Giving up TV and Alternative News Sources?

[Red Economist]

I gave up Television last year and have since been in an information vacuum. This was partly for psychological reasons as I realized how much Television could be responsible for causing my depression (after reading Remotely Controlled by Dr. Aric Sigman).

if you're in the same boat and have a mental illness- this is a MUST as it has certainly helped not having my moods manipulated on cue to want to buy stuff, fit in, agree with the 'expert' opinion of lobbyists and live in constant fear of terrorism, climate change and totalitarianism. etc.

It was at first "difficult" because it felt like an "extreme" thing to do and the sense of being the guy in the conversation who doesn't know what everyone else is talking about is a problem... until you realize they don't have clue either and are they're just repeating what they've been told. And then you have the scarey moment when you understand why getting people to support fascism was so easy... :crying:

However, each time I turn it on the TV now is unbearable as I have become "re-sensitized" to it and can see it's commercial and political propaganda. I've "coped" by having a few major newspapers in my Facebook feed, but I recognize just how badly informed I've been over the years and need something to get my teeth in to so I have a decent chance of knowing what is going on.

So I was wondering where people on Revleft gets their news from if they don't trust the mainstream media. who do you trust and why?

[Sinister Intents]

I completely stopped watching TV as well, I occasionally watch movies or TV shows, but rarely. I generally bet my news from here: http://www.theguardian.com/us or the BBC or Al Jazeera, but I'd have to say they're all rather shit. I don't pay attention to the news anymore really.

[Red Commissar]

What are you exactly looking for a news site? There's a ton of sites out there- more if you want to include blogs- and many of them with a different approach on covering something. For my part very, very few do actual journalism and focus more on putting their perspective on an ongoing story or situation. Some are also focused on one specific subject range- say surveillance, war, labor, anti-racism, anti-fascism, etc.

I wouldn't ignore mainstream press completely, just don't go for the newstainment that is common on the airwaves. Articles in places like BBC, Guardian, Al Jazeera, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, the Nation, and so on are alright as long as you keep in mind any biases or causes they may be trying to boost. Many of them though just repackage Associated Press and Reuters wires, but they do their share of journalism which is valuable. There's also the whole range of more economy and investment oriented press too, though I'm not as interested in those. I also listen to NPR news on the radio here in the states, it's useful to hear different perspectives even when they bring on some neocon hawk or lolbertarian to boost their causes.

For my part I combine the above with a variety of smaller sites. Alternet I used to look at a lot but it's become more tabloidy and obssessed with lists probably as a means to drive views for advertisment revenue. Mother Jones, Truthdig, and Democracy Now are interesting from time to time though like alternet it's left liberal. Infoshop is a good place to get a feel for events that are being ignored by the media and they come from a more left-wing orientation. Indymedia is along the same lines, especially if you find an active local site within there. There are news sites tied to political parties like SocialistWorker, SocialistAlternative, or WSWS, I prefer the former, site is easier on the eye and WSWS while having interesting stories has an annoying tendency to end every article with some pronouncement of the necessity to adopt the principles of The Party to resolve that problem. I also used to look at ZNet and Counterpunch a lot, I still do but I don't frequent them as much anymore. On occasion I'll look at the subreddit /r/socialism for stories.

And as I said before there's a ton of blogs beyond that if you count that as "news". Plenty of different perspectives there, I have those ranging from Trots to MLs to Anarchists.

If you're worried about news making you depressed though then alternate sources probably won't change that. If anything many of those tend to focus a lot more on stories in such a way that it will come of as very pessimistic and depressing in the end.

[Crabbensmasher]

Yeah, I couldn't stand TV. Ads just drive me up the fucking wall. I always caught myself mocking them and getting pissed off. Then I realized I was talking to a TV - not a fun revelation.

I read articles on BBC, The Guardian, CBC. Ehh, their all utter shit, but maybe I just like to have something to complain about.

[Loony Le Fist]

I gave up Television last year and have since been in an information vacuum. This was partly for psychological reasons as I realized how much Television could be responsible for causing my depression (after reading Remotely Controlled by Dr. Aric Sigman).


I'll have to check out that book. I have occasional bouts with anxiety, so I definitely relate here.



if you're in the same boat and have a mental illness- this is a MUST as it has certainly helped not having my moods manipulated on cue to want to buy stuff, fit in, agree with the 'expert' opinion of lobbyists and live in constant fear of terrorism, climate change and totalitarianism. etc.


I'm sure it hasn't. But recognizing that it is just PR and not news is a good step towards developing personal coping strategies for this. Hidden within this PR are truths. I think Noam Chomsky has developed a good strategy for finding the "diamonds in the rough."



It was at first "difficult" because it felt like an "extreme" thing to do and the sense of being the guy in the conversation who doesn't know what everyone else is talking about is a problem... until you realize they don't have clue either and are they're just repeating what they've been told. And then you have the scarey moment when you understand why getting people to support fascism was so easy... :crying:


It is sad. But again, just remember that you are a step ahead, since you are aware of the biases. If you haven't already checked it out, I suggest you read Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky or watch the corresponding documentary.



However, each time I turn it on the TV now is unbearable as I have become "re-sensitized" to it and can see it's commercial and political propaganda. I've "coped" by having a few major newspapers in my Facebook feed, but I recognize just how badly informed I've been over the years and need something to get my teeth in to so I have a decent chance of knowing what is going on.


Personally I try to avoid news sources that are heavily establishment biased and those that have more talking heads with opinions rather than actual reporting. As I've already said, and as they say in G.I. Joe: "Knowing is half the battle."



So I was wondering where people on Revleft gets their news from if they don't trust the mainstream media. who do you trust and why?

I would say that you can get your news from anywhere. It's just that you need to factor in any biases a particular source might have. You also have to vet sources, and check them against what other news sources are reporting. It's a difficult process, because everyone is going to have biases. As an example, The Intercept (http://www.theintercept.org) from Firstlook is pretty good, so far. There is also Wikinews (http://www.wikinews.org), where groups of individuals write the reporting (like a Wikipedia for news), instead of particular news services. They definitely could use some writers. Writing news for them might be a good way to learn to discern the ideological biases, and become desensitised to the sensationalism.

It is up to us to do the legwork to get at the truth. I would say the best way is not to stop reading the news, but rather to have a wide range of sources to compare and contrast the reporting. That way you can make a fair judgement of what the truth is. And that is up to you to decide.

[Hit The North]

It's not perfect, but have you tried the Real News Network?

[adipocere]

for alternative media see:

Commondreams
DemocracyNow
the real news network
Alternet
Znet
TomDispatch
Black Agenda Report
Global Research
venezuelanalysis (if you follow Venezuela)
Council on Hemispheric Affairs / coha.org
Green Left Weekly

State sources:
RT / Voice of Russia
Xinhua
Voice of America
BBC
Granma International
Tehran Times

Corporate:
Guardian
Mother Jones
HuffPo
(I think Guardian is all you need here though.)

I also go to the Google News. It has a fairly large aggregate. You can't at least see what the corporate blowhards are on about.

edit: I include state sources because generally their jouranlists are held to a higher standard than corporate media, not always, as they tend to pick up off the wire, but usually they don't go out of their way to cram a foot in their mouth, and you will also have no doubt about their bias.


If taken all together, with a bit of corporate coverage, you get a generally good idea of what is going on. I'm sure there is more but that is what I can come up with offhand.

[Crabbensmasher]

for alternative media see:


State sources:
RT / Voice of Russia
Xinhua
Voice of America
BBC
Granma International
Tehran Times



RT? RT??! RT!!!

I do think it's valuable to look at something like RT occasionally, just to understand what the Russian govt. is trying to feed us, but I fear for the actual hardcore viewers.

In all honesty, from what I've seen, I think I would rank RT as worse than Fox news. These guys are like parasites, attacking anything against their 'agenda'. They'll make social democratic critiques of wealth inequality, and in the same breath espouse some absurd tea party rhetoric (It's usually all criticism of America).

In a way Fox news is better, because at least you can know thy enemy. We know exactly where the reactionaries stand in American politics, because their political agenda is being shoved into our faces constantly. It's like their saying "Hey, we're the bad guys, we're over here!!". Anybody can look at it, and we can actually see where their rhetoric is coming from.

With RT, it's a bit more shady. Nobody really knows who it's supposed to appeal to, or exactly how-in bed it is with the Russian govt. And of course it's propaganda, but nobody gets this. They've styled it after the likes of NBC or BBC, which has basically put a new face on an old foe. Goddamn. Very Soviet-esque.

Sorry, that was a rant. Still a good idea in including it on the list. When you see it for the first time, it's very surprising, and in a way, scary. Good geopolitical(?) learning experience though

[Red Economist]

It's not perfect, but have you tried the Real News Network?

Haven't heard of it, but I've save it as my homepage, so I will get some use out of it.


I'll have to check out that book. I have occasional bouts with anxiety, so I definitely relate here. ...

I'm sure it hasn't. But recognizing that it is just PR and not news is a good step towards developing personal coping strategies for this. Hidden within this PR are truths. I think Noam Chomsky has developed a good strategy for finding the "diamonds in the rough."

The book is a goldmine and is well-worth the read. but it is only half the process; the other half is knowing that Television does have an effect. Alot of the stuff sounds so bizzare, but then you really try to look at your own viewing habits and where you get your idea from and you can see they might have a point.

There was a quote that really stuck with me (I've spent ten minutes trying to find it, but can't remember which chapter it's in). Scientists did a study and found that human beings cannot distinguish between the real world and it's visual presentation of it on Television. I think this was in reference to violence and disasters, which go straight to the long-term memory the same way as 'real-life' traumatic experiences. think about it- did our brains ever evolve with this distinction in mind or did we just kind of assumed it was there?

So, it is more than possible that giving up TV would help with your anxiety. As much as I feel like I'm pushing drugs... here's the link.

http://www.amazon.com/Remotely-Controlled-Television-Damaging-Lives/dp/0091906903/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395166400&sr=8-1&keywords=Remotely+controlled

It took me a year to go from reading the book to finally giving up TV as I figured giving it up overnight wouldn't solve the problem. Within about a month without it, I started to feel better.


What are you exactly looking for a news site? There's a ton of sites out there- more if you want to include blogs- and many of them with a different approach on covering something. For my part very, very few do actual journalism and focus more on putting their perspective on an ongoing story or situation. Some are also focused on one specific subject range- say surveillance, war, labor, anti-racism, anti-fascism, etc.

I honestly don't know; it like I've gone from turning on the TV and it's just 'there', to not really having anything (except the guardian on FB). I think maybe I'm still expecting some big corporation giving me all my news- which is something I'll have to unlearn.
So it may well be a question of new where I get my news from, but how I handle it.



It is up to us to do the legwork to get at the truth. I would say the best way is not to stop reading the news, but rather to have a wide range of sources to compare and contrast the reporting. That way you can make a fair judgement of what the truth is. And that is up to you to decide.

good advice. thanks. :)

[adipocere]

RT? RT??! RT!!!

I do think it's valuable to look at something like RT occasionally, just to understand what the Russian govt. is trying to feed us, but I fear for the actual hardcore viewers.

In all honesty, from what I've seen, I think I would rank RT as worse than Fox news. These guys are like parasites, attacking anything against their 'agenda'. They'll make social democratic critiques of wealth inequality, and in the same breath espouse some absurd tea party rhetoric (It's usually all criticism of America).

In a way Fox news is better, because at least you can know thy enemy. We know exactly where the reactionaries stand in American politics, because their political agenda is being shoved into our faces constantly. It's like their saying "Hey, we're the bad guys, we're over here!!". Anybody can look at it, and we can actually see where their rhetoric is coming from.

With RT, it's a bit more shady. Nobody really knows who it's supposed to appeal to, or exactly how-in bed it is with the Russian govt. And of course it's propaganda, but nobody gets this. They've styled it after the likes of NBC or BBC, which has basically put a new face on an old foe. Goddamn. Very Soviet-esque.

Sorry, that was a rant. Still a good idea in including it on the list. When you see it for the first time, it's very surprising, and in a way, scary. Good geopolitical(?) learning experience though

Even if you think RT is rubbish, they do fact check and aside from the weird business section - and yes it is weird - I (personally) rarely see them make any factual errors, unlike New York Times, the "paper of record", that has to run a whole fucking page for corrections every other day because it is a sewer of lies and propaganda. And in a sea of hyper right wing corporate media that is little more than stenographers for Washington, RT simply does not have the resources to brainwash the masses. For some people, RT is their first contact with views that run counter to the US narrative that dominates every spectrum of English media. Furthermore, I seriously doubt any American, at least, can go to RT without having already endured 15 or so years of institutionalized indoctrination against everything associated with Russia.

Comparing it with Fox news is just bizarre. Fox doesn't even bother with things like facts or news or information. It's just a 24/hour circus of hate.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be insulting, I just don't buy your argument.

[Comrade Jacob]

I haven't watched tv for about a year also but that wasn't for a ethical or psychological reason, mainly cos it's just shit on.
I'm not gunna lie I mainly get my news from threads.

[Crabbensmasher]

Even if you think RT is rubbish, they do fact check and aside from the weird business section - and yes it is weird - I (personally) rarely see them make any factual errors, unlike New York Times, the "paper of record", that has to run a whole fucking page for corrections every other day because it is a sewer of lies and propaganda. And in a sea of hyper right wing corporate media that is little more than stenographers for Washington, RT simply does not have the resources to brainwash the masses. For some people, RT is their first contact with views that run counter to the US narrative that dominates every spectrum of English media. Furthermore, I seriously doubt any American, at least, can go to RT without having already endured 15 or so years of institutionalized indoctrination against everything associated with Russia.

Comparing it with Fox news is just bizarre. Fox doesn't even bother with things like facts or news or information. It's just a 24/hour circus of hate.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be insulting, I just don't buy your argument.

Haha, I'm not trying to sell my argument. It was more of a rant, really

Sure, the New York Times is a 'sewer of lies and propaganda', but RT isn't a fucking angel in comparison. Just because they fact check doesn't mean they aren't a fountain of sensationalist, rhetorical nonsense. Like, I'd really like to be convinced otherwise, but it seems like everything they air is straight out of Putin's mouth. Out of desperation, they bring in the most outlandish, sensationalized guest stars to justify this, almost out of spite for American media. The 'hyper rightwing corporate media' is just replaced by the 'hyper rightwing government media', as if the two weren't already indistinguishable enough. Like, you're being shot by the same bullet.

But yes, in the end, you're right. For a lot of people, RT is their first contact they have with views counter to the US narrative. This, I think is extremely valuable. To claim that it's a bastion of liberalism in comparison, however, is ridiculous (not saying your doing this).

If anything, it's a lesson on how the ruling classes manipulate the media close to home AS WELL AS abroad.

[Left Voice]

I share the critisism of RT - as an alternative news source in themselves, they intentionally target people outside of the mainstream political spectrum. As a result, it has its followers in both the far left and far right. But a quick peek at the comments section of any article gives away where the bulk of the readers come from - constant anti-Semitic, racist and fascist comments. They essentially report the Kremlin line, as demonstrated by their reporting of Crimea.

On the other hand, they report stories that the western media don't like to report. So they have their place. Like pretty much every news source, you need to take it with a pinch of salt, read between the lines and have the intelligence to spot the propaganda.

[AmilcarCabral]

The best websites for real communist news are http://www.workers.org http://www.marxist.com http://www.wsws.org and many others. However you have to beware of alternative news sites, because not every alternative news site is communist. Many alternative news websites are social-democrat, and centrists like http://www.commondreams.org http://www.alternet.org and http://www.counterpunch.org

So try to rely on pure leftist communist websites that are far to the left


.




I gave up Television last year and have since been in an information vacuum. This was partly for psychological reasons as I realized how much Television could be responsible for causing my depression (after reading Remotely Controlled by Dr. Aric Sigman).

if you're in the same boat and have a mental illness- this is a MUST as it has certainly helped not having my moods manipulated on cue to want to buy stuff, fit in, agree with the 'expert' opinion of lobbyists and live in constant fear of terrorism, climate change and totalitarianism. etc.

It was at first "difficult" because it felt like an "extreme" thing to do and the sense of being the guy in the conversation who doesn't know what everyone else is talking about is a problem... until you realize they don't have clue either and are they're just repeating what they've been told. And then you have the scarey moment when you understand why getting people to support fascism was so easy... :crying:

However, each time I turn it on the TV now is unbearable as I have become "re-sensitized" to it and can see it's commercial and political propaganda. I've "coped" by having a few major newspapers in my Facebook feed, but I recognize just how badly informed I've been over the years and need something to get my teeth in to so I have a decent chance of knowing what is going on.

So I was wondering where people on Revleft gets their news from if they don't trust the mainstream media. who do you trust and why?

[Comrade #138672]

You should not be scared of the mass media. You just need to stay in control, but you do not have to completely shut yourself off from the world. Actually, I would advise against that. You need to stay in touch. You just need to remember a few things:

1) Not everything that appears on the mass media is a lie.
2) Even though the ruling class generally controls the mass media, this does not mean that the interests of individual news reporters etc. perfectly coincide with the interests of the ruling class as a whole. As a matter of fact, capitalists are fighting each other all the time.
3) You need to know what is going on, what other people are watching, how they understand the world, etc.
4) You need to watch, analyze and understand your enemy.

[SHORAS]

I used to get my news from the Libcom.org forums because people actually in the places used to tell you what was really happening and usually with a class perspective. However, this is not really the case anymore apart from a few exceptions. People just tend to post links or bourgeois news reports. This aspect of the forum has really gone down hill. I usually get some news from leftist and communist sources as well as some bourgeois sources.

[AmilcarCabral]

Most people in the internet, even the people who say that they are leftists, and who use pictures and avatars of Che Gueara, Karl Marx, Lenin on Facebook and many social networks are not really hungry and crazy for a desperate change toward a world where all nations are ruled under workers-dictatorships, under workers-states. Most people even leftists conform to Bernie Sanders and welfare-state capitalist systems with a human face.

That's why Facebook and many other social networks are so depressive for orthodox, dogmatic, perfeectionist Marxists and for perfectionist people who love to do things "by the book". Most people hate following the dictates and theories of original thinkers like Marx, Descartes, Voltaire, etc. They are content with plagiarized books, and with Norway state-capitalist systems (and they label Norway state-capitalist systems with free medical care, and free college degrees and other great social programs "socialism"

Even though a Norway social-democratic weflare capitalist system with free medical care and free university professions is a lot better than the oligarchic neoliberal capitalist system we have in USA. Norway welfare capitalist system with human face is not socialism at all, and it is still capitalism. But like I said people hate doing things "by the book"

That's why I hate Facebook, Twitter and most social networks because people are not too perfectionist, too orthodox in politics, philosophy or any other topics


.


.




I used to get my news from the Libcom.org forums because people actually in the places used to tell you what was really happening and usually with a class perspective. However, this is not really the case anymore apart from a few exceptions. People just tend to post links or bourgeois news reports. This aspect of the forum has really gone down hill. I usually get some news from leftist and communist sources as well as some bourgeois sources.

[Firebrand]

Read right wing newspapers. Left wing newspapers tell the lies they want you to believe or think they can get you to believe. Right wing newspapers are how they keep the story straight. You get a lot more useful information listening to what they say to each other than you do listening to what they say to you.

[Five Year Plan]

I still prefer the newspaper. Every other news source is or has the ability to be updated around the clock, creating a non-stop diffusion, almost stream-of-consciousness fixation on minute details I don't need to know in order to keep myself informed. Because the newspaper is once a day, the writers and editors are compelled to tell me the stuff they think I need to know, and leave it at that, so that I efficiently get the gist of everything. I also like how the physical medium is configured to spatially confirm the stories deemed most important (the "leads") from the stories deemed less important.

I find I am more informed with this approach, which occupies perhaps fifteen to twenty minutes of my time, than people I know who spend hours sifting through news on tv. In fact, I tuned into tv news briefly last night just to create background drone for other work I was doing, and was half-paying attention. After about thirty minutes, I couldn't understand how anybody could understand anything about the world through such an approach to the "news." It was virtually impossible to separate speculation about arcane and irrelevant trivia, from established and important facts. It was like overhearing an impromptu gossip session between friends.

Of course it helps to supplement the newspaper (preferably national) with specialized sources, online or otherwise, related to whatever your pet interests are, and to check for different perspectives on the same story (always dig deeper if something doesn't smell right). But usually a newspaper a day keeps the ignorance away, at least ignorance of what is considered general knowledge.

[Quail]

I like newspapers too, partly because on the internet there are so many different stories about stuff I don't really know how best to figure out what I should read, but in a newspaper you get a bit of everything. Obviously you have to keep in mind the biases of the particular paper you're reading, but everything you read will have biases.

Also newspapers have a crossword ;)

[AmilcarCabral]

aufheben: And I'd go further and more radical than you. You know reading requires eye-muscles, just like walking requires our leg-muscles. And instead of spending our reading energies reading the long boring articles of great alternative leftist news websites like http://www.counterpunch.org http://www.workers.org http://www.marxist.com etc. I think it's a lot wiser for our self-esteem, motivation and leftist communist goals to read philosophers and marxist philosophers like Marx, Descartes, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Lenin, Feuerbarch, Engels etc. Great masters great thinkers like those ones even though their writings are writen many years ago, are a lot better than reading articles from leftist thinkers such as Chris Hedges, Michael Parenti, and Noam Chomsky.

So I think the writings of Amadeo Bordiga, Kant, Schopenhauer, Voltaire and Karl Marx are more radical, more powerful, more motivational than the articles and news of http://www.commondreams.org http://www.counterpunch.org http://www.workers.org etc.

I have been reading alternative news since 9-11, and I still find that most alternative news websites like http://www.counterpunch.org are great at hating capitalism, hating the Israeli government, hating banks, hating Democrats, hating Republicans, hating wars. But where they fail is at offering a solution: which is party-building, the building a powerful leftist labor party as a vehicle of salvation for the poor people of America.

That's like The Russia Today News, they are great at critisizing wars, Obama, Republicans but suck at offering people a solution, which is the creation of communist labor parties


.



I still prefer the newspaper. Every other news source is or has the ability to be updated around the clock, creating a non-stop diffusion, almost stream-of-consciousness fixation on minute details I don't need to know in order to keep myself informed. Because the newspaper is once a day, the writers and editors are compelled to tell me the stuff they think I need to know, and leave it at that, so that I efficiently get the gist of everything. I also like how the physical medium is configured to spatially confirm the stories deemed most important (the "leads") from the stories deemed less important.

I find I am more informed with this approach, which occupies perhaps fifteen to twenty minutes of my time, than people I know who spend hours sifting through news on tv. In fact, I tuned into tv news briefly last night just to create background drone for other work I was doing, and was half-paying attention. After about thirty minutes, I couldn't understand how anybody could understand anything about the world through such an approach to the "news." It was virtually impossible to separate speculation about arcane and irrelevant trivia, from established and important facts. It was like overhearing an impromptu gossip session between friends.

Of course it helps to supplement the newspaper (preferably national) with specialized sources, online or otherwise, related to whatever your pet interests are, and to check for different perspectives on the same story (always dig deeper if something doesn't smell right). But usually a newspaper a day keeps the ignorance away, at least ignorance of what is considered general knowledge.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

http://www.labourstart.org at least provides up-to-date news on global labour struggles iirc

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

Be careful of any site that proclaims to be 'alternative'.

At best, they may highlight certain events (such as protests) which the other news doesn't cover because they're either too small or they genuinely oppose them ideologically. Or it's opinion/commentary, which is fine, but it's not news.

At worst, it's conspiracy theory bullshit (often anti-semitic), which everyone on the left should stay away from.

Generally, you should actually stick the so-called "mainstream" media - particularly the British - because they actually have trained journalists working for them and the resources to actually cover major events and stories. Yes, you should always read/watch with open eyes and a critical mind, but it's better than relying on the crackpots. RT actually are among the better of the crackpot media outlets because they at least have the money behind them to produce real news, but they do uncritically interview a lot of unsavoury people (like Alex Jones) and their coverage of stuff like Syria or anywhere Putin has an interest is usually appalling. I know the BBC and Al Jazeera have agendas too, but they're not as bad at it as RT.

Me, I stick to the Guardian. Or the Financial Times (which Chomsky also recommends as the best source of journalism)

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

And to those who don't read any news (and I mean news, not theory or opinion pieces) or watch any TV - how precisely are you going to critically analyse capitalism and society if you don't know the world it exists in?

[Red Economist]

Be careful of any site that proclaims to be 'alternative'.

At best, they may highlight certain events (such as protests) which the other news doesn't cover because they're either too small or they genuinely oppose them ideologically. Or it's opinion/commentary, which is fine, but it's not news.

I'll keep this in mind. I get the impression that a lot of protests are really staged events to get media coverage, rather than to actually change things.


And to those who don't read any news (and I mean news, not theory or opinion pieces) or watch any TV - how precisely are you going to critically analyse capitalism and society if you don't know the world it exists in?

I've learned to live without TV and to a large extent the News (I get the Guardian on my Facebook newsfeed). Strangely, I don't miss it at all as for the most part it's bourgeois news for the bourgeoisie and you realise it has almost nothing to do with you or the daily grind 90% of the time. Politics on the News is a stage play acted out for audience of consumers and spectators, rather than people who want to be active. The news tells you about the problems, but it is always their solutions. At best it can only give something 'context'.

Rather, I'm just 'waking up' and looking at some of the social issues in my own local area and getting to know the place a little better with time. it's a much more 'real' and personal experience and your less likely to be tricked by the propaganda and quite simply have to start thinking for yourself if your to understand what's going on and interpret what your seeing.