How much information do you consume daily?

[the stranger]

Do you mostly read, or do you watch a lot of videos? Still reading print, or do you do most of your reading online?

 

Where do you get most of your information (if online), news sites, blogs, Facebook wall, rss feeds, what your method?

 

[We will use the information you provide to sell to guerrilla marketing gangsters. ]

[Lee Flier]

All of the above. I mostly read rather than watch videos or TV, though. As to where I get my reading material, I read both print and online, and I try to look at a wide variety of sources.

[Jeff da Weasel]

I voraciously consume information damn near all day, every day. I also create information that others consume.

 

Almost 100% of my info comes in various forms via the Internet. If I want to know about something quickly, it's Twitter. If I need more info, it's any number of news services accessed via Google News. If it's in-depth stuff on a particular topic, I gravitate toward Wikipedia and blogs, and occasional articles from semi-trustworthy news outlets.

 

I watch no television except for occasional sports, and haven't read a printed newspaper in probably 10 years. I read fiction books when I can, or, rather, while on the can.

 

How did I do?

[Lee Knight]

As the media heads evermore into fantasy land, both sides, I'm pulling away from "fact" type reporting. It's irresponsible of me, but it is necessary for my survival.

 

So I'd rather engage in art. Reading anything non-news. I've done my time. And to be able to quickly have access to word definitions or wiki style encyclopedia information based on what it is I'm reading at that moment. I read an eReader that lets me quickly, and in a flow, find word definitions. Great for reading classics to modern nonfiction. Or search Google Books to download a book referenced in my current read. Right now. And I love being next to a computer to access the wiki stuff I want. Quickly.

 

So, I'm plugged in.

 

Same thing as I write. I'm always googling and youtubing tunes and accessing online rhyme and standard dictionaries and... it's just part of the writing flow for me now.

[blue2blue]

 

I get virtually all my information (whether news, political, professional, or technical) by reading. (Like others here, that is most often online.)

 

Don't get me wrong -- I love (good) movies, TV, video and sometimes it can open you up to whole new areas of information -- but at the point where I'm really absorbing information, it's got to come to me in written form, for the most part.

 

Video can be extremely persuasive -- but it's not an efficient way to absorb info, nor is it a medium which immediately lends itself to critical appreciation of any information rendered.

 

When I have to get info from a video, I typically find myself extremely agitated because so much time is wasted. I'm not a fast reader -- but I can absorb info from the 'printed page' so much faster than I can get it from a video. And then, for any sophisticated or nuanced information, video is typically an exceptionally poor medium.

 

To be sure, there are subjects or situations where video presentation has decided benefits, particularly with hard to visualize processes or when becoming acclimated to complex user interfaces.

 

But, mostly, I don't think much real information is actually passed via video. What is done, however, is lots of persuasion, salesmanship, connning.

 

In the mainstream culture I see video as mostly the medium of the con job.

[the stranger]

How did I do?

 

The marketers will be very pleased.

[UstadKhanAli]

A lot, generally, and not always political and current events either. I spent much of the weekend learning Dreamweaver and Pro Tools from both videos, books, and taking notes. I also read a LOT of magazines on all sorts of stuff, but particularly photography, pro audio, traveling, science, sports, and people.

 

I find that if I watch a video and take general notes, I remember much better. And some of it might be habitual, a function of having gone to school for some time (I have a Master's + numerous other classes)...I just feel better with a pen in hand, writing it down. It also creates another way of retaining information.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

 

 

This is what I do... I wake up in the morning, grab some coffee, go to CNNs (should add NPR/BCC) home page. I scan the page for any stories that may interest me. This usually takes about 5-10 minutes. Then I visit ESPNs site just to see whats going on in the sports world... another 5 minutes there. I`ll check my email and visit HC and GS to see if anything is going on.

 

This all takes around 30 minutes. I don`t read the newspapers anymore. They`re outdated. Literally.

 

If I`m eating lunch at home, I will turn on the CNN, ESPN and see whats going on and veg for a few. Then I check my emails. If I`m out of the house, I hardly go online and I don`t watch tv.

 

At this point, I could survive w/o the newspapers, magazines and the TV. I use the internet for all my news. And as for entertainment, I hardly watch TV. Seriously, I have never invested any time in sitcoms... pointless. I watch Yankee Games... thats about it.

 

BLOGs are pointless as well. When I want news, I want to know whats going on, I don`t need someones opinion of it.

[chugheshc2]

ny times physical copy on sunday

Harpers magazine @ monthly

The Sun magazine @ monthly

-

BBC audio/NPR during the day

-

google every day 5 - 10 X @ hour

-

Daily Show and Colbert report 1/2X @ week

-

library for books 6X year, buy some books once in a while.

 

 

No TV news, no local paper, no commercial radio.

 

cheers

C>

[gubu]

Mostly reading. Online or digital tv text for news. Maybe 2 actual physical newspapers per week, for local (Ireland) news. As other posters have mentioned/alluded to, Wiki, blogs, and various news and social sites are pretty much where the information is at!

 

The last book I read was Bob Katz's 'Mastering Audio', but I'm sure I'll get a jones for some good literature/fiction betwen now and xmas, as the days start getting shorter. I find it strange how none of my friends seem to recommend books anymore. Maybe it's because we all have kids now, time can be in short supply

 

Also FM radio every other day, maybe an hour of talk radio to hear opinions and sports news.

 

I watch sports on TV and whatever Mrs. Gubu is watching if I happen to find myself on the sofa!

[nat whilk II]

My undergrad degree was in History. I had some really great classes in critical method, analyzing data and the writings of other scholars. I learned about the Great Chasm that separates "what actually happened" from "what data we have regarding what actually happened." And the next even more Humongous Chasm that lies between "what data we have regarding what actually happend" and "the ever evolving narrative synthesis that historians and other writers create from the data".

 

Add to this the "data" (or "facts" if you prefer that term) is also to a certain extent an ever evolving set of items, too. The critical method loops back and criticizes the whole shebang, over and over again.

 

Thinking about this, I ask this question: are the historians getting closer to the truth of things, or farther away in this process? Well, I can only suppose they do a certain amount of oscillating towards and away from the essentially imperceivable "what actually happened". However, I always find the more current literature in general more convincing than say, history written 200 years ago. This is an innately confusing situation.

 

So I solve this state of affairs by holding to two foundational items of faith:

 

1 - I believe in progress in the very long term. Progress in science is the clearest, and the other "soft" sciences and humanities follow at various distances in clocking progress.

 

2 - The concept of progress only makes sense if there is some "out there" goal that is being approached, however slowly. So you have to also believe "what actually happened" really exists in some sort of ontological realm, perhaps perceived only by God, but glimpseable by us mere mortals, notwithstanding our general foolishness and biases in the bone.

 

A logical conclusion from the belief that history is generally becoming more accurate, is that the next generation's historians have an edge on understanding this generation, and the next again over that one, and so on. Which makes the current understanding of whatever the hell is going on, probably the least reliable set of propositions of all.

 

All this is background to this quick response, "Sure, I read all sort of news stuff from all sort of sources, but my personal grain of salt is of planetary dimensions."

 

So when I hear people go on with all the fire of absolute certainty about who done what and how things really are, I generally feel I'm listening to people reciting their Articles of Faith, not stuff they really, solidly, substantially, actually know.

 

 

nat whilk ii

[nice keetee]

Usually skim read the local paper, check the weather forecast on TV and online. Go to gersic and kvr etc. Visit here to usually learn something.

[the stranger]

BLOGs are pointless as well. When I want news, I want to know whats going on, I don`t need someones opinion of it.

 

What exactly do you think the news is doing?! ANY source of information is loaded with bias. I don't care where you get it. Mainstream news isn't anything but opinion. Saying blogs are pointless is senseless. Blogs reshaped the face of modern journalism. You plug CNN and shun blogs. I say blogs are more reliable than a corporate funded propaganda outlet. I get the facts with a lot more objectivity and less bull{censored} filler from independent journalists. And independent media (blogs) have brought accountability to the mainstream media. Blogs can follow the wires just like the big guys and report the news just like they can. You are just choosing a bias.

 

I wasn't looking for a debate, but this is preposterous.

 

That would be like shunning the forum here because it isn't CNN. Do you get news here? Yes. Do you get opinion? Yep. Just like the news. Are you just pushing my buttons?

[Lukenskywalker]

Having a MA in English Lit., I read only the classics,

Readers Digest, TV Guide, and Star Magazine.

[Lee Flier]

I say blogs are more reliable than a corporate funded propaganda outlet.

 

Well... it depends. They both have their pros and cons. A lot of people who write blogs are not trained journalists, don't do good research, and in fact don't have a research budget to be able to travel directly to places they're reporting on (for example). Many bloggers are also fronts for corporations or political organizations. A lot of people quote blogs as being actual sources, when actually all the blogger has done is say some buzzwords that appeal to them and don't/can't back up what they say at all.

 

On the plus side, of course, some bloggers are very respected journalists who know their stuff, back things up with sources, or perhaps are primary sources themselves. And of course, as you say, many are not funded by the same people who fund the mainstream news, so blogs can be invaluable.

 

Corporate news outlets, of course, have the major weaknesses that 1) they are more concerned with what will get them ratings than what's the most relevant/truthful thing to report, and 2) they are subject to bias if their owners or advertisers don't like something they want to run. Also, increasingly the mainstream news sites are becoming more and more like poorly run blogs - with not much money available for real investigative journalism, hiring cute or provocative talking heads who aren't journalists just to get ratings, etc. But the better ones still do actual investigative stories, there are still journalists out there risking their lives to report the truth, and some of them work for mainstream news outlets - they couldn't afford to do what they do otherwise.

 

So, as always... you just have to be careful who you listen to and use a lot of critical thinking, which is half the problem.

[philbo]

My main source is NPR - I listen to it on the commute to/from my day job; though sometimes I get overloaded on the international affairs handwringing and switch to Bob & Tom, which also provides quite a bit of information of a different sort.

 

After that, it's:

Simpsons

Roadhousepodcast.com

Wilfred

Blue Avenue, BBC News and Blues Until Sunrise on KUNI

Always Sunny in Philadelphia

Friday & Saturday nights (when I happen to be home), it's Blues night on KCCK

 

That's pretty much it; I don't consume information unless it has some immediate positive effect on me. So I have no use for MSNBC, CNN, FOX, or any other faux journalists; to me they are just dinosaurs that haven't died yet.

[UstadKhanAli]

What exactly do you think the news is doing?! ANY source of information is loaded with bias. I don't care where you get it. Mainstream news isn't anything but opinion. Saying blogs are pointless is senseless. Blogs reshaped the face of modern journalism. You plug CNN and shun blogs. I say blogs are more reliable than a corporate funded propaganda outlet. I get the facts with a lot more objectivity and less bull{censored} filler from independent journalists. And independent media (blogs) have brought accountability to the mainstream media. Blogs can follow the wires just like the big guys and report the news just like they can. You are just choosing a bias. I wasn't looking for a debate, but this is preposterous. That would be like shunning the forum here because it isn't CNN. Do you get news here? Yes. Do you get opinion? Yep. Just like the news. Are you just pushing my buttons?

 

Just to add to that, one must consider that opinions/bias from news agencies (or blogs or anything else) is just as much what is *not* covered as what is covered.

 

You can get good news from mainstream media just as much as blogs, but it really has to be tempered by critical thinking, as Lee points out, as there are some mainstream/corporate entities that actually still do investigative reporting and real journalism.

 

I think it's important to use critical thinking and multiple sources. And multiple sources that are different. Instead of reading only more left-leaning or right-leaning (or whatever labels you want to assign medias and blogs and information outlets), it's important to consider numerous areas of information, in my opinion. A lot of people will read only certain kinds of media, which mainly serve to reinforce their already made up minds, and that's a total disservice to themselves.

[Ernest Buckley]

What exactly do you think the news is doing?! ANY source of information is loaded with bias. I don't care where you get it. Mainstream news isn't anything but opinion. Saying blogs are pointless is senseless. Blogs reshaped the face of modern journalism. You plug CNN and shun blogs. I say blogs are more reliable than a corporate funded propaganda outlet. I get the facts with a lot more objectivity and less bull{censored} filler from independent journalists. And independent media (blogs) have brought accountability to the mainstream media. Blogs can follow the wires just like the big guys and report the news just like they can. You are just choosing a bias. I wasn't looking for a debate, but this is preposterous. That would be like shunning the forum here because it isn't CNN. Do you get news here? Yes. Do you get opinion? Yep. Just like the news. Are you just pushing my buttons?

 

Nope, not trying to push your buttons, (I only do that to Blue).

 

I watch CNN, BBC (and even FOX sometimes) and I find out whats going on. When they start interviewing people about how they feel about something, I turn the channel.

 

I go to forums to hear about peoples opinions, not to get the News. Its a completely separate thing. I`m not coming here to have you or anyone else give me the news, but I do enjoy reading your opinions.

[Ernest Buckley]

Just to add to that, one must consider that opinions/bias from news agencies (or blogs or anything else) is just as much what is *not* covered as what is covered. I think it's important to use critical thinking and multiple sources. And multiple sources that are different. Instead of reading only more left-leaning or right-leaning (or whatever labels you want to assign medias and blogs and information outlets), it's important to consider numerous areas of information, in my opinion. A lot of people will read only certain kinds of media, which mainly serve to reinforce their already made up minds, and that's a total disservice to themselves.

 

I completely agree with you. Again, I get my news from various places but I am not looking for opinions even though its built in. When they start to ask for commentators, I turn the channel. I really could care less what someone else thinks of a plane show crash. The plane crashed. Tell me how, tell me who was hurt/died. Thats it. I could care less what people think might have caused the plane to crash. Let the appropriate agencies do their job and when the time comes, I will listen to what they have to say. I am only mentioning this incident because it is current.

 

When I watch CNN, I will often go to FOX to get their angle. When it comes to politics, we are all aware of where these networks side. I will often watch BCC and listen to NPR as well for what I think are more unbiased opinions. Again, its about getting the facts which can vary from network to network. In the end, I come to my own conclusions.

 

I`m not naive. I know every station has their own agenda. Each station invites commentators too who will often times side with the opinion of that station. For example, when FOX talks about the President, he is portrayed as Satan.

 

I actually had a friend of mine ask me if I thought Obama was Satan. When I asked him where he got his news from, I jokingly said, Fox? He said yes. Its sad and scary how easily people are manipulated. Its also really frightening to see a grown man who I considered to be beyond this to actually fall into that trap.

 

I take the news very seriously. And I do not take sides with any news agency or political party. I`m an Independent just in case you were wondering.

[the stranger]

Nope, not trying to push your buttons, (I only do that to Blue).

 

[UstadKhanAli]

I take the news very seriously. And I do not take sides with any news agency or political party. I`m an Independent just in case you were wondering.

 

So am I.