TED Conversations

President & CEO, Public Radio International (PRI)


This conversation is closed.

What do you want from the news?

What do you want from the news each day? Do you get it? How does the news impact you each day? How does it make you feel?

Is the news positively impacting your life? Why or why not?

Answers that explain in personal narrative how the news impacts you are greatly welcomed!

  • thumb
    Apr 8 2011: I would like that more journalists would have a scientific background.
    As such they wouldn't post so much interpretations of interpretations of interpretations, but base themselves more on facts and documented sources.

    Quality over quantity would be nice
    Understanding that bringing only exceptional cases colors perception, so bringing the large numbers of everyday positivity and productivity would be a good idea!

    News that reflects the world's situation... how about that?

    Concerning positively impacting:
    Not really, or not that I would causate to news...

    If you are on raft on a river, and news are pebbles and rocks thrown in from the side, impacting the flow of the river...
    How much would that influence the path of my raft? Could I trace that effect? Is it positive?

    I remember that I realized at age ten that the end of the Berlin wall was a good thing and a historic event.... other than that... not much narative Alisa...
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2011: I want unbiased news, not propaganda. What amazes me is how far Americans will go to avoid talking about the hijacking of news in our country. The most popular cable news organization is spinning propaganda 24/7 much like the old soviet Pravda, and Americans are too politically correct to talk about it. We continue to whistle past the graveyard, as if it isn't happening. In a generation we have gone from the gold standard of news with Walter Cronkite, Eric Severeid, Charles Collingswood, Richard C. Hottelet, Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, Harry Reasoner, Peter Jennings, et.la. to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, et.al.

    What do I want from the news? Are you kidding? I want the truth, not the lies perpetrated by some aging Australian megalomaniac.

    The good news is that the 3 American broadcast channels have the lions share of viewers, while the cable channels have relatively few viewers. But still, the lies being foisted as "news" damages the country, just as Pravda kept Soviet citizens in the dark. No one can be arrested in America for speaking-out yet Americans are still reticent to speak. I'm afraid we lack the courage of the past "greatest generation".
  • thumb
    Apr 11 2011: I want correspondents with the courage to say "That is not true. Our research shows that what he/she is saying is false."

    I want the courage of Edward R. Murrow;
    The doggedness of 60 Minutes;
    The dramatic themes and story telling ability of FRONTLINE;
    The passion of Keith Olberman;
    I want an end to teases, and absolutely no fluff.
    • Apr 11 2011: the reason this doesn't happen is because news reporters/agencies or networks are political entities in their own right. They have something to lose by falling out of favour with the very people they are supposedly helping the public keep a check on.
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2011: Another reason it doesn't happen is that the public wants entertainment, not news. And they want to feel good about themselves and part of the team. Hence the American flag in the background of every Fox news ad (just went to www.foxnews.com, check out the red/white/blue color scheme).
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2011: I actually want to hear and see some good, positive, funny news. It's all about wars, lack of money, nature disasters, and it's just enough. Wouldn't it be nice to wake up in a world where the headlines are about some great thing our humanity discovered, performed, did..?
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2011: Exactly my point. As if there isn't enough negativity in the world and under-appreciation of all the positivity out there, now we have news stations to just crash it all into our lives no matter where we turn. This is complete psychological abuse and all the news networks know this very well. But who cares when it makes you so much money...
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2011: I agree with you.
      but news is good even bad, negative, and distracting ones provided that they are accompanied with useful tips and solutions. otherwise just knowing what happened does not make any difference except making people upset. the point is that what should be done and not what is happening . If you tell people there is fire in the building they just get anxious, upset and do not know what to do. you have to show the exit door and safe ways of overcoming the problems as well.
      otherwise, in a long run, it would make people ignorant and they would not even empathize any more.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2011: Agreed. At the moment, all you see is the problems and that's exactly what the government wants. That you be in a constant state of fear.
        • Apr 11 2011: It is my tendency to think like this, however, of course the argument is that the good news is usually less dramatic than the bad and thus produces lower ratings. As long as news is a commercial product and television and newspapers are still holding the amount of gravitas as they do today, news will always fall to the draw of the lowest common denominator.

          Of course, in line with the more cynical belief that the news is used as some kind of population engineering tool, it does fall down to a chicken and egg scenario, although I would say, human beings simply have an evolutionary tendency to give information about what jepordises their safety a priority over uplifting aspirational news and developments.
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2011: couldn't agree more.
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2011: Provide differentiated news stories through your website. People that have passed basic qualifying tests can be filtered to news presented at a level appropriate to them. If I understand economics at level A versus level B, the topics and content of the news stories should vary accordingly.

    You should also provide links to free educational sites (your own or others') that will improve those test scores, making each of us who participate a more informed audience. Once someone understands - at a basic level - distinctions between, say, conservatives and neo-conservatives, or between parliamentary government and democracy, their grasp of certain stories and aspects of stories will be changed in significant ways.

    Having more than two or three levels would provide diminishing marginal utility in this regard, but a simple model of such a differentiated presentation helps reduce the dangerous hazards of the news being too dumbed-down or too erudite for different audience segments.
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2011: I want the unbiased truth.

    Media pros are taught to give priority to the voices of authority over any other wittness. I have seen firsthand how they even fail to tell the truth when they themselves have not only seen it but filmed it; instead they let the police commissioners lies tell the story. The people are not heard, even in democratic nations like Australia.

    Media often make a point of giving both sides to story, but they dont tell us when the number of "experts" of a given opinion are rediculously outnumbered by experts against it. Thus, the arguement is weighted in favour of what is probably wrong.

    The choice of which stories to air/print/etc. and how much prominence is and always has been weighted in favour of people like "us". A story about 1 white westerner, is given prominence over 1000 or more black foriegners.

    If we look at the news and take it as reality we would assume that young people attack old people frequently and rarely does any youngster get hurt by any but another youngster. This is so far from reality and it serves no-one but the media (it sells), for example, 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics) usually by an adult family member.

    The media have a lot to answer for. I would like to see more journos and editors with a concience.
  • thumb
    Apr 19 2011: No news is good news, that's what my mother always said. I don't think she realized how prophetic that actually was.

    Mainstream media is not reporting from their higher selves, therefore propaganda is widespread.

    Alternative news options are more informative, but again, will the news change your life?
    That answer should be yes and for the better. Sensationalism sells, but during prime time hours, is it necessary to report about a mother driving her kids into a lake while the children are within an ear shot?

    I feel if the news can open your eyes to something you can constructively contribute to, it's worthwhile. If it informs you of imminent dangers or educates you with profound discoveries, it's worthwhile.

    Public broadcasting is certainly something I have more confidence in.
    • Apr 20 2011: Mate, I second what you say, pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by alternative news options?
  • Apr 11 2011: Hitting all the bases on the basics would be nice: who, what, where, when and why...
    When a circuit court judge decides that it's fine for the police to sneak onto private property without a warrant of any kind in order to install tracking equipment on a vehicle, name the judge for petesake!

    Wait 'till it happens to report it. I've been finding AP stories recently about upcoming events which may happen. Unless they're selling tickets, wait 'till it happens and tell me how it turned out.

    I miss hard hitting investigative journalism. There isn't much of that any more. Where's the muckrakers? We could use 'em.

    Accuracy! Check the facts. When you say that the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels are coming from the US, cite the authority for the info- that's Mexico's claim, diverting attention from their own failings. The hand grenades, explosives and full-auto weapons are certainly not from here; most of the small arms they are getting originate in Asia, not the US.

    If you cite an external source, 'according to such and such a study...', be specific about the name of the paper, author and where i might find a copy of the specific report that i can make sure you aren't bending the truth a little.

    Pictures are always good, they're a must for stories of a visual nature. They're easy to do these days. Show me Bradley Manning in his prison cell.

    Al Jazeera is the best place for video for what's going on in the Arab world these days. While it's still slim, they've also had some of the best coverage of what's going on in Afghanistan. This one video, the reporter asks a US commanding officer who had cut a deal with some tribal leaders in one village, "Did you know that this had upset this other tribe in such and such a village?..." Eeh, no. What did yo say their names were?" What a hoot! The reporters are more on it than those involved in what they're reporting on...

    I go to the BBC to find out what's happening here in the US.

    DATE blog posts!

    Don't lie to me.
  • Apr 11 2011: Dear Ms. Miller,

    There was a time that I used to get very depressive reading the news.
    Newspapers were full of negative news: crimes, wars, famine, corruption and many sorts of sordid things.

    Nowadays I have decided to filter all these negative news and look for what really interest me.
    So I have decided to quit the mainstream media and read the alternative media instead. And that's how I came across with the www.ted.com website.

    I want to know what is going on the MIT research facilities for instance.
    I have just watched the video about the Mesh ( the new business trend).

    So far I am getting the news I am interested in, but I had to search far from the mainstream magazines, newspapers , tv channels.

    I think it is interesting to say what I don't want to watch anymore: I am not interested in celebrities' life( who they marry, what is their latest plastic surgical) , nor I am interested to watch a reality show (Big Brother style and the like). Fashion is another thing that I want to get rid of.
    Biography is something that could vanish and I would not miss it. Nobel prizes are becoming quite weird. How come a peace Nobel prize is attributed to a war promoting political figure?
    Porn content is also something that does not interest me.

    I want news that can help me on my daily routine (at home and at work), something that does not make me feel ashamed in front of my kids (that respects the family tradition and values). Also I want news that answer the basic questions like who, when,where and How. Some journalists forget to make a complete account of the history.

    The few alternative media source that I have been reading is positively impacting my life. The only difficulty is to whether I can trust them and how accurate they are.

    I hope I have managed to answer all your questions.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Thomas Werner
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2011: I want to know what I need to know to become a better, more effective member of the community. I want to be informed and empowered to go out and do good.
  • Apr 10 2011: The local news I receive is not really local for me, my small town is 50 miles away from where the broadcast is stationed, so the only thing I get out of that is weather & sports. The national news (via GMA) is really how I start my day. It includes the hard news & humor (which is important). If there are any subjects that interest me, then I dig in & surf the net for in depth coverage (to usually see if I can locate the facts). My evening news is delivered by Diane Sawyer, who does get her feet wet & reports on events in a heart felt manner.
    All of the above lets you know that I like my reporters to have a heart about what they are reporting on, along with: Honesty, accuracy, & integrity.
    Too much reporting on celebrities, especially when they make news in a bad way, is not needed.
    "Many" years ago, the Miami Herald newspaper had a total addition devoted to good news only-it sold out in 4 hrs. Makes ya think doesn't it! So why not a segment on radio or tv that is devoted to good news only?
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2011: I think it would be nice if the news had more TED.
    Not literally TED, but TED in spirit. There should be a focus on innovation, camaraderie, and potential all wrapped nicely with the intent to educate as well as inform.
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2011: Hi Alisa! I loved your talk. I want more extensive and wider ranging coverage from the news. I would like to know what influences the lives of people in other parts of the world and how that might be interconnected with my life. I would like less repetition and more insight in the formof discussion about the ramifications or implications inherent in the news item.
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2011: a mayoría de la gente sólo recibe información de las noticias de los Mass media ,y los Mass media no son ni más ni menos que grandes multinacionales.Las multinacionales NO se crean para ofrecer un servicio a la comunidad ,se crean para ganar dinero y tener beneficios . ¿De dónde provienen estos beneficios? De la publicidad ¿Quién paga la publicidad?Los anunciantes...
    Si un Mass media emite una noticia con información (realmente) comprometedora de uno de sus anuncionantes , se arriesga ni más ni menos a perder su forma de ganar dinero , es decir , la publicidad ,con lo que he llegado a la conclusión que los mass media son básicamente los altavoces de las grandes corporaciones,entre ellos pactan qué ,cómo ,cúando y qué decir para sus propios interereses y NO para contar la verdad que se supone que es el propósito del periodismo y de las noticias .


    The most of people just get news from the Mass media .The Mass media are neither more nor less that big companies or international corporation .The purpose of these Companies is not to offer a public service to the citizens .The purpose of these companies is to have more and more profits and earn money .Where do these profits come from?They come from advertisements that are paid by partners,sponsor or other companies
    If a mass media reported news about a partner with harmful information to them , they could lose their way to earn money
    Finally I don´t believe in the news from Mass media because I think both of them come down to how, what ,when telling it to have mutual profits instead telling the truth (in theory ,the real purpose of the news...)
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2011: Much more positivity, less politics, more of the people, advances in society/technology/science, etc. Most importantly, enough of the same stuff over and over again like the wars, terrorists, and what not. Firstly because most of it is just propaganda, and secondly because it is very psychologically dangerous and abusive to keep feeding it to society. It affects us all very badly. When's the last time you heard something very positive on CNN? lol

    What I like about the news is its great capabilities and it has lots of positive effects if put to good use. What I don't like is that it isn't being put to good use...
    • thumb
      Apr 9 2011: Yes, we live in the most exciting time ever. Let's share good things, what can we acomplish as a society, as humans. There are amazing things going on, lets make them headlines.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2011: Absolutely. When you turn on the news nowadays, you get the impression that there is nothing good going on in the world. There's nothing worth living for anymore. I've seen how people get affected by this cycle. It ain't a pretty picture.
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: Having engaged in your TED discussion on who we trust in the news, and having seen your TED Talk on the news about the news..I am beginning to question what I even mean when I refer to "news". I know that I want a more balanced picture of important global events and I know that right now it's very hard work to piece that together. It takes a great deal of personal commitment and energy to really understand both sides of a global event where the views of other nation are important for us to understand..where failing to understand them has ramifications for our lives and our future.In one of many Ted Conversations this past week arising from the news of Bin Laden's death , a TED member in India shared the headlines of a major Calcutta daily for each of several days. That story was not told here or in any western news and we need to understand and think through what we really think as global citizens about the Pakistani take on all this.The same with Egypt's revolution.No one in what we consider main stream news is telling the unfolding Egyptian story and its posisble implications for te US, for peace in the middle east, for the termination of the Camp David Accord long hoped for by the Egyptian majority..Few in the U.S., evenamong the educated and informed here at TED Conversations, seem aware that to the majority of Egyptian anti Mubarak and anti-US sentiments are one in the same.We can't do without whatever the news used to be( was it ever really that?). A healthy, independent vibrant fourth estate is indispensable to freedom throughout the world. And to me in our modernal global wolrd that means the fourth estate has to provide balanced and acurate reporting on all event s of global significance.
    • thumb
      May 9 2011: GREAT COMMENT! You really put your finger on it.
      • thumb
        May 11 2011: So Meher how do we revive the fourth estate? How do we help get themessage out, as I believe Alisa has tried to do here at TED that the fourth estate is in terrible trouble. I truly blieve withou tthe fourth estate..without a free press reporting both side on global as well as important local news we can't have a vibrant healthy democracy. Do we need to become citizen journalists not in the haphazard opinoins are more fun than facts world of most blogs but writing as journalists..in the trdaution of journalism..? Are you personally willing to do that on your own life..not to cover everything of cures but to write responsinly about events you know in your heart we are not gettimng the whole story or the right story on? What about setting up a blog of "citizen" journalists..would you be one? Would you help organaize and run such a thing?..
        • thumb
          Jul 1 2011: Lindsay, i suggest you take a look on the Taste Series Conversations on TED. I've been engaged on one about Iran and it was very interesting.

          And we are really doomed by west's journalistic view (and it's sooo hard for us to go searching for enlightenment on different countries news.
  • thumb
    Apr 19 2011: Hi Alisa,I can not watch the news daily because it makes me feel hopeless. I prefer to watch international news or to inform myself on social network news sites. Today most of the news are focusing on the sensationalism in the press. They do not report the real facts without being bias anymore. For instance, you can see more news spending its time covering events related with "famous stars". Objectivity is not the professional norm anymore and, I do not care about their own perception of reality or their own political agendas. I will like to see more stories related with positive outcomes and more facts. Maybe how communities are supporting each other in difficult times, or new leaders in our communities. New companies that are emerging and, their stories. Of course you need to portrait reality but, with a more positive ambiance!
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2011: I stop watching T.V get the news from the web when needed
    1- news should be pure news not mixed with opinion
    2-News that matter to me not matter to government
  • P C

    • +1
    Apr 17 2011: I have a degree in communication, and I agree with many others here that the biggest problem in American news is propaganda. I choose international sources first as they're more likely to give me a neutral frame. Unfortunately propaganda is primarily a product of the entertainment model of news where news is a lure to draw large audiences for advertising revenue. The entertainment model has ruined news and stupified it to pure irrelevance. Do we REALLY need to listen to more celebrity gossip? Imagine how large an audience would be if the news delivered... actual news?

    What's missing from news, and what pushes people into a wide variety of other sources, is context. It's a rare and valuable product absent from the marketplace. Talking heads giving analysis and partisan spin is not context, it's inertia. Giving objective and non-partisan context has all but disappeared. If there's a controversy over a topic, then quantify the controversy. If a crime occurs, put it into context of other criminal events in a particular area and relate it to a particular phenomenon (i.e.: gangs or drugs).

    If I could mention one more thing, it would be to not be afraid to generate more news than what airs, and have news be contextually relevant (think of Amazon.com's model of offering related books). Ideally this would let people see a story as well as memes evolve over time. If contextual relevance can be measured (I'm sure it can), then the top threads of maximum relevance might offer the best guide on what to actually broadcast.
    • thumb
      May 8 2011: Wonderful analysis and I love your idea of a contextual model for the news. Versions of this somehow exists in some places. When I was trying to understand fro myselfwhat was happening in Egypt or Libya a google search on "Egypt Today" or "Libya Today" would turn up a huge indexes of headline accounts from all over the world with the link and the story lead in..not sure how that worked or who did that compilation but it was very broad, included the major dailies all over the wolrld and alsomore in depth analysis and commentray by folk like Ralph Nader or Mort Zuckerman in very obscure little papers ( obscure to me anyway) like The Palestine Chronicle.: Still a lot of work but it made it possible to get a broader picture and a more complete picture of the story behind the headlines. I think you are right that that is the model.
  • Apr 16 2011: I want greater transparency from the news. I want to know the judgements that went into deciding which stories made the news, and which did not. I want to know who is deciding who gets interviewed and who is not. I dont trust the news, because I dont know what is existing in the vacuum outside the publicly broadcasted 'mega' channels.
    The day I can watch the news and come away knowing that I know what happened in the world, not just what someone wants me to know about what happened in the world, will be a great day.
    Networks like CNN have this capacity right now. I can watch for a whole afternoon and see three stories repeated a dozen times. Cover the news in its entirety and let me judge what I deem to be important.
  • Apr 15 2011: I want stories that go deeper than most stories in the news today. There are som many big hedlines with so little to back it up. I belive we have to move away from the common impression that you have to know a little bit about everything, and move towards depth. Or else I fear that the next generation will become a bunch of hyperactive "screamers"...
  • Apr 15 2011: As long as our news are dependant about revenue, they have to create a "product that sells" -- they have stockholders too, hence the "Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, et.al." I'm not sure that even Cronkite could tell the news as he did in today's "stockholders reign supreme" world. I'm open to hear alternatives on this business model that would ensure insightful, educational, unbiased news. And would we even know what to do with this? Don't you feel that today's consumer wants to hear what they want to hear, rather than what they should hear? Again, open to feedback.
    • Apr 17 2011: Nancy, you have touched on a real hot button when it comes to whether we are just getting what we want, etc., we just WANT Brittany all the time. There are studies, some by Pew research that suggest we actually DO want a more balanced diet of news.
      • thumb
        May 8 2011: Alisa& Nancy.. I am beginning to wonder what the real texture is underneath that Pew research, that hi percentage reporting they want global and international news.. I love your observation, Nancy, that even Walter Cronkite ( the last person all of America truly trusted in the news) might be seriously challenged by the compleixty and obscurity of the workings which shape our lives and our futures now. I see quite a bit of laziness or perhaps its just a malaise of disenfranchisement caused by the realities of our plutonomy.. My sense is that people want every single detail about an international event, like Bin Laden's slaying last week, for two or three days they can't get enough of it and then attention just drifts on to the next big event. I wonder whether there really is an audience with a real appetite to understand and follow important world events day by day. It woud be interesting to take a closer look at those Pew respondents who say they want to know more about international news and see how they actually engage with international events.
    • thumb
      Apr 18 2011: Do you think that's because they don't care about the issues, or because the news about world events and politics is over their head? When was the last time you saw a story about the economy translated down to the reading level reflected in Us or People?

      Now part of the failing is the education system, to be fair, but part of it is the social motivation to keep those with lower education levels out of political affairs except when someone needs to whip the mob into a quick frenzy to push through some legislation. This is compounded by the fact that politicians and many news outlets spin the news so badly the average person doesn't know what to believe. Pictures of Brittany with a shaved head are pretty clear. If there were millions of dollars in profits to be made for one group if the public believed she was bald AND by another group if the public beleved she still had her hair, then you'd see a parallel.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2011: I'd also like to see the news begin to reference actual sources when they do scientific pieces. The BBC has recently begun to give the actual publication and reference and I think it is a valuable contribution so that we can go to the original to ensure that the report had no spin.
  • Apr 11 2011: What about a news source solely dedicated to musing over the reporting on major events of the day by other sources? Critiquing the shamelessly displayed bias and often sickening pathos by various newsrooms? To refer to James' example of the Japanese earthquake reporting - this site/station/whatever could have solely run reflective pieces on the absurdity of how this tragedy was being dressed up like a fictional film.

    Anyone from the UK who was lucky enough to watch any of Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on BBC will have an idea of what I mean (it's worth looking at excerpts on youtube if you haven't seen it - refreshing stuff!)
  • thumb
    Apr 11 2011: What do you want from the news?

    I've basically given up on the main-line news outlets for reliable insights. They are pure propaganda mills. Even NPR has buckled in under government funding pressures, so it's no longer much better then the rest.

    But I think better sources of information are emerging. The best approach, I've found, is to look at a variety of sources like:
    . Real News
    . Democracy Now
    . Christian Science Monitor
    . BBC
    . Al Jazeera
    . Russia Today
    . Jpost
    . Znet
    . Counterpunch
    . Salon
    . Harpers
    . Atlantic
    . Huff Post (mostly for editorials)
    . Young Turks
    . Fox (to see what the wacky right is up to)

    And try to piece things together. It's most interesting when news sources or blogs have comment sections. You can get a lot of good information from them.

    What I would really like is a news central site that I can tailor to my interests. With discussion pages for articles from any source. And the ability to network with other readers whose insights I respect.

    If I had the time, I would consider putting together something myself.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2011: I think a lot of people do that type of thing, personal aggregation of news. I know that I do it with iGoogle. I wonder if there's any sort of online service that allows you to tailor your news feeds like iGoogle, or even better, your idea of putting together your own news aggregator with the ability to network and cite source articles and what not.
      • Apr 11 2011: yes, basically it would just be a mix of rss feeds but laid out like a news website. Maybe it could have algorithmically decided headlines/promoted stories? And tag cloud based story promotion (tags added and managed to this hypothetical meta-service) based on your selected interests.

        This could be very good!
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Pretty much exactly what I was thinking! Choose areas of interest, or particular papers, with those stories trending more popping up more. Like, say war breaks out between Botswana and Colombia. With the right tagging program, you could have one link for the war itself. Once in it though, you can see the individual stories. If you have as one of your interests/tags say space exploration, and it doesn't have much going on that day, stick it near the bottom. But if a lot's happening with it, bump it up to the top. Get the layout and the tag/interest deal sorted out, and the thing ought to be pretty self regulating.

          I'm just making things up as I go, feel free to interject with your ideas!
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2011: Yes Daniel. I've seen methods of making your own front page type presentations. But the discussion group aspect I think is very important also. Are you familiar with DISQUS? If it could be tied into any article you choose, that would be great.

        Another element would be a mechanism where ANYONE could write an article. In order for the article to move up in visiblity it would have to be selected by the people you respect. Could be totally user driven media.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: What about linking sources to news articles? Reporters don't always cite their sources or say what study they looked at to research their report. I hadn't checked out DISQUS, but after seeing their format, I think something similar might be good for sourcing.

          We could also use some stuff from TED, the way it has a link to start a conversation about a video (for this it would be about an article) as well as linking to related talks. So if someone writes a piece about this article and that article and another one, they'll all be linked in together. Hopefully (especially for the big stories) that would coalesce all these disparate stories about the same subject into one cohesive framework.

          Do you think there should be a user content section, where people can post their articles directly to the service, or should they link into their blog? I'm a bit up in the air over which might work better. If they're all written on the site they will be all in one spot, but that might be difficult to manage and make effective. On the other hand, links are easy to make and pretty self-regulatory, but leaving the site to see user content might get annoying. What do you think the best way to submit user content might be?
  • Apr 11 2011: I think it would be interesting to see news in the news. Just that. A collection of facts about things that have happened around the world and locally in that specific time frame. I think I could actually use that information. I have a hard time differentiating between Jerry Springer and CNN these days. With a set of facts provided, I could evaluate that information and determine it`s relevance and importance to me as opposed to being told how relevant and important it is. That would make it interesting. That would make me feel as though I was being proactive in researching and evaluating the world I live in. Current news feeds either dont allow for evaluation by depriving you of nescesary data, or make evaluation a daunting task. What should I beleive? Is this the whole story or just one side? What`s the other side? I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that history is made by those who write it, but getting back to basic facts and statistics would greatly improve the content of "news" shows. The earthquake in Japan became disaster porn almost as soon as it happened. The facts had been put out immediately, and then the porn started. Lets show the film footage of a man running for his life from an incomming tsunami (which he fails to do and drowns) 18 times an hour. That is completely unnecessary unless you get your rocks off watching people die. Important facts about an earthquake: where, when, how big, projected/current after effects, casualties, how can I help. Thats all I want to know about. The touching stories about famlies reunited, or recounts of what happened from an emotional standpoint could (and in my opinion SHOULD) be advertised in a venue other than the news. Day 1, earthquake on the news. Day 45, in depth documentary on HBO. Seperate. I dont condone censorship and I`m not saying that current news shows should be restricted, I`m just stating what I want from it.
    • thumb
      Apr 11 2011: Totally dig the idea!
    • Apr 11 2011: so, you're suggesting news should be totally clinical; practically functioning as a fact database? There's definitely a place for that. I feel one of the main reasons that would be unviable for your standard evening news is that the stories wouldn't be long enough! Either the news would be a lot shorter (less ad revenue) or they'd have to cover more stories (higher outgoings on researchers).

      Another cul de sac due to news being a commercial venture.
  • Apr 10 2011: What i dislike about the today's news, is the way it is served. It is more sexed up and coated with added flavors and less content. One that I vividly remember was at the time when Hadron collider was in its way to get started. Where as the most of scientific world were eager and excited, one TV channel in India was creating fear around it. Scientist did wanted to know what happen at the time of big bang, and the channel connected it with black hole and bang and predicting (I do not know how or upon what foundation) that if the experiment goes wrong, the earth will be shallowed by black hole. That was some shallow journalism.
  • Apr 10 2011: I occasionally scan radio and tv news networks to get a run-down of the headlines. Whether it's national or world news, there is alot going on out there. I expect these sources to give me a run-down on everything. I don't need them focusing on just one story.

    OK there is a nuclear disaster in Japan. The world is still turning, why isn't the page? Everyone has access to the web today, and it's an ideal platform for learning more about any given story. Give me the headlines, I can find the details on my own.

    Oh, and partisan politics! If the US is ever going to evolve to more productive politics, the partisan politics needs to end. As long as the news keeps pushing such viewpoints, it will remain in the public eye. Let's talk about issues and bills, I don't need to hear someone's interpreted statistics about what Democrats or Republicans always do.
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2011: More awesome stories like yours—news about news does an incredible service in helping us be well-informed consumers. It's the equivalent of putting nutrition information on food!
    • Apr 10 2011: Erik, couldnt agree more, that we need more transparency in news. In fact, I am working on a news nutrition label, and thnking a lot about the use of real time tools, and creating a collective resource in this regard and pointing to the great work that is in development, out there.