Am I Bothered?

I've been in the USA for four months now and haven't bought a single newspaper.  And, even though I've got the World's Biggest Telly, it's not actually connected to any broadcast media.

It's surprising to me that, without the lure of familiar media brands - or the come-hither sports/celebrity news headlines - newspapers hold no real appeal for me here.  Not because they're bad, or dumb or US-centric....but because....well...I just don't really care...

I occasionally read the news on the BBC website and listen to Radio 4 but I'm much less well informed about 'current affairs' than I ever was in the UK.  Or perhaps not.  Perhaps just less full of other people's opinions - ever changing according to my media choices.

It's refreshing to escape from the tyranny of newspapers and telly for a while - freeing up whole days for discovering new music, watching movies and reading books I've been meaning to for years..

I'm not sure what I'm saying here.  Just that I'm pretty relaxed about being 'less well informed' about immediate news headlines....because the trade off is more time to think about things that actually interest me.

Is this the American malaise?  Is this why the 'Dumb American' cliche is so sticky?  Well here's a thought - proper international news is, of course, easily available here but you have to actively seek it out.  The evening news shows don't cover international events in the way that anyone living in the UK is accustomed to.  So it really is very easy indeed not to engage.  And to spend that time doing stuff that you enjoy instead.  And yet I meet loads and loads of very well informed people in San Francisco.  I just wonder - if I'd grown up here rather than on a small, rainy island, would I be so determined to find out what's going on? 

I suspect I might have been a right dumb-ass.

Comments

[JONATHAN BOTTOMLEY]

i have been pondering this exact point.

in this instant news "look on my camera phone, they're alive praise the lord, oh, bugger, they're not, they're dead, sorry" age, the genius of a newspaper should be that it is detached from feeding us the as it happens frenzy of the 24hr news channels.

newspapers have the distinct advantage of stepping back and giving a considered point of view - the newsnight of all news sources.

that's why they're great and that's why i am absurdly dependent on them.

far from never buying A newspaper, buying THE papers is the first thing i do upon leaving the house every day. on sunday, i often buy 3 of the bastards. so of course i'm more informed than you. of course i know more about the constantly shifting sands of global affairs than you.

problem is, that's not the way it works. newspapers have become like so much confectionary. you can't just have your basic jaffa cake. no. you've got jaffa bars; jaffa mini's; the big jaffa; lunch em jaffa's; the jaffa lite; white jaffa's; lemon jaffa's.

one good idea, bastardised, cloned and kicked into a series of less good, ripped off extensions. all to offer 'new ways in' to the mighty brand.

even here, the home of the fourth estate, where the peerless press bestrides the universe with it's weighty pomp, defining global policy and getting football managers sacked, newspapers serve mainly to perpetuate their own existence and to expand like colonies of german bacteria across the mediascape. there isn't enough news to fill one broadsheet (sorry, berliner), let alone 4 others, 6 tabs, all the attendant websites and the various fluffzines that orbit their worlds.

and yet, each week, they add another brilliantly titled section to every paper:

woman, rise, knowledge, the insider, you, us, trick shot bluffer, right wing socialism, the handshaker, fuck tips.

the purpose of these new sections is, naturally, to expand the scope of the publication, so that 'the brand' has endless appeal.

but, naturally, what you actually get is a range of pointless supplements, full of desperately seeking importance 30 somethings (head of food features; blog sub editor; fashion & technology gush bitch) bleating unconvincingly ABOUT THE SAME FUCKING STORY.

eg

main section - the new beatles? teenage monkeys biggest band in 50 years.

sport - wednesday seek arctic wind of change

review - we were acting the monkey 10 years ago: why shed 7 are better than the arctics

business - cheeky monkeys bring smile back to emi

technology - blog your way to stardom: even a monkey can do it

woman - why teen and northern has never been sexier

food - eating it real: arctic monkeys take us to their favourite chip shops

travel - sheffield calling etc

newspapers exist mainly to fill their own (ever increasing number of) pages. that's it! of course you FEEL out of touch if you don't read them, but as long as you can bear to miss out on 'the secrets of chantelle's brazilian' or mark oaten's 'unspeakable depravity' or 'why we're all dressing like saddam' or 'cameron: the 1st podcast pm', you may just survive.

just don't eat that fucking wierd bacon.

is it really necessary to be as up to the minute as they (the people that broadcast the news) would have you believe. and should you really feel like an unengaged nincompoop if you are not?

the second

[pook]

Crikey, what a rant! All true though. It's all self-referential rubbish.

I say you can't go wrong just getting stuck into the Economist once a week. It wheedles out all the gumpf and gives you all the lowdown you need on what's going on in the world (as well as lots of rubbish about local Belarus elections and insurance futures markets or whatever)

PS: Vote Tory.

[Bethez]

it's still fun pop music though, isn't it?

newspapers exist to make money for proprieters, and therefore to keep their share of a dwindling market they have to brand themselves to fuck editorially. the mail will always take an anti-government stance, the guardian will always knock big business, the tele will always say the government is short-changing the army, etc, etc. ultimately they preach to the converted.

despite this, the huge choice we have is a good thing - if you apply your own judgement to sort the wheat from the chaff. Sky News is great for breaking stories, Newsnight for shouting, channel 4 for a bit of left and a bright tie, FT for balance, Times for sport, tabs for scut. And that's before you look at all the brilliant web sites, blogs, and the rest.

but, all in all, why would you ever read the papers if you weren't interested in what's in them?!

[Jonnyeye]

Hell's bells!

It's like virtual Question Time.

I feel I should spin the conversation off in an interesting new direction. But I've just come back from a two day briefing for Sara Lee cakes in Chicago and my brain feels like the Jaffa-Cake-Orange-Membrane...

Now, it's not been released here yet - but should I get the Artic Monkeys or not....?

Also, anyone for the Coachella festival?

http://www.nme.com/festivals/news/22108

[Joan268]

http://www.exactcopies.co.uk/designer-louis-vuitton-utah-leather-bags-223.htmlI feel I should spin the conversation off in an interesting new direction.