Things that might help

“Louise, people in this country aren't interested in details. They don't even trust details. The only thing they trust is headlines” Senator Keeley, The Birdcage

If it is not obvious, I am in another spell where I have not written ahead, so am still playing catch-up, which makes me feel less organized and like the quality is worse. (Though I have knocked many things off my to-do list!) This one seems to be morphing into multiple posts.

My original thought is let’s say that you are feeling like you want to be more informed and open to different points of view, but you are not sure where to start. It’s an interesting question, I thought, but it looks like it might actually be as many as three interesting questions: reasons we don’t engage, ways of getting better information specifically for politics, and also just opening up a mind to other points of view.

I think I am going to start with news. I refer back to the study that found that Fox News viewers are less informed than people who watch no news at all. The best informed were the ones who watched Sunday morning news shows. The speculation was that this was because those shows will generally have the entire show focus on a topic, so it can be explored in more depth. Honestly, it may also be that people who are more informed are more likely to watch those shows, but it’s worth trying out. I have three on the DVR now for investigation. If I find any to be particularly better or worse, I’ll pass that along.

NPR listeners and John Stewart viewers also got better scores. It is saddening that the comedy show keeps viewers better educated than the channel that’s nothing but “news” but I think you have to decide at this point that Fox actually intends to mislead. There is a documentary about that, Outfoxed, that is interesting viewing.

One thing I like about the internet is that while you are there it is easy to look up additional information, but the internet is nonetheless very much a mixed bag in terms of accuracy and balance. Huffington Post, which gives AOL its headlines, has some good articles and some pretty ridiculous ones, but what I really hate about them is how misleading the headlines are. If you just read the headlines and think you know the story, which a lot of people like to do, you are lost.

That’s a big part of the problem right there. There is so much information, with varying degrees of slant, and sorting through it all requires some time and effort. I know many days I don’t even feel like I have the mental energy to care to put in the work. It doesn’t last, but I can see why people would give up.

I would like to put in a plug for Wonkblog, Ezra Klein’s blog on the Washington Post site. Don’t let the “wonk” part put you off. Yes, he is into fine details and charts, but his results are usually quite readable and relatable. (Also, relatively short.)

I don’t watch Rachel Maddow, but I sometimes see clips of her where I am very impressed by her research too. Maybe that’s one thing to look for—someone who does the research, and is using reputable sources, and multiple sources.

One other thought, and this kind of goes into where I think we are going tomorrow, consider watching other news sources. I remember when I was studying Spanish in high school I would watch Univision, and I didn’t get everything because they talked too fast (soap operas were great for being able to get the gist), but they sure did talk about the Contras differently than American broadcasts did, and they did not seem to consider them freedom fighters. Consider sometimes checking with Al Jazeera, maybe, or BBC. And it’s not necessarily that they won’t have their own slant, but still, you get to see a different side.

More thoughts from my weird disordered mind tomorrow, but give me a few more days and we’ll get to comics. After all, it makes sense to let the dust from Comic-con settle before we go there.