Most horrific popular media

[Architect]

I abandoned popular media ages ago, except after 9/11 I started reading Yahoo to see what was going on in the Zeit. I'm getting ready to break that habit as its really gone down hill.

Popular media is a horror show to an INTP. What made me think of that on Yahoo was a top line story about the latest Dancing With the Stars show. It had a picture of a seriously overweight Winona Judd dancing with some guy in a "Prom Night" theme. I can't describe the horror of the idea of watching this, or even worse performing in it.

Others?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I only read tech sites or zerohedge. I don't really have your problem.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I abandoned popular media ages ago, except after 9/11 I started reading Yahoo to see what was going on in the Zeit. I'm getting ready to break that habit as its really gone down hill.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/

 

[Cognisant]

I get my news from The Escapist (the website), New Scientist (which is about as educational as can be expected of a weekly publication) and good old forum gossip/speculation.

In my experience the actual news is usually anything but.

 

[snafupants]

MSNBC is basically nonsense. Pew Research about a month ago said MSNBC had the most opinion of all major media outlets, even FoxNews. If you listen to the primetime shows at MSNBC (e.g., Rachel Maddow), you mainly hear liberal drivel and niche interests like gay rights. You can go a whole hour at MSNBC with only three or four facts. But anyway, the opinions aren't even interesting. You know beforehand what they will say about DOMA, war overseas or the Keystone Pipeline. It's just unoriginal.

 

[snafupants]

Popular media is a horror show to an INTP.

I totally agree. It's unbelievably frustrating for any intellectual to see dolts and their opinions valorized. Not only that, Time Warner and Viacom own and steer almost everything you see.

Time Warner Inc. (formerly AOL Time Warner) is an American multinational media corporation headquartered in the Time Warner Center in New York City.[3] As of mid-2010, it was the world's second largest media and entertainment conglomerate in terms of revenue (behind The Walt Disney Company), as well as the world's largest media conglomerate.[4][5][6][7]
Two formerly separate companies, Warner Communications, Inc. and Time Inc. (along with the assets of a third company, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.), form the current Time Warner, with major operations in film, television and publishing. Among its subsidiaries are New Line Cinema, Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, TheWB.com, Warner Bros., Kids' WB, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim, CNN, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Animation, Cartoon Network Studios, Hanna-Barbera and Castle Rock Entertainment.
Time Warner previously owned AOL, Time Warner Cable and Warner Music Group, but these have all been spun off into independent companies. In March 2013, it was announced that Time Inc. would be spun off as well, completing Time Warner's evolution into a pure-play global entertainment company.[8] The company's cable news channel, CNN, later clarified that the Time Inc. spin-off would happen at the end of 2013.[9]

Viacom Inc., short for "Video & Audio Communications", is an American global mass media company with interests primarily in, but not limited to, cinema and cable television. As of 2010, it is the world's fourth-largest media conglomerate, behind The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner and News Corporation. Viacom is owned in majority by National Amusements, Inc., a privately owned theater company based in Dedham, Massachusetts, USA.[2][3][4][5] National Amusements holds another controlling stake in CBS Corporation.
The current Viacom was created on December 31, 2005, as a spinoff from CBS Corporation, which changed its name from Viacom to CBS at the same time. CBS, not Viacom, retains control of the over-the-air broadcasting, TV production, outdoor advertising, subscription pay television (Showtime) and publishing assets (Simon & Schuster) formerly owned by the larger company. However, Sumner Redstone through National Amusements, retains majority control of Viacom. Predecessor firms of Viacom include Gulf+Western, which later became Paramount Communications Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Comprising BET Networks, MTV Networks, and Paramount Pictures, Viacom operates approximately 170 networks reaching more than 600 million subscribers in 160 countries.[1]

 

[snafupants]

The key (IMAO) is to locate trustworthy journalists (there are some) and understand the biases of individual news outlets. Better yet, read the bills and make up your own mind. That takes time and effort (and freethinking), though.

 

[Duxwing]

The key (IMAO) is to locate trustworthy journalists (there are some) and understand the biases of individual news outlets. Better yet, read the bills and make up your own mind. That takes time and effort (and freethinking), though.

Fully analyzing every bill is impractical: too much legislation is passed for any one person to be an expert on it all.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

Fully analyzing every bill is impractical: too much legislation is passed for any one person to be an expert on it all.

-Duxwing

Not only impractical - probably impossible.

 

[Valentas]

One friend of my told me this: "Nowadays, if you don't read popular media, you are becoming smarter then those who read it. "

It is truth because my country's main news sites never publishes anything interesting. I read New Scientist articles and stuff about programming. I don't feel like I missed anything without news sites

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Keeping up with the Kardashians...
16 and pregnant...
The abomination that the history channel has become...

The sheer amount of televised awfulness is staggering and yet so readily consumed.


At least Whose Line is coming back.

 

[Double_V]

Fully analyzing every bill is impractical: too much legislation is passed for any one person to be an expert on it all.

-Duxwing

And things in desperate need of passage, don't.

 

[Double_V]

Keeping up with the Kardashians...
16 and pregnant...
The abomination that the history channel has become...

The sheer amount of televised awfulness is staggering and yet so readily consumed.


At least Whose Line is coming back.

But is it really? Or is it just on because it's cheap to manufacture, and make a profit by advertising? I know of no one watching TV shows except for Pawn Stars (I like) and maybe American Pickers (totally staged - I'm personal friends with several of 'the regulars').

And as for news... I recently watched Good Morning America for 1 hr. What a mind numbing joke. MSNBC is great for liberal propaganda. And Yahoo, ugh what joke. So poorly written, and generally on topics of no importance. I'm ready to get tid of my email account there simply to rid myself of the drivel.

I used to Google news for a cross section of news. I now find it never puts up news about Obama unless one specifies exactly what they are looking for. Almost as tho in not covering him no one will become aware of what the effects of his presidency is.

I am so sick of social agendas being reported instead of events & facts.

And... I'm thrilled about Whose Line coming back!

 

[Absurdity]

I used to dedicate a lot of time to keeping up with the news and staying "informed." It came in handy occasionally, especially since I interned for a news org. Allowed me to fool my superiors into thinking I was smart.

The key is to read everything critically and not to take anything at face value. So, without further ado, here are some of my favorite news sources:

VICE: High-octane infotainment with no pretension to objectivity. Picture Johnny Knoxville reporting current events (which actually happened btw)
The Borowitz Report at the New Yorker: Excellent satire.
Al Jazeera English: Solid coverage of the Middle East, op-eds by lefties.
Russia Today: Good at covering anything that makes the US look bad. Usually one of the first to break major stories for whatever reason (ex-KGB reporters?). Occasionally interviews some real whackos though.
Reuters The Economist and WSJ: The most honest reporting in the UK and the US imo, because its readers are the ruling class and not the rabble. Op-eds can occasionally be garbage though.
zerohedge: Proxy already mentioned them. Twitter feed is hilarious, but some of the real technical stuff goes over my head.

If I'm watching any footage it's via YouTube. If I'm reading an article on something, I probably came across it in my Twitter feed. Welcome to the future, folks.

 

[Duxwing]

And things in desperate need of passage, don't.

I don't understand what you mean.

-Duxwing

 

[Mr Write]

I've a horrid fascination with this amazingly ass-backwards site Conservapedia.

I know there are such people, and have even had the misfortune of meeting a few myself; but I still have a hard time believing these wankers really exist.

 

[Architect]

My ESTJ sister once said "Archie, when will you join the rest of us and watch Survivor?"

Perfect ESTJ-INTP conversation.

 

[Double_V]

I don't understand what you mean.

-Duxwing

Volumes of legislation are passed, often without reading or understanding of those who are passing it. But, things that desperately need to get passed wait year after year to even get up to the floor to be approved.

I've has spent many hours of many days trying to get some things approved (or even some attention). In calling politicians offices it becomes crystal clear as to how they don't function, and how getting anything approved of substance is nearly impossible.

People who live in crisis every day and need politicians to do something can't get the time of day, while unimportant causes like Sandra Fluke who needs cheaper freer birth controll in even more places (apparently the college campus and Walmart are too far) gain political grand standing and national media spot lights.

And the other important causes? Completely unheard.

 

[Kuu]

Yahoo News is utter garbage, just like Google's. Thousands of "news articles" that are 90% the same, and probably originated from Reuters or the Associated Press.

TV? Shit encoded in electromagnetic waves. There could be no TVs in my house and no fucks would be given.

I used to dedicate a lot of time to keeping up with the news and staying "informed." It came in handy occasionally, especially since I interned for a news org. Allowed me to fool my superiors into thinking I was smart.

The key is to read everything critically and not to take anything at face value. So, without further ado, here are some of my favorite news sources:

VICE: High-octane infotainment with no pretension to objectivity. Picture Johnny Knoxville reporting current events (which actually happened btw)
The Borowitz Report at the New Yorker: Excellent satire.
Al Jazeera English: Solid coverage of the Middle East, op-eds by lefties.
Russia Today: Good at covering anything that makes the US look bad. Usually one of the first to break major stories for whatever reason (ex-KGB reporters?). Occasionally interviews some real whackos though.
Reuters The Economist and WSJ: The most honest reporting in the UK and the US imo, because its readers are the ruling class and not the rabble. Op-eds can occasionally be garbage though.
zerohedge: Proxy already mentioned them. Twitter feed is hilarious, but some of the real technical stuff goes over my head.

If I'm watching any footage it's via YouTube. If I'm reading an article on something, I probably came across it in my Twitter feed. Welcome to the future, folks.

I'd question the honesty of Reuters, Economist and WSJ. I agree on your point, but even the ruling classes have to justify things to themselves. They're full of euphemisms and subtle distortions to support the over arching ruling class narratives, particularly when it comes to international affairs. But yeah, definitely more honest than others.

The key (IMAO) is to locate trustworthy journalists (there are some) and understand the biases of individual news outlets. Better yet, read the bills and make up your own mind. That takes time and effort (and freethinking), though.

Reading news in other languages is also profoundly revealing of biases.

 

[Duxwing]

My ESTJ sister once said "Archie, when will you join the rest of us and watch Survivor?"

Perfect ESTJ-INTP conversation.

*shudder* *gag* Euuugh, people like her make my skin crawl.

-Duxwing

 

[PhoenixRising]

There's a reason we don't have cable/sattelite, etc. Nor do I pay much attention to the news.. which could be a bad thing in some cases.

Anything new that happens in the human world, I usually only know about from my coworkers. Unfortunately that does include Dancing with the Stars and Jersey Shore episodes sometimes :x

imo, it's not necessarily specifically INTPs that tend to abhor popular media. I'm pretty sure I knew an INTP (he could have been another introverted type tho) that was quite into it, but that went along with his overall philosophy about society. It seems like one's upbringing would have a lot of influence on their opinion of popculture.

 

[Duxwing]

Volumes of legislation are passed, often without reading or understanding of those who are passing it. But, things that desperately need to get passed wait year after year to even get up to the floor to be approved.

Did the unread bills have to wait? You might be seeing a pattern where none exists because you are understandably and justifiably frustrated that important bills aren't passing.

I've has spent many hours of many days trying to get some things approved (or even some attention). In calling politicians offices it becomes crystal clear as to how they don't function, and how getting anything approved of substance is nearly impossible.

Would you go into more detail? This sounds interesting!

People who live in crisis every day and need politicians to do something can't get the time of day, while unimportant causes like Sandra Fluke who needs cheaper freer birth controll in even more places (apparently the college campus and Walmart are too far) gain political grand standing and national media spot lights.

Distributing birth control, or maintaining birth rates in general, is like remembering to take your roast out of the oven before it burns: one of those subtle things that completely and utterly screws you over if you forget to do it. In other words, if you don't keep birth control available, then lots of young, poor women will soon be out of action, and a wave of children will come crashing through your social systems like a tsunami through a subway tunnel.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that other, less important causes clog your government.

And the other important causes? Completely unheard.

Best of luck, sir, for I can give you little else.

-Duxwing

 

[Absurdity]

I'd question the honesty of Reuters, Economist and WSJ. I agree on your point, but even the ruling classes have to justify things to themselves. They're full of euphemisms and subtle distortions to support the over arching ruling class narratives, particularly when it comes to international affairs. But yeah, definitely more honest than others.

Yeah you definitely can't take anything the business press says at face value. People need to stop reading news as a directly reliable source of facts and start reading it as propaganda, because that's precisely what it is. Once you disentangle the ideological messages encoded in the framing and choice of words, as you highlighted, you can get some sort of idea of what factual events prompted the new directive from the Ministry of Information.

 

[Architect]

WSJ has two departments that are almost independent, the editorial and the rest of it. The editorial department is crazy. I mean loony, obvious right wing wack jobs.

The rest of it, as Absurdity said, is worthless. The business press never tells the truth.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

I quit watching television in 2005. I don't even have an antenna.

 

[lonew0lf420]

The liberal media (ABC, NBC, CNBC, CNN) is basically all horse shit. Fox News is the epitome this pile of shit but also laced with nuclear radiation and aids. I have done plenty of research before reaching this conclusion but I have seen overwhelming evidence of bias, inconsistency, propaganda, and misinformation spewed by all of these media outlets that allows me to confidently say that mainstream media is effectively being used as a medium for political agenda and other special interests that want the masses to eat up. They could serve those people any type of shit and they'd still eat it.

 

[lonew0lf420]

I quit watching television in 2005. I don't even have an antenna.

Smart move. Television doesn't promote anything that could be constructive to our society.

Edit: oops double post, still figuring out how to successfully use the features of this forum

 

[Adrift]

I don't pay attention to popular media or news. Most of the stories are too boring or just pathetic stories of people's ignorance to me. To me, it's just a city/state/nation wide gossip show. There are something that are of importance, though. The things I find important are usually global events but still those have little direct impact on me.

That said I wish I had some sort of media feed that could tell me what is going on and not what they want me to hear.

Other than that, the only thing I generally read up on is new scientific advances. I'm too busy trying to get my own mind right... I'd rather not care about someone else's.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't know if it's popular, but that show Storage Wars was amusingly depressing to watch. It's not that it isn't entertaining seeing the auctions and what items the crew ends up with, but the entire show is based on the fact that some people didn't/couldn't pay their storage rental fees and had to lose their valuables, which could be anything from pairs of shoes to irreplaceable family keepsakes, which the crew then cold-bloodedly uses as an opportunity to profit.


Netflix.

 

[Late2theParty]

There are so many interesting things going on in the world at any given time, it always angered me that the major cable news channels and online sites would pick a small handful of topics and cover them endlessly. I have reduced my news consumption over time, but I can't help but want to stay at least somewhat abreast of what's going on..just in case. I feel like I need to see what other people are thinking about a bit, so that I have more of a well rounded picture... and I don't get sucked into some sort of bubble.

Covering the same shallow pool of topics, being sensationalist, and generally not being that informative is a big problem for news in general, because their main incentive most of the time is to sell advertisements NOT being informative. They really don't care about informing you about anything, it is their main goal to make money and get advertising revenue any way they can. This I think is a major problem that needs solving... (how can we have news actually be informative, not catered to advertising, but still have the money to produce in depth journalism? INTPs get to work!)

This is why I am a big fan of Public Radio, NPR etc. While not perfect, they get around a lot of this problem by taking donations from / being almost fully funded the public. They actually seem to take pride in not being like other news outlets.
http://www.npr.org/
http://americanpublicmedia.publicradio.org/programs/

The quality of your public radio station can vary though...It depends on which shows your local station chooses to feature (if you actually plan on listening on the radio), but the one mine does has a great mix. But you can stream a lot of them online for free, or read transcripts from the shows on their websites. They will cover the same topics that the major news channels will cover, but will not devote so much time to them and move on to other interesting things going on in the world. They seem more objective over all and less interested in selling the personalities of the radio hosts. The hosts do a good job of getting out of the way , and letting the news itself be interesting. Much of the cable news channels I feel like the only reason you're watching the show is to just be engaged by the host's personality... there is no actual information.

I also have a thing for http://www.fark.com it aggregates all the weird news from all over the world into one place. Which is ridiculously entertaining to me as an INTP because it fills that need for new exciting exotic possibilities. While it's doing that though, it also puts in a lot of real news articles, scientific breakthroughs and generally anything that's a really big deal. So if you read it often you somehow stay abreast of lot of the important things going on, but you also get a lot of really entertaining weird random things that happen as well, that can lead to hours of fascinating googling and wikipedia-ing down the rabbit hole.

Reddit can also serve the same function, if you subscribe to and tweak the right subreddits.

 

[Coolydudey]

Different people are looking for different things, and the majority of the population either consciously search for or settle with attention-grabbing, easy to digest stuff.

That gives us, who generally won't settle for that kind of stuff, a completely different viewpoint on news and popular media.

So you're automatically looking at niche, or less popular media, except for exceptions. Quite a few things have been mentioned already.

 

[~~~]

There is a spectrum in popular media. It goes from really terrible to puerile. I try to just extract the facts from the stuff that isn't puerile. Usually you still have to check the facts though. The best source is the horses mouth. It is interesting to see another perspective though sometimes.