe the Russian trolls / Right Wing media.
Every news outlet is biased. If you think you can believe Left Wing media, then you're gullible too. Anything ad-supported in terms of main-stream media is going to limit content. And there is propaganda involved in everything mainstream.
Aside from that, the level of journalism has dropped to abysmal these days in the mainstream, and it has more in common with Jerry Springer and 'reality TV' than news.
GeorgeBMac said: Yeh -- but only if you are so gullible as to believe the Russian trolls / Right Wing media.
Every news outlet is biased. If you think you can believe Left Wing media, then you're gullible too. Anything ad-supported in terms of main-stream media is going to limit content. And there is propaganda involved in everything mainstream.
Aside from that, the level of journalism has dropped to abysmal these days in the mainstream, and it has more in common with Jerry Springer and 'reality TV' than news.
Yeh, that's what right wing media propaganda sites tell their cult followers.
Comments
Once upon a time "The News" was a factual and, as much as possible, accurate and complete account of what was happening in the world. About 20 years ago some channels began mixing opinion, editorializing and even propaganda with the news. And today, many people no longer see a distinction between news and propaganda -- particularly those who watch and listen mostly to the propaganda sites. They present a one-sided, tilted view of reality -- and the faithful who follow it have come to replace actual reality with the alternate reality created by the propaganda.
But, there are impartial news sites still reporting, to the best of their ability, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of those the poster you're responding to mentioned: The Wall Street Journal. Even though it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it has maintained it journalistic integrity. And, when you read it's news section you can be generally assured that it is (mostly) accurate and impartial. If however, you venture into its opinion section, you get a strong conservative bent. But, the Journal has kept opinion and spin out of its news section.
So yes, it is possible to only read a select batch of "news" sources and not be in a "News Bubble" -- as long as you select those sources carefully.
2) But even if you pull from the "left" and the "right" of US news you're still in a bubble because there's still so much more than what the US will cover. Even if you do pay attention to what's going on in the world, there's only so much time in a day that you can put towards understanding any nation's issues that you will always been in some sort of bubble (i.e.: isolated from certain topics). We are finite beings living in a world that is about 510 million square kilometers (71% being land), with approximately 192 countries, with around 50,000 cities (not including anything smaller), using somewhere in the ballpark of 6,900 living languages, with countless cultures for 7.6 billion people. How many Americans do you think are even aware of the devastating floods that displaced 40 million people across India, Bangladesh, and Nepal last year?
And, that because you can't know everything completely and perfectly, that you then "live in a bubble"?
Nah, that's just an excuse for those who prefer to live in a bubble.
But, thanks! You did reminded me: I had forgotten to check the FauxNews response to the murder of those 17 students yesterday. I like to keep tabs on the propaganda sites just to understand what excuses I'll be hearing from their brainwashed cult members in the coming weeks and months.
.... OK, got it: The excuse du jour is: "Loner, mentally disturbed bad guy kills good kids..."
Yes. If you want to believe otherwise that's your prerogative, but all it really shows is your ignorance for neither realizing nor accepting that your ability to absorb and comprehend data is ultimately limited.
Funny that you should reference yesterday's school shooting. You probably know the nam of the shooter, but do you know a single name of any of the victims? Chances are you don't. Are you even aware of the other horrific incidents that happened yesterday resulted in lives in being cut short? I'm guessing your don't. That's the bubble that you say doesn't exist.
But... Flipboard ain't exactly that great of an app either. Ever tried to publish to it, or even get any info about how to publish to it?
(I tried, for many lost hours, even spent some money on special tools. A friend had told me it was the hot new thing I should have my sites on. Have they finally fixed it, or is it still a steaming pile of dung?)
I've tried to use it a few times. I see an Apple News article on my Twitter feed, and when I click it, it just tells me it can't open it.
(Yes, because I'm on macOS.... but this is even worse than a walled garden, it's a walled garden with a big iron fence down the middle where all the produce is on the side you're not on at the moment.)
Aside from that, the level of journalism has dropped to abysmal these days in the mainstream, and it has more in common with Jerry Springer and 'reality TV' than news.