Well, I can't say I'm an avid news-watcher. I check the news sources often during the day - scrolling my Facebook and twitter. I read the headlines, but if I don't read an article, I don't consider myself to be engaged in the news.
So really, I just don't involve myself that much with the news because I've learned that news sites will act like news is BREAKING even when it is just a squirrel on a jet-ski. Yeah, it's cool, but so what?
In the past few months, my news diet has become a much more condensed diet. With work during the summer, I got most of my news by word of mouth. I thought watching television news in the morning would be a good way to get my daily intake.
I guess I was wrong.
Now what am I doing to get the news? Well, I've got my Boston Globe subscription back. I go onto Flipboard, Twitter, Facebook, I listen to conversations, call relatives in other states. When it gets down to the wire, I really only care about the news that I know is real.
What do I mean?
I'm not going to care about news that is amped up to be more than it is. I understand that websites are looking for another page visitor, but I don't want to be roped into reading stuff just to be another number on a page count. And it always surprises me when certain news pages have a constant negative front page with depressing stories while others have decided to merge happier ones with sadder ones to deliver more of a buffet-style.
Yes, I follow the news. Not too much, though. Mostly because I don't agree with what it tries to do, but also because I don't like the way it feeds certain people.
Hmm...after sitting in a few journalism classes, I guess my news diet consists mostly of peoples' reactions to what's on the news. That is how I get the best gauge of what's going on in the world.
