• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

The "news" is not "news"--it's carefully filtered propaganda. "Talk radio" is entertainment, not engagement; it too is another form of propaganda. (Who owns the radio station networks and how much money do they reap off "talk radio"? Cui bono--to whose benefit?)

The only hope of avoiding pure propaganda is to read a variety of sourced materials. If you get your "news" from one source, then the editor has shaped your experience. The only way to avoid that is to become your own editor: browse a variety of sources on the Web, including independent blogs and reputable global sources of mainstream reporting such as The Economist, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Atlantic, National Review, etc. as well as smaller publications and local sources.

Yes, these sources have been carefully edited to support a status quo politics of experience but with a wide enough "harvest" of sources then it's possible to see through much of the blatant propaganda or at least become skeptical of received wisdom/conclusions (always ask cui bono).

Reading reportage from overseas (for instance, the Financial Times) is a good way to avoid confirmation bias which is the tendency to read only what supports your current views.

An hour of TV "news" (if it bleeds, it leads) provides the "nutrition" of a small package of potato chips: not just zero, but a destructive serving of fat. The same hour spent on the Web simply browsing a half-dozen sources can be an actual "meal."

As noted above, TV programming offers the attractive illusion of value: the cooking show, the travel show, the history program, etc. have some content beyond entertainment (which remains their primary goal). But the "content" is a simulacrum of real knowledge; a hundred hours of watching cooking programs teaches less than fifteen minutes of actually cooking/baking.

Yes, there is some value in PBS programming (Nature, NOVA, American Masters, Frontline, etc.) and some BBC programming, but we should never confuse passive watching with the pursuit of mastery or the acquisition of experiential capital.

In that sense, every hour of passive watching takes away an hour which could have been spent acquiring some individual capital (skills, knowledge, etc.).

The goal is simple: limit the consumption of mass media propaganda/marketing, as it is designed to encourage a passive consumerist politics of experience.

Many of my blog readers report that the solution which works for their household is to cancel cable TV entirely or even get rid of the household TVs.

What works for me is to avoid watching any "news" other than the occasional PBS Frontline which takes one issue and devotes an hour to that one topic. Like any other "news," it is edited to present a specific point of view, and thus skepticism is in order. The point is that a few minutes of network "news" is not enough to provide anything more than a superficial and thus misleading jolt of packaged "news."

I have a few favorite shows and when there is new programming then I watch a few hours of TV a week. As noted above, an integrated understanding is not dictatorial; it simply focuses our attention on what's in our best interests and what is not in our best interests. If we need some entertainment, maybe a film or documentary is a better choice than network/Cable TV.

There are so many wonderful documentaries and films, why waste a minute on completely worthless network/cable TV programming? This is why I maintain lists of movies and documentaries (as well as books) on my website. I don't keep exact count but the lists include over 600 books and films--many suggested to me by readers.

Personally, I find network "sports" to be unfulfilling in terms of what I enjoy about sports. I would rather watch a local high school game in the real world than some corporate simulacrum of the "local team"--a program which is essentially advertising packaged with a bit of mostly boring "sports." I'd rather play than watch, and if I'm going to watch,