You Cannot Turn it Off: News Addiction

BizangoBob writes: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help. There's a great piece about news addiction in the Washington Post. It made me feel I'm not the only one."

Comments

I know what you mean!!

[tester13]

I know exactly what you mean! Think about what we do here day in and day out. We talk about the incremental release of software as if it's the most important thing in the world.

We endlessly follow every possible civil liberties encroachment though /., mailing lists, Usenet, etc.

I read Slashdot compulsively. I also read Slate, Salon, and the NYT daily. Have I really learned anything important, or am I just wasting time? I tend to think more towards the later.

This is a timely topic in wake of the recent tragic events. I have been refreshing CNN and MSNBC's website obsessively searching for the latest (often wrongly reported) news.

OTOH what is the alternative? It seems today, it is important to process a lot of information quickly. I'm just not sure that I know what is important.

A suggestion

[Mike Schiraldi]

A comment i just sent to Rob Malda (after a short bit of praise for him and his team):

- Please consider making a "permanent" story -- or call it a forum. When i
want to post something about the tragedy, i'm forced to choose between three
options, none of which is great: I can submit a story, and odds are great
that you will have to reject it. I can post a comment to an old story, where
it will likely be missed since the story is off the front page and will
certainly be missed when the next update is posted. Or, i can wait for the
next update and hope i hit it early.

If you had one huge permanent story instead of lots of smaller ones, people
would sort by "Newest First" to get news, which is what they should do
instead of just waiting for the next story to be posted. It lets new +1 and
+2 comments have a chance regardless of how early they're posted.

Also, raising the maximum comment rating above 5, if technically feasable,
would really help in these stories, where dozens and dozens of comments are
rated at 5...

Jeremy Glick, from Dateline

[Mike Schiraldi]

The most powerful and moving coverage of Jeremy Glick's story, from Dateline NBC: http://www.msnbc.com/news/629077.asp

Please read. Please mod up so people will see.

You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[Wakko Warner]

Folks, this war is going to take a long time. This isn't gonna be over in days or weeks or months, and the resolution is not gonna be on tomorrow's news. Once we find out who these people are and who their superiors are and how everything works (CNN reports that one of the guys we picked up in St. Louis tonight on a train is telling the FBI a lot about that shit), we have to go in and take out the Taliban "government" but do it in a way that doesn't kill many Afghani people, since they're not the ones who did this either. The Taliban is a fundamentalist regime, and those are bad and need to be dealt with. (Look at Iraq for an example of what happens when we don't and/or can't.) Going in and carpet-bombing the country isn't gonna be the way to do it though. I think that's why you haven't heard much about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan (and I firmly believe we will.)

Those who think we can't afford to kill innocent civilians there too, though, please take your rose-tinted glasses off. This isn't grade schoool and everything has a price in the real world. Freedom from the creeping tyranny of terrorism, though -- teaching those people that this is NOT the way to make friends and influence people -- requires some struggle and loss.

I am confident that, in the end, the good will far outweigh the bad in this thing. But it's going to take time.

- A.P.

Manufacturing Consent

[surfimp]

I've turned off my television and stopped visiting CNN.com and all the rest of the mainstream media outlets. I'm becoming extremely disturbed by the direction which they've been heading since rougly 20 minutes after the second plane hit, and (as I recall) even before the first WTC tower fell.

The talk is of reprisal, and how the United States is going to respond to the attacks. Granted, nothing can justify what has happened, and there is no rationalization for what was done. However, could we perhaps get a bit wider perspective or perhaps even some critical thought/discussion regarding what has happened from CNN?

Today there was a poll on CNN.com that makes my point perfectly: "If Afghanistan refuses to hand over Osama bin Laden, should the U.S. bomb Kabul?" 79% of respondents said yes, we should bomb Kabul.

Hello, my fellow citizens! The people of Afghanistan are currently living under the tyrannical rule of the Taliban, having just come out of a long and very punishing war with the former Soviet Union. Not only has all the major infrastructure *already* been bombed, but the people are suffering tremendously as it currently stands.

Even more to the point, what could "we" possibly gain by bombing Kabul, which is a CITY full of CIVILIANS, after all? Does it make any difference whether it's a cruise missle or jetliner causing the explosion? Do you think the Taliban government, the only ones with access to food and equipment, will still be in Kabul when the bombs start to drop? Hardly--they'll be off in the hills with bin Laden, and the only people left to suffer the brunt of such an assault would be the civilian population.

The point I'm trying to make is that the mainstream media is so caught up in the idea that we could bomb Afghanistan that they've forgotten whether or not we should. After all, the only real way that we'll get bin Laden (or whomever is responsible for these crimes) out is by _going_in_after_them_. That will cost American and NATO lives. And, it can be aruged that it runs the high risk of polarizing other Muslim nations against what they could only perceive as an invasion by the West.
And if you've actually read anything about what bin Laden is trying to accomplish with his terrorist agenda, it's EXACTLY that--a world war between Islam and the West. And remember, Pakistan has nuclear bombs at their disposal.

Where is there any discussion of these facts in the mainstream media? That is what I truly fear, more than anything else. The manufacturing of our consent to what amounts to acts of genocide against civilian populations--and that ultimately leads to only greater and greater violence.

Try: http://www.zmag.org

Re:You can go back to sleep now. Here's why:

[terri rolle]

CNN reports that one of the guys we picked up in St. Louis tonight on a train is telling the FBI a lot about that shit

Yeah, and we'll see if this item of "Breaking News" is true for a change.

we have to go in and take out the Taliban "government" but do it in a way that doesn't kill many Afghani people, since they're not the ones who did this either.

The reason the Taleban is in power is because there are significant numbers of Afghanis who support it. And even the factions that are opposed to it detest the US just as much. If we go to war against Afghanistan, we have to accept the fact that lots of people who were not involved in terrorist activities are going to be killed. If the government is destroyed, what replaces it might be just as bad. I'm not saying we shouldn't attack if that's what needs to be done, just that we have to be prepared for the consequences.

The Taliban is a fundamentalist regime, and those are bad and need to be dealt with.

I hope we don't have to deal with all fundamentalist regimes. They're not the only one.

Look at Iraq for an example of what happens when we don't and/or can't.

Iraq does not have a Islamic fundamentalist regime, if that's what you meant to imply.

Going in and carpet-bombing the country isn't gonna be the way to do it though.

Afghanistan is a particular problem. If you count the invasion by the Soviet Union, and the civil war that ensued after they sent the Soviets home with their tails between their legs, Afghanistan has been at war for 22 consecutive years. There's little there to bomb. The cities are full of rubble, and roads are muddy ruts. There are thousands of experienced and fanatical guerilla warriors. If we attack Afghanistan, we have to be prepared to get our hands much dirtier than we did in the Persian Gulf.

I think that's why you haven't heard much about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan

I think the reason we haven't heard about how or when or why we're going to attack parts of Afghanistan is that it's just not good military strategy inform the enemy of your battle plans.

U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Futurepower(tm)]

I'm feeling really uncomfortable with the lack of logic in valuing the lives of people, who happen by chance to have been born in the U.S., so much more highly than people who were born elsewhere.

The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends.

The average killing by the U.S. government in the last 30 years has been about 100,000 people per year.

The recent terrorism is, like all violence, reprehensible. I grieve for my country, and I grieve for the people lost. However, if 5,000 people have been killed in New York and Washington D.C., that is only 5% of the U.S. government's yearly average.

I grieve for those killed by the U.S. government, also.

The Bush Administration was requesting $343.2 billion for the Defense Department in Fiscal Year 2002. Now the budget will be much more.

Would it be too much to ask to spend 1% of that amount on an initiative to try to discover how the U.S. could live in the world without killing? I've tried to pull together some ideas about relating to other people in a non-violent but powerful way in an article called, "What should be the response to violence?"

This Slashdot story begins: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help."

Perhaps if this person had been aware of what his government was doing, he would have lost much more sleep. Knowing more will help.

Re:U.S. government average killing: 100,000/year.

[Zoop]

First, your numbers are so rough as to be meaningless. They also aren't accurate. And you conflate military and civilian casualties--or you are simply wildly misinformed.

Knowing more would help, yes:

The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.

False. Widely-spread untruth by terrorist sympathizers, but false.

Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.

By not training him? No.
By enabling the Afghani people to kick out Soviet invaders? Last time I looked, the Soviets withdrew.

George Bush had increased U.S. support for Israel.

He reduced support for both sides as tensions increased.

Violence is assumed. An NBC poll says 83% of Americans want military action.

Violence has been committed. However, you notice there was no reflexive bombing campaign.

Weapons indicate weakness, not power. The best protection is being truly powerful.

To you, yes. To most people around the world, sadly, no. Would it were so but it's not, and that determines the nature of the conflict. Study the history of terrorism in the 70's and early 80's.

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer.

No, sometimes a part of the answer. Most of that time was spent in the Cold War, which by the way, did not finally become World War Three.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years.

Finally, you got one right.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people.

No. There are reams of psychological research on this subject. Any arguments based on this premise are therefore wrong.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country?

They seem to think so. And much as I'd like to move the Jewish state to Florida, it won't happen. As long as you deal with reality, the U.S. is always asked to go into places we have no direct involvement. The alternative, isolationism, has not been successful and is also the coward's way out of not trying to influence the world to something better. The fact that we haven't been perfectly successful means we're still human.

The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries.

Most of which happened 30 years ago. We have a history of wearing powdered wigs, too.

There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.

Yes. Like all things, that varies by individual, but then I've been called a fascist for suggesting we overturn the government educational system that creates it.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think.

No. They react more extremely than they normally would. Both to the good (Red Cross donations) and bad (bomb now). On sober reflection, they go back to donating less and not wanting indiscriminate conflict. You'll notice the government you condemn did not take the easy bomb them the first night and make ourselves feel better route.

Answers?

True power is not adversarial.

Check. But if you don't include some ability to threaten those who threaten you or others, things turn out badly. Try living in a place without police if you don't believe me.

Don't let personal anger be a problem.

Our government is doing better than our people here.

The average American cannot be held responsible for the violence of the U.S. government.

And you propose letting people who do so get away with it. Bringing them to justice in any form will require force.

The bottom line

...is that we live in a world, not a college classroom. It can be a harsh and brutal world sometimes. What's coming will not be good, but it will be less bad than the alternative. Study world history 1976-1980 for an abject lesson.

parade of maudlin moments

[beanerspace]

Well, what did it for me is the press rolling out everyone who's suffering, and exploiting it for ratings. Husbands who've lost wives, mom's who've lost children. Certainly we have compassion for these people, but to spend a half hour filming their unthinkable grief ... the only thing worse is watching it. It's exploitation of the worst kind.

Umm, maye you should think

[N8F8]

Could it be possile that the military doesn't pick it's targets baed on CNN polls?

Re:Umm, maye you should think

[_xeno_]

Could it be possile that the military doesn't pick it's targets ba[s]ed on CNN polls?

Yeah, but it's quite possible that Commander in Chief George W. Bush might. Don't forget, ultimately, the military gets their orders from Congress and the President.

Basically, Congress has to give permission for the President to use military force (which I believe has already happened), and once that has happened, the President is in basically complete control over the direction the military compaign goes. Which means that it's quite possible that the politicians will decide that bombing Kabul is the best choice of action to please the people.

Which would be a very bad thing indeed; although if we're all lucky, Bush's advisors will direct him in a less severe course of action.

Re:Religion is to blame

[warpeightbot]

religion can just sometimes serve as a suitable excuse.

Both for some suicidal maniacs to crash aircraft into the sides of buildings, and for xenophobic maniacs like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson to blame the crashes on people whose only crime is to insist that they be allowed to live according to the dictates of their own conscience, not harming anyone else.

Skyshadow's implication here is spot-on. Fundamentalism in any form is dangerous... the arrogance that comes from believing that your way of life is so much superior than mine that it gives you the right to impose it on me often turns deadly. I don't suggest for a moment that we should launch a pre-emptive strike on those two gentlemen's persons.... but bombing the bejeezus out of their credibility is something every sane American should do every chance they get.

Let'em talk... but make sure they're the poster children for the Fool of the Month Club.