Keeping informed

[nerdanel]

One of my vows in recent months has been to stay more informed when it comes to national and international news. My biggest problem has been finding enough time to "stay informed," given the rapidfire pace of developments. It feels as though keeping track of what's going on with (1) Obama and his Cabinet; (2) the U.S. Congress; (3) Israel/Palestine; (4) Iran; (5) Iraq; and (6) Afghanistan could easily be a full-time job, let alone any other areas of the world -- or state and local news. And, without time to check multiple sources, I never feel confident that I'm managing to distill out the partisan slant of the sites I check. I feel as though many of you who post in this forum do a better job of staying reliably informed than I do, so I'm asking for your thoughts. What sites/newspapers/magazines do you read (or news shows do you watch), and how often do you check them?

[Primula Baggins]

I'd like to recommend THE WEEK. It's a weekly magazine that is a concise digest of major national and international news and also covers cultural and other stories. There are almost no ads, so it's thin. I'd never heard of it until Mr. Prim's dad gave us a free subscription, and then I didn't read it at first because I assumed it had a conservative focus, like Mr. Prim's dad, and at the time I didn't need more of that in my life.

But at Mr. Prim's urging I started reading it, and found that it doesn't have a conservative slant. Nor is it liberal. It's hard to describe how good it is. It covers international news better than the major U.S. news magazines, because it gets the news from international sources and does not only cover things that relate to American interests. I can spend half an hour a week reading it, with pleasure, and come away knowing more than I get from all the other news I read and see. And the dearth of ads is amazingly refreshing.

[Impenitent]

Is it available online, Primula? And does it have a truly international perspective or does it stand firmly on US ground and look outward?

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

My brother get the Week.

It does seem very informative.

I mostly rely on the Internet for news. To a certain extent, I let others find the interesting stuff for me on a number of different forums, including HoF, TORC and B77 but also including others totally outside the sphere of HoF, TORC, B77 etc. And I like seeing the diverse points of view expressed.

I also independently look at Yahoo news, Google news, NY Times and other online source, especially the Yahoo financial section--almost everything impacts finance these days.

BrianIs AtYou

[Frelga]

I just rely on the boards. If it's important, someone will bring it up.

[nerdanel]

Thanks for the suggestions. Let me give you guys an example of what I'm talking about. I know that Congress has just okayed - and Obama will sign - an expansion of the SCHIP program; I generally agree with the concept of SCHIP. In theory, I also think I agree with the expansion. I understand that opponents have at least three arguments against this expansion:

(1) It will allow undocumented immigrants easier (unlawful) access to SCHIP;
(2) The increase in federal tobacco taxes that's part of this legislation will be insufficient to cover the increased costs of the program;
(3) It will incentivize low-income people who have access to private health insurance to forego this health insurance to get onto the government tab.

The quick summary news articles that one can get from CNN or NYT or similar don't really explain these objections enough for me to figure out whether they have any merit. So, I come away thinking, "This is good, but how exactly are undocumented immigrants going to access federal funds now, if they couldn't previously via SCHIP? [and is that a bad thing if they do - a separate question] Also, why won't the added tobacco tax be sufficient, and if that's really the case, what's the shortfall? And, is there any evidence that low-income people have previously given up private health insurance to get their kids enrolled in an SCHIP funded state program, or is this idle speculation?"

So I come away with all these questions, but if I was to sit around and research them, I'd run out of time to read about Gaza or who Obama is picking to replace Daschle at DHHS or what missiles Iran is testing now. Arrrgh. I feel as though I could pick a couple of issues to be decently well-informed about, or I could have a surface-y understanding of most things that are happening...where I really don't know enough to have an informed opinion (SCHIP being a great example of this.)

[River]

I have an antenna array fastened to my ponytail. I'm sure one day it'll be fashionable.

No, really, I just skim headlines on CNN, Yahoo, BBC and the NYTimes. If something looks really interesting, I go in for a closer look. Sometimes, if it's part of the closer look, I read the English version of the B92 website. This is not as in depth as the Serbian version but usually it gets the job done - news that's of interest to me but not the US in general will be covered there, or, at least, it'll come up faster on B92 or the BBC than on an American site. I read abominably fast so it's not all that time consuming. Also, if the "we want the radio on" crowd wins the day at work I get to listen to NPR.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Dear nel, this going to come across as perhaps sounding a little snarky, but I know you know me well enough to know I don't mean it that way.

The only way you are going to be able to keep up with all the news would be for you to quit your job and find one less demanding of your time, and abandon your myriad other interests like swimming and music, and your demanding yet enjoyable social calendar. Obviously none of those things are worth it, so you are just going to have to muddle along with less information than you would ideally have.



Of course, none of that should prevent you from trying to do what you can to keep yourself as well-informed as possible, but just don't get to beat up about it when you fail to meet your own high standards.

[Dave_LF]

Ditto much of what others have said. In addition, I use StumbleUpon with current events in my lists of interests; it often finds interesting stories for me. I used to read the Asia Times a lot, but have slacked off on that one lately. And for my dailyish dose of evidence that the world is about to end, I will sometimes check out the breaking news section of lifeaftertheoilcrash.net (though I can usually get that fix from CNN and MSNBC these days).

Edit: Here are the (slightly pared) contents of my "News" bookmarks folder:

http://atimes.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.bloomberg.com/
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/breakingnews.html
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.csmonitor.com/
http://drudgereport.com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://electoral-vote.com/
http://energybulletin.net/
http://excite.com/
http://www.fcnp.com/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
http://news.google.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
http://nytimes.com/
http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?lang=eng
http://www.wunderground.com/severe.asp

[Impenitent]

Apropos of Vinnie's post, Nel, the only time I felt almost adequately informed was when I worked as public affairs officer for a lobby group and it was part of my job to go through the papers every day. I spent at least 2 hours a day reading an array of papers we subscribed to, Australian and international, as well as clippings from a clippings agency. Even then, there was stuff I missed. I think you ask too much of yourself.

[Primula Baggins]

Impy, The Week is a U.S. publication, so that is the perspective. It just does a better job than other U.S. publications of covering important international news without doing it, say, strictly from the perspective of Americans on the scene, or going into more detail than anything else about how the events will affect American interests. In other words, it's not a truly international magazine; coverage of any given place other than the U.S. would probably be too sketchy to please anyone living in those places.

But you have to understand how bad our international news coverage generally is to see why this is enough to please me.

[Frelga]

Bottom line is, there are too many things going on in the world for one person to be an expert on it all. As with anything, I prioritize by asking whether something will likely affect me and if I can do anything about it. If the answers are no and no, then, while I want to be aware of important developments, I will not delve in depth.

[River]

What Frelga said. It's one thing to have your head up; it's another to be an expert on everything.

[axordil]

I like The Week too. It's convenient for bathroom reading.

[Lurker]

Fox News

I agree with V I have to quit my job, move out of the house and no more sports activities just to keep abreast with the news. As you can see, I would love to discuss stuff but I just don't have time. I would browse the newspaper headlines and read Report on Business section cover to cover cause I have to but politics, I have to make time. We have a TV in our lunch room at work but we watch mostly local news. As for TV, I watch Lou Dobbs and CBC's The National or BBC World News. Most of the reading materials at our office are financial magazines.

[narya]

I'm afraid my main news sources - science podcasts from Australia, News of the Weird, the Onion, and the Colbert Report don't count, but hey, ignorance is bliss. I'm probably happier not knowing what company is tanking today.

[Inanna]

One good source I've lately found is the radio station WNYC - and thats because every morning they broadcast BBC. For international news, thats enough for me. I get various perspectives and news I don't get from my iGoogle news page.

[Primula Baggins]

The local public radio plays BBC World News and World, Have Your Say. They both give a better perspective on foreign news than just about anything I've seen, but they're both on during the day when I'm working. I mostly hear them when I'm driving around on errands.

I imagine I could get podcasts if I just looked for them

[Inanna]

The local public radio plays BBC World News and World, Have Your Say. They both give a better perspective on foreign news than just about anything I've seen, but they're both on during the day when I'm working. I mostly hear them when I'm driving around on errands.

Same here. But that's enough for me. I can't spend more time than that. Each time do my four-hour drive, I get a good one hour of BBC news, and combined.... I think am fine!

[Primula Baggins]

Hah, well, there's the disadvantage of (a) working at home and (b) living within five minutes of almost everywhere I ever have any reason to drive.

I've actually regretted it at times; I have friends who get through a novel a month or so on CD because they live farther from town.