
How Millennials Get News - johnny99
http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/millennials-news/?1=2
======
brc
The reverse of this is of course baby boomer generations who hate what the
news has become (TV and Newspaper) yet slavishly consume it anyway, because of
a lifetime habit.

Whenever I see an older relative frothing about some stupid article in the
newspaper, or some pointless piece on TV - I just say 'why not switch it off?
Why buy the paper anyway?'

I don't watch the news or read newspapers anymore, unless I happen to be in
the vicinity of either by accident. If something important happens, I find
out. Everyone does. Neighbours, people you work with - they're always
delighted to share news you didn't hear about, and they don't drop in ads.

In the case of TV news and newspapers - lets say 6 hours a week glued to the
talking heads and 4 hours a week in the paper = 500 hours a year - 12 24hr
days in total, or 24 12hr days. All so they can sell your eyeballs to the
highest bidder. Who wouldn't like 24 extra days time to do as they please
with?

Stop paying attention to the media. You end up selling your time for pennies
worth of benefit.

~~~
puranjay
News has been able to sell itself with the dictum that you "have to know
what's happening!"

In reality, you really don't need to know what's happening around the world.
Seriously. 95% of the news you read does not impact you in any meaningful way.
Most of it is negative (which is the very nature of news) and too little of it
concerns you in your immediate surroundings.

So yeah. You don't need to news. At least not 90% of what passes for news
these days.

~~~
coldpie
> News has been able to sell itself with the dictum that you "have to know
> what's happening!"

Yeah. A couple years ago when I was about 24, I decided I "should be more
informed" because that's what adults do, so I bought a year subscription to
Minneapolis's major newspaper with the goal of reading it mostly every day. I
did for a while, but quickly realised that I didn't give a shit about almost
anything in the paper. And worse, the things I read made me actively
depressed. You know what? I don't care about how the war in Iraq is going. I
don't care what some dumb conservative politician had to say about my friends
and family. I don't care what crazy shit Russia or North Korea are getting up
to. I don't care how many people are dying in a genocide on the other side of
the world.

I guess maybe that makes me a bad person or something, but boy am I happier
and more productive not knowing it. I canceled that subscription and I'm never
looking back. "Keeping up with the news" was one of the worst things I ever
did.

~~~
asr
_I don 't care about how the war in Iraq is going.... I don't care how many
people are dying in a genocide on the other side of the world._

I am sure this is not quite how you mean it, but to me this comes across as
saying "if it doesn't affect my life, or my friends, then who cares." You
should care about things that don't directly impact your life -- partly
because you _can_ make a difference in these things, sometimes, if you get
involved.

Time to get out of the shire and see the world, bilbo.

~~~
coldpie
> I am sure this is not quite how you mean it, but to me this comes across as
> saying "if it doesn't affect my life, or my friends, then who cares."

No, that sounds about right. I don't blame others for caring, or think they
shouldn't care. In fact, I'm glad they do. But I don't.

> You should care about things that don't directly impact your life -- partly
> because you can make a difference in these things, sometimes, if you get
> involved.

Fixing the military industrial complex or some other country's fucked up
government isn't really on my TODO list. For better or worse, it's not how I
want to spend my life.

------
codemac
The one part I can't believe is that 86% of people think they're "Usually
[seeing] diverse opinions through social media".

The "filter bubble" is going to get worse and worse, it seems. Has anyone had
any good experiences where a piece of information technology (forum, reddit,
twitter, insta, etc) didn't encourage a filter bubble?

~~~
proksoup
Trolls cross the lines.

"If you don't agree with the person who made this video why are you posting
here?!?! Get a life troll!"

Trolls is the heroes of the internet, the diversity.

~~~
angersock
The few, the proud, the unwilling to be quietly wrong in their own corner.

You need us. :)

~~~
cbd1984
Nobody needs the people who harass others and attempt to ridicule them into
silence.

~~~
angersock
Incorrect without further qualification.

There are people in the set of "others" who very much deserve harassment and
ridicule--consider people actively working against the common good, like
Scientologists or other online trolls or robber barons or city bosses.

~~~
cbd1984
Internet trolls are the people who dox others and drive them to suicide.

We can achieve more without them than with them.

~~~
proksoup
I suppose we both could have said "some" eh.

------
Spooky23
Let's be real here, national mainstream electronic media is somewhere between
outright propaganda (yesterday's revelation and pictures of ISIS cross
dressing soldiers retreating) and inane press release political fodder
(sources in the White House report some BS that everyone knew anyway), and
tabloid stuff.

In the old days 1994, there was at least some journalistic content on the news
with Peter Jennings.

If you give a hoot about current events, the news isn't where you scratch that
itch!

~~~
cbd1984
> In the old days 1994, there was at least some journalistic content on the
> news with Peter Jennings.

And people from a prior generation laughed at the idea of Peter Jennings being
'journalistic' and pinned their ideals on Brinkley and Huntley. Basically,
this statement says nothing and means nothing, because it's just a
generational marker, nothing more.

~~~
Spooky23
That's a total gloss-over.

Broadcast news started out as an FCC mandate for licensing purpose, and a
differentiator where more quality made a difference in the performance of the
network. As the number of channels increased and mandates decreased, they
shifted to a more "entertainy" format to keep viewers.

This stuff is all available online. Look at the information density of a
random broadcast in 1965, 1975, etc. Signal goes down, noise goes up.

~~~
cbd1984
> Broadcast news started out as an FCC mandate for licensing purpose, and a
> differentiator where more quality made a difference in the performance of
> the network.

Given the history of news, this is very doubtful, unless you define 'quality'
as 'more entertaining'.

------
Jedd
Interestingly they declined to define 'news' .. perhaps the study proper did,
though it's such a nebulous term that it's probably moot in any case.

Facebook is cited as being a primary source of news, yet items that I see pop
up in the 'news' block on FB are generally of the fashion, entertainment and
asinine activities of alleged celebrities variety... not news by my
definition.

~~~
cbd1984
As far as I'm concerned, a kidnapping case from two states away isn't news.

News is something which could affect me or which I could affect; if it's an
Amber Alert from my hometown or close by, it's news in a vague sense that, in
theory, I might have some effect on it. (Statistically I'd have a better shot
at winning a small prize in a lottery, but still...)

So: The Columbine school shooting? Not news. I've never lived near Columbine.
The laws and changing social attitudes as a result of that? News.

------
PebblesHD
'Millenials don't read newspapers' \- or, as I like to call it, 'Another
article telling you what young people do sourced from every possible avenue
other than asking young people'.

Under 30s are the biggest readers of the local newspapers at my university,
and the same can be said for my routing train travel and visits around the
area. Young people are using an amazingly diverse selection of news sources
that many older generations are simplly unaware of, or unwilling to admit.

not to mention, i don't care who you ask, if you mix 'social action and
entertainment' with news, the end result is something i would avoid like the
plague.

~~~
rmason
I live outside a college town and I have also observed that virtually all the
students read the college newspaper. In my travels I've witnessed the same
thing at other schools.

If young people aren't reading newspapers then where is the disconnect that
happens when they graduate? One thing that I have observed is that campus
newspapers are more focused on nighttime events which is not covered very well
if at all by our daily paper.

Anyone notice anything else?

~~~
RandallBrown
College papers are distributed for free all over a college campus.

I don't know if I've seen a paper version of the Seattle Times in the 3 years
I've lived here.

College papers tend to be much shorter and filled with hyper relevant news.

------
niels_olson
Am I the only what who came away thinking these must have been the most
leading questions every written in a poll?

------
ttty
So they are worried that have lost the power to persuade people??

Why would I want to know about a hurricane the other part of the world? IMO
99% of the news are junk, but is my opinion. Imagine all the time you lost on
being brain-washed.

------
funkyy
I am a bit tired to look at millennials like different species. If you want to
know things about them - ask them...

~~~
corysama
> If you want to know things about them - ask them...

That's exactly what they did... 1,046 times

