it would be nice if Americans could go back to being just interested news consumers

[PretzelWarrior]

who show up in front of their computers or TV's or radios to catch the latest headlines to help get a sense of what's happening in the world around us.

NOw, instead of just doing that...people have to always have a partisan stake in the news. "Is this news correct"? "Should I decide to agree with what I am hearing reported?"

Now, people in America have to obsess about news. Not just the high level headlines and analysis of what is behind the headline, but a mile long trail of so-called experts who will weigh in at the same time as other experts on opposite side of the issue all screeching over each other.

Now, Americans feel they have ownership stake. Let ME vote on this poll. I approve of Obama doing this. I approve of the new dog. I disapprove of the name of his car. I Think Nancy Pelosi has buggy eyes. And I must be right because 87% of Americans who voted (3,250 total) think the SAME WAY!!

It would be really nice if the scientific method could be taught early and often in schools and then other subjects like humanities covering current events could teach how to get the most info for the least amount of time and how to critically weigh what's being presented to us.

That is not to say we shouldn't go further and be active in an issue or area that concerns us. Of course we need activism more than ever. I just believe our weird "interactive" way of getting news and "feeling" the news is creating an even more uneven temper in the typical American.

[HEyHEY]

1. I agree

Most people seem to live under the false impression that I give a FUCK what they think. Do I care if 87 per cent of people think Pelosi has bug eyes? Do I care what some uneducated twerp posts after a news story? Do these people actually make a difference? No. Yet, everyone seems to think they have some kind of right to let everyone know their thoughts (And technically they do) but it's such a waste of time and bandwidth.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. and to me, it was all started because corporate news thought "interactivity" would sell and make $$$

I believe we all are aware that any poll on those websites is not scientific, self-selected bullcrap. We saw more of it when Time had the temerity to name "US" the Person of the year a couple of years ago.

OH REAAALLLLY!!! That's the biggest cop out and biggest jerking off of their potential and existing readers I've ever heard of.

We need experts. We need people who are elite in their field. We should all strive for something, but we shouldn't be given a voice on everything just because it's possible.

Have you seen YouTube? 90% of the crap on there is unwatchable. But it's all of us showing "we got somethin'" to say. Well, same goes for the news. We all have our own personal slant on it. We don't want to confront hard truths so we go seek out the news that helps us reinforce our own beliefs.

This is in the long run very unealthy for society and individuals.

[HEyHEY]

3. It also effects the editorial process as the average moron

Is more interested in total shit news. And then they make a big to do about all these nothing stories and the brass at news outlets say, "Oh, that's what people want! Give them more... forget about the shit that matters."

[WCGreen]

4. An apt comment on our "news" providers....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKhR8QtQ4do