a challenge

[rm]

As I think most people reading this know, my pay-the-bills job involves reading newspapers and entering dozens, and sometimes hundreds of codes into a database for each article. These codes reflect the topics covered in the articles and center mostly on companies, politics and the economy of the U.S.

I read approximately 50 or so newspapers a week this way, with extreme attention to detail. Every single article in the Wall Street Journal, and most to all of the business sections of papers such as The New York Times, The Toronto Globe and Mail, The Financial Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and so forth. I also work on magazines sometimes, everything from Institutional Investor to Forbes to Newsweek.

My point is, no matter how much news you read, unless you work with me, I probably read more.

And my point is, it's worse than you think. The job situation, oil and gas supplies... whatever you're paying attention to, it's worse than you think.

I am not really a pessimist by nature, although I often make dire predictions about my own life in order to have the strength for the less dire, but ultimately very stressful shit that does happen.

You say that you know it's bad. You say that you're voting for the right guy; you say you are trying to educate people and get out the vote, so why do you have to read all that depressing stuff? It stresses you out, it doesn't solve anything, etc.

Knowledge is a weapon. And a good understanding of economics, American and world markets, the weird jobless recovery, the threat of stagflation, are some of the only ways to convince those that seemingly can't be convinced that we're in serious danger here. Danger that is as much of our own fiscal making as anything else (just one example: read the article about Wal Mart and it's suppliers in the December 2003 issue of Fast Company).

So here's my challenge: Read a newspaper. Yes, a domestic one. And yes, a printed one (sorry the web makes it too easy to skim and skip sections). Cover to cover. Every day. For two weeks. Then tell me about it.

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, I think your idea is wonderful.

On the other, I find myself asking why should any of us bother. I've previously read enough to know things are deeply screwed up and getting worse. Now I only skim the headlines because it is depressing and frankly there is effectively nothing any of us can do about it. Sure, we can vote, but that's a very small thing to be able to do in the face of a truly vast problem (even assuming that voting means anything at all given the potential problems with the voting machines). These days I mostly look at the news as a way to know when it has become absolutely necessary to flee this nation.

I'm actually quite interested to hear your thoughts on this.

[rm.livejournal.com]

What's going on is weirder and more complicated than you think, and the very screwy ecopnomic situation we're in has been wrought by consumers and citizens as much as by the government. I think people need to know that, I think people need to know how it works, I thnk for the center of capitalism we're woefully under-educated about economics, and I'm thinking that I'm sick of people deciding they're smart enough to be un-informed or quasi-informed.

[rahalia-cat.livejournal.com]

With one proviso: I get to skip the sports sections ;O)

Jaysus, the Sunday Times alone would take me until Thursday to get finished; folded in half it's about three inches thick, and that doesn't include the three magazines!

I'll do my best [ she says, as today's paper gets squeezed through the letterbox in sections and lands with a series of huge thuds on the mat ] but with work and studies I might only be able to manage every other day right now.

[rm.livejournal.com]

We don't code arts and entertainment, so if you want to be off the hook there, feel free. People are just astoundingly economicly ignorant here, and it's beginning to piss me off. (A lot of this comes from the fact that my own economic education is very slim, and yet I seem to know more about it than anyone I know except for traders and analysts, and that's disturbing -- it's not that hard, nor that boring, and this shit does matter.)

[ekatarina.livejournal.com]

Hmm,... I read The Globe and Mail - Canada's national paper (ignore the "National Post" 'cause they are garbage) - every day. What do you want to know about it? Sometimes I skip the sports or one of the financial sections due to time, but I usually read it "cover to cover" by the time I get home.

Ekatarina

[rm.livejournal.com]

Well, I read it too at work, so it's not what I want to know. It sounds like the challenge is already irrelevant to you, since you are reading way more news than the average person. Mostly I'm wanting to see my American friends get a handle on what's going on in the world beyond the blindingly obvious and scary enough.

[ekatarina.livejournal.com]

Okay.

I have found a lot of people think I am odd for reading a paper everyday, but I almost feel naked without it.

And, as someone with a lot of experience, do *you* like the Globe? I have to say that I think Ethics 101 has had some good ones these last month.

Katja

[rm.livejournal.com]

I think their financial section is easier to understand without sacrificing detail than almost anything else I've read. And I like their opinion type pieces a great deal -- their standard news journalism doesn't do much for me one way or the other, which is perhaps as it should be.

[raaven.livejournal.com]

My emotional equilibrium remains extremely fragile, especially in terms of widespread trends and government idiocy that I can do nothing about. If I were to read a full newspaper daily for 2 weeks, I would dissolve in a puddle of depressive paralysis. I don't write about it a lot in my journal, but I *know* how bad it is, even without the details.

If there some particular bits of info that you feel everyone should know about, I'd be happy to give them a read in small doses (I have a fair grounding in economics)...but at this point, for me, glutting myself on the bad news would be a Very Unhealthy Thing (TM).

[rm.livejournal.com]

Well if you can't deal with the blowing things up stuff, go for just the business section for a bit -- it's among other things, not just worse than we think but weirder, and I confess, often oddly entertaining (hostile take overs make great reading).

[raaven.livejournal.com]

I will! Thank you for the inspiration.

[nnp.livejournal.com]

excellent post, ms. rm... excellent idea. i am stealing to repost in my journal - it is that good. there is no such thing as "knowing too much" and i get pissy all the time with people who are ill-informed slobbering idiots... so it will be interesting to me(who reads several online news sources, indie print papers and at least the front section of whatever major paper in whatever major city i happen to be in...) to see how ill-informed i am myselfi know of several people on my list who'll jump at this challenge. including myself. (except i agree with whoever said that they get to skip sports... gah!)

my paper of choice: the san francisco chronicle

i shall start tomorrow with the sunday mammoth edition!
props for the challenge and i'll report back in two weeks!
kate

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

(sorry the web makes it too easy to skim and skip sections)

This is a good and interesting point. When I read something physical, I feel a kind of obligation to slog through the whole thing; on the web, the mindset is completely different, and headlines that don't grab me are completely ignored.

For what it's worth, I average two newspapers a day, and have for many years, and my perspective is considerably more optimistic than yours.