"Oh I never watch the news"

[oklumberjack]

Ok, I feeling really judgemental about this I'll admit, but here goes.

I went out for dinner this week with some school mum's from the primary my dd has just left. These women are acquaintances of mine. Nice women, friendly but I don't consider them my closest friends.

Over the course of lunch, we were discussing our summer etc. I mentioned the Olympics and something about Theresa May. They all looked blankly at me. All 5 of them said they hadn't seen any Olympics and had no idea how we'd done. 3 of them had not even heard of Theresa May. The conversation then got on to how they never watch the news, or read a newspaper or even access it online. As soon as news comes on they turn over. I was shocked. I kept very quiet that I'm a Radio 4 and 5live listener, avid Daily Politics watcher and rather enjoyed watching the cycling,rowing and diving at the Olympics on the BBC.

However they could tell me all about Love Island, Big Brother and TOWIE which is where the conversation went next. I felt really out of place. They seemed to think that being interested in the news made you some kind of snob.

Ok, so we're out of step in what we like. We probably won't hang out much in the future, however please tell me I'm not really unusual in checking in with the news at least twice a day!

Never watch news on TV but am woken by R4 so that keeps me up to date. Haven't read a newspaper for years, surprised that more of them have not gone digital only. I don't like TV news, particularly when there's been a terrorist attack/natural disaster or whatever, they seem almost gleeful at reporting what's gone on, jetting off to wherever, jostling for space with the thousands of other reporters from around the world ... why don't they all stay away and give the huge sums of money it costs to that country's relief fund or whatever? Surely one news team can produce info to be relayed to all the other countries?

Forgot to add, I would have asked those 'friends' if they vote ... they're not really entitled to do so without having the faintest clue what's going on in the real world.

My 3 year old daughter knows who Theresa May is. I can't understand how a grown adult has less knowledge about who runs their country than a preschooler.

Also, being asked who the PM is is one of the mental health assessment questions. Perhaps they'll have to ask what's the latest TOWIE update or something!

Don't see the need, myself. It seems a perfect yardstick.

Remember, 50% of the population are below average intelligence.

Yanbu - even my 5 year old knows who Teresa May is! And David Cameron!

I think some people are missing the point a bit. It's not about specifically watching (or reading) the news. It's about being generally informed about the world around you.

As pointed out above, to not know who the current PM is you would have to be actively avoiding or blocking out certain kinds of information. To do that, and then to consider anyone else who does have this fairly basic knowledge to be 'snobby' does point to a certain amount of narrow mindedness and wilful ignorance.

Shrugging away not knowing fuck all about THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN is why this country will be on its knees soon. It's not just about reading the news. The 99% are bring shat on from a great height by the super rich and so called politicians because not enough of us are engaged in politics. Stock up on beans.

Even my 6 year old knows who Theresa May is. I'm amazed people as so ill informed. I get that people don't know the detail but not to know who the PM is, shocking

What's the face for Soubriquet?
It is as common knowledge as knowing what month we're in.
Honestly I'm still thinking you're joking.

I remember vividly when Tony Blair was elected and understanding he was the new prime minister, when I was 7. It was never mentioned at school, and I don't recall my parents ever discussing it and we didn't have the Internet or the power and ease of information sharing that we do now. But even then it was such huge news that it was impossible to miss it.

I am mid 30s, never watch the news, know nothing about politics (don't understand a thing about it).

I knew Theresa May had taken over because the Prime Minister resigned but know no more than that (including what a PM even does?!)

I knew the voting has taken place for Brexit (don't know why it was called that or what impact it has)

Neither do I watch fake reality TV regularly

Not sure why the face Soubriquet
She asked who that lady was who was on the news, we told her it was the PM and she remembered.

Just 50%, lurking?

news & Olympics vs TOWIE & BB?? I'm with you OP! 😎😎😎😎😎
I find the trending things on the sidebar of FB so funny because I have no clue who many of the names listed are... Celeb news is the news that I avoid like the plague!!

I will make myself aware of the changes when my TV license is up for renewal. I have no idea when that is.

That's fine, if you've got a license, but if you haven't, and don't keep up with current affairs, how do you know that you are no longer viewing catch up TV legally?

Similarly, if you are a smoker who doesn't keep up with current affairs, how do you know it is now illegal to smoke in a car with children present?
If you are a dog owner, who doesn't keep up with current affairs, how do you know that it is now a legal requirement to have your dog microchipped?

And what about recalled products? Is it really OK to put your child or grandchild at risk because you didn't keep up with current affairs and weren't bothered about the fact that the stairgate you bought last week has been recalled because of a life threatening design flaw?

Isn't there a moral responsibility as a member of a democratic society to ensure you are informed?

I find the trending things on the sidebar of FB so funny because I have no clue who many of the names listed are

I am adept at filtering out celeb-twaddle; I don't know what reality TV shows are current, I can't remember the names of the celebs who visited my home town recently, I have no interest in their personal lives or wider info about them.

I can understand HOW someone can filter out current affairs, and may even understand the reasons for doing so, but isn't it a necessary part of modern life, just like brushing your teeth? Something that is tedious, appears pointless but not to do so leads to unpleasant consequences?

Returning to the thread! i agree that a basic working knowledge is needed, but not that this require watching the news religiously. Great if you enjoy it obviously.

I also think that people are mistaking knowledge with news. I would rather someone with a deep understanding of history, for example, voted rather than a newshound. I find this virtuous feeling because you know what's going on for its own sake a bit odd.

You can be intellectually curious without really following the news to a great degree.

Just research around voting time - no need to watch the news obsessively for the 4 years in between if you don't want to.

It seems ironic that in this day and age, when so much information is available at our fingertips, that people would actively choose to be uninformed. But perhaps part of the problem is the overabundance of information (or it might be more accurate to say "sensory input"). My students often seem appallingly ill-informed about history and current events. However, they are attached to their phones virtually every moment of the day. They could find out about the world around them if they chose to. And yet most of them choose not to. Rather, they use the technology available for their own purposes, e.g. interacting with friends or reading gossip on FB or Twitter or whatever. And these are bright young people (university students). Of course, not all of them actively avoid learning about the news. But it is a high enough percentage to be noticeable.

The explosion of easy access to information seems to have resulted in many people simply tuning it out. The 24-hour news cycle has perhaps dulled our senses. When every banal event receives the sensational label of "Breaking news!" it can be difficult to separate the significant from the trivial.

What confuses me is it just be really difficult to avoid the news....you must have to actively try not to hear it! My 5 year old knows who the prime minister is, not because I've gone out if my way to tell her, but because she heard the news on the radio when we're in the car.

I find mainstream news incredibly one sided and/or full of propaganda, so Twitter enables me to source the news I want.

Be careful. Using only Twitter can mean you only hear viewpoints that you agree with or follow - it becomes an echo chamber and out of touch. This happened with Brexit - Remainers hadn't a clue that millions of others felt differently to them and their circle.

I know people who never watch the news or read papers. Total disengagement from current affairs. I get the impression it's due to anxiety.

Be careful. Using only Twitter can mean you only hear viewpoints that you agree with or follow - it becomes an echo chamber and out of touch. This happened with Brexit - Remainers hadn't a clue that millions of others felt differently to them and their circle

I completely agree. In a wider sense it's also true of you only read books recommended to you by an algorithm based on books you've previously read etc. It narrows out view and stops us being exposed to other viewpoints.

I agree that social media can be an echo chamber, but so can actual news media. People are, I think, increasingly selective about what they expose themselves to - there's so much choice.

Sometimes news can be overwhelming, especially with the amount of social media we use now. I wonder what it would be like to have a total news blackout for a week. I agree we should have a general idea of what's going on as it affects us, even non-directly. But sometimes I wonder what it would be like to step back in time when you only really knew about local news and the stuff that happened in central gov/the rest of the world were reiterated through nursery rhymes or gossip.

Remember, 50% of the population are below average intelligence

That depends how you define average

Police and emergency services regularly use the media to distribute messages and appeals - and even call press conferences as part of their investigation technique.

The media should not be a tool of the police or any other authority.That is detrimental to the public.

Obviously they are, but in an ideal world, they shouldn't be.

Authorities often call press conferences when they feel like it. When they don't want to do it, they don't even though reporters might think it is something worth knowing and information is being withheld for the benefit of the organisation to the detriment of the community.

It happens, and I accept it. I expect them to accept that there is no obligation on news outlets to report whatever the police or any other public body feels is newsworthy.

As a journalist I have often felt it is morally wrong for the police to attempt to use me as part of their investigatory techniques, and they do so all the time - or do you think that there is nothing the police can do to stop reporters harassing people they believe to be of interest?

Isn't there a moral responsibility as a member of a democratic society to ensure you are informed?

Possibly. Depends what the information is and how you weigh up the benefits and costs or revealing or withholding it. It's an interesting moral dilemma