What would need to happen for more people to fight the negative impact of this time of information overload?

2017-08-15T23:14:12-04:00

For reference, my definition of "information overload" is a time when people are bombarded with so much cleverly biased information and manipulative advertising that many simply accept what they hear or read without analyzing or at least questioning it.

Am I out of line? Am I missing something? Share your thoughts.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Aug 15 at 2017 11:34 PM

2017-08-15T23:34:55-04:00

Honestly, more people need to learn how to unplug. I personally don't bring anything home with me. My home is meant for relaxation. I don't want to be angry or upset while I'm with my family.

People don't know how to unplug these days.

Response by Sarah Zayas made Aug 15 at 2017 11:35 PM

2017-08-15T23:35:03-04:00

I think the reason why journalists are biased is because they need to get paid. Money corrupts and influences our news. Journalism is an art and artists usually starve. I think journalists who can accurately record facts void of opinions should be rewarded by their peers the way doctors gets their work published. Perhaps the people of America can decide how to systematically reward good journalists but I think journalists should go through a review board that judges their work. Opinions and events must be kept seperate.

Response by Debbie Pomeroy Cloud made Aug 16 at 2017 7:04 AM

2017-08-16T07:04:12-04:00

As long as the hightest responsibility is to the dollar or the agenda: truth, honor, respect, integrity and responsibility will be sacrificed. It's no about what is right or the best interest of anyone.

I agree. I have not paid for cable TV at home since 2006. It's everywhere so ita not like you will miss it. Choose your news sources and the times they invade your space. Not sure how we can change the current state of affairs outside our own sphere of influence.

Response by PFC Jonathan Albano made Aug 16 at 2017 7:16 AM

2017-08-16T07:16:43-04:00

I always track the story down to the most original source that I can find, determine their credibility, if the source is credible I look at multiple points of view on the story from varying sources, and then use all researched aspects to determine what details are most likely to be facts and what aspects are most likely embellishment or writer opinion. When two biased sides publish something on the same event, the truth is generally somewhere in the middle of both their stories.

Of course, I have too much time on my hands. :)

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Aug 16 at 2017 9:22 AM

2017-08-16T09:22:40-04:00

Bias; internet echo chambers; constantly pummeling by commercial, personal or political marketing. We all need a tech detox, and by extension, shutting off of all forms of news and advertising. That said, I don't see that on my horizon anytime soon.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Aug 16 at 2017 2:18 PM

2017-08-16T14:18:21-04:00

SGT Private RallyPoint Member it is like a drug. People crave it. It is so successful because people crave it. The problem is that the wrong thing is craved. Facts are craved less than opinion. If a fact doesn't fit the view, it is irrelevant. There is no room for a civilized debate because it devolves into poop throwing and violence. Yellow journalism has been around for a long time, but it used to be the exception. Now it is the rule. News outlets should not have political agendas. News outlets should not be driving opinion. News outlets should be providing people with unbiased factual information so that people can form their own opinions based on personal reaction to facts. There is still room for opinion stories. Those stories should be limited to local sources, cute animal stories, sports, or weather. There should be no opinion in news items. I am not saying that reporters should not have an opinion, or personality. I am saying that opinions should be presented as a debate or at the very least be identified as such. Additionally, news outlets should not be choosing what news to report based on agenda either. There is where the problems start to build. Who decides what is important enough to report. Is a fire at an apartment complex news? How about the first day of school? Police Shooting? Prescription drug abuse? Concealed Carry Laws? Who is deciding what qualifies as news is just as important as who is presenting that information.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 16 at 2017 4:24 PM

2017-08-16T16:24:24-04:00

Close down the MSM, the internet, and go back to where journalists had to search for the facts and the stories rather than have them handed to them. This would not solve it all, but would make folks have to use the noodle to fill in the blanks, along with making themselves more informed on their own. The most dangerous person doesn't have a weapon, they have a functioning and curious brain.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2017 8:59 AM

2017-08-29T08:59:21-04:00

The first thing that needs to happen is that people need to be able to reason. I don't know if that's something that humans are born with or if it's taught, but you can't begin to separate legitimate from fake without an ability to reason.

After that, the people that are releasing all of this fake information need to be held accountable.