Horizon

While we're on the subject, my long held opinion of institutionalised leftist bias at the BBC is vindicated by none other than Robin Aitken, who must know something- he was a tv journalist for them for twenty-five, count 'em, years. He's writing a book on the subject of the BBC's institutionalised leftist bias. No wonder all the pansy left blogs sport I Believe the BBC badges... See link:

http://blitheringbunny.com/archives/2005/05/15/the-annual-political-tax/

Neil Postman is absolutely correct here. But on the other hand, presumably the commercial nature and context of the news hasn't changed much, but the news itself certainly has changed. I remember seeing somewhere a young Harry Reasoner (I think it was him, it's been a while), conducting a TV interview from perhaps the '60s. It was completely different; it actually felt...grown up.

One of the nicest benefits of not watching the nightly news is the general feeling of security and optimism it inspires. Since I lost access to a television in 1998, my world has appeared steadily safer and friendlier. I'm far less worried about crime and so I take fewer precautions against it. This means far less time spent locking deadbolts while conjuring up images of burglars prowling through the neighborhood.

I suspect that the net result has been to bring my perception of the world closer to reality, but even if I'm only deluding myself into the opposite of paranoia, the side benefits are probably worth it.

The question which I can't answer is, do I get from newspapers or the internet the same sense of the world gone mad as I do from television? My gut response is no. I think that maybe by reading the news I am able to digest it a way that is not available when I watch it.

I agree. More importantly, you have the ability to choose what you read, or what you don't. We may develop paranoia about our children being indoctrinated by left-wing professors, or the PNAC cabal taking over the country when we spend too much time in blogland, but I think that's somehow not the same as being bombarded by "if it bleeds it leads" news.

Interesting someone would argue that the scattershot format of nightly TV news creates a sense of insecurity. I think that's right as to the faraway outside world, or even unfamiliar parts of people's immediate worlds (e.g. inner-city neighborhoods as perceived by residents of nearby suburbs). But IIRC there was a bunch of media scholarship in the '80s suggesting that people watch the news of Disorders Elsewhere in part to reassure themselves that they have reason to be grateful for their own comparatively tranquil lives. In other words, that people get an actual sense of well-being out of reflecting that the dreadfulness being reported is Somebody Else's Problem.

Or maybe that's another side of the same coin?

It might be. My beef isn't with international news, since coverage of things like immigration issues in Europe (or California) might inspire the reaction you describe. It's hearing about an assault down the street that I think leads to the paranoia. And I suspect that local news is presented to make everything seem local. But I'm not sure I could back that up.

Yeah, I think local stations do try to make everything seem like "your area" if not "your neighborhood." Our local Fox affiliate, which runs annoying teasers all through "Seinfeld," always says, "Tonight, we'll tell you which Bay Area town suffered a major [fire/crime/accident/disease/landslide/etc.]..." so you have to stay and watch the news broadcast to find out where it happened in all the nine counties of the "Bay Area," which collectively are I think about the size of Massachusetts.

Re: the first comment, I guess Robbie will be happy to apply his favorite pejoratives to Timothy Garton Ash then?

'Re: the first comment, I guess Robbie will be happy to apply his favorite pejoratives to Timothy Garton Ash then?'

Interesting that when I criticise the Left you assume that I wish to destroy the NHS and when I criticise the BBC you assume I wish to destroy it. I don't. It badly needs reform. Just because you 'get' a whole lot for your money, doesn't mean you want a great deal of what you get. And one of socialism's greatest faults is giving the public what it doesn't want (please do not give me the usual de haut en bas disquisition about vagrants and hospitals) especially in the arts.
The BBC needs reform because its bias and the actions of individuals involved are becoming increasingly high handed; some of it beggars belief.
You don't care to think too much about this because they are singing the song you like and also because you're Chomskyfied enought to have a little game with the means and the ends and make two and two equal five, like all good left wing intellectuals do.
Perhaps I've read my Orwell a different way, but big state broadcasters singing from only one hymn sheet outrages me and worries me.