A friend of mine in England deals with personal health issues, much of them derived from a long-known but little-understood virus, and blogged about life during the early stages of the Coronavirus pandemic:
I keep thinking to myself that I could manage all this better if only the world would shut up about it for a bit. There is constant chatter and no real news and for people like me who are anxious and readily self-isolating, far too much frightening stuff designed to rein in the cavalier and the rebellious.
A while ago in talking to a friend about the mass media and the internet I mentioned that the difficulty isn’t finding information, it’s dealing with the firehose of messaging coming at you and filtering out that which is not only useful but true.
Years ago I loved part of an English history lecture discussing the rise of newspapers in England. It coincided with the popularity of gin, and the professor spoke of how the press inflamed the issues of the day for a readership dealing with the gin epidemic, particularly in London. Reading newspapers, getting intoxicated, and arguing politics during an addiction crisis. You see? The present not only has echoes of the past, sometimes it’s a hell of a good mimic, too.
My friend was amused by the firehose analogy, I’m not sure where I first heard it. My sense is we all deal with dialing it down in our own ways. I like watching the world news and the Missus joins me up to a certain point, but I think how depressing it can be wears on her. I find myself becoming very deliberate in choosing information sources, and dearly missing some that have retired and/or simply vanished, certain programs or columnists.
If I could change one thing about the public discourse in American politics, it would be to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The swift boating of John Kerry was dreadful enough. Al Gore never said he invented the internet (he correctly said he sponsored legislation to fund ARPANET). The distortions piled on Hillary Clinton were worse. Yet so long as they succeeded, they increased. And you can see where that has gotten us.
OmbudsBen 
I’m afraid I’m a news junkie on a normal day, so I tend to wear out lately. I’m beginning to limit updates. I stay in contact with friends on Facebook and emails. I don’t like to talk on the phone a lot.
Yesterday I learned a new skill (I hope). I set up a writers meeting on Zoom. The video chat another writer and I had for practice was amazing. I can see using this after we are past the pandemic.
Stay safe and stay home.
I like the fire hose analogy too. It definitely feels like standing in the way of one to turn on the news at the moment. I hadn’t heard of the Fairness Doctrine, but I realise the BBC practises it. Alas it finds ways around its usefulness by giving equal time to, say, a renowned scientist and an uninformed denier on climate change. Mind you there were a lot of complaints when it did that! And it must be a better place to start than the purely partisan.
Anhinga, good to hear from you. I think you’re right about Zoom, and wonder how much changes like this will be incorporated into our world, post-pandemic.
Victoria, I love the BBC World News. The only international news program I found in the same league was the German DW news. As good as the BBC is, they have a fascination with celebrity. While he lived, they often reported on Michael Jackson, whom they called “Jacko.” It was kind of amusing to watch the news from London and hear some tidbit of his personal life–holding a baby above a balcony, etc.
I’ve heard people defend partisan reporting by saying objectivity is impossible. I believe that misses the point. We also can’t run as fast as cheetahs, but that doesn’t prevent sprinters from trying.
Striving for accuracy and objectivity remains worth the effort.
The Fairness Doctrine is a former policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission as you said in your post. (That’s why it isn’t applicable to BBC content as a prior comment had stated.) I agree with you, regarding the value of striving for accuracy and objectivity. The Fairness Doctrine provides balance. Sadly, it was retired at some point in the 20th century.
There was an amendment to it, called the Zapple Doctrine, which was also an FCC rule. It pertained to political content exclusively, and ensured balance. I wrote the Wikipedia entry on the Zapple Doctrine. It too was revoked by the FCC in 2008 or 2009.
Thanks for your note, Ellie. I hadn’t heard of the Zapple Doctrine.
I wish there were a political initiative to set up a commission for verifying statements which had some tooth to it. Gravitas, whereby people had as much faith in its veracity as they once had in, oh … Walter Cronkite.
People trusted Cronkite, on the CBS news. We were less stressed then. Still capable of blunders, of course. But we had more faith in our governance.
I like that analogy too. Sometimes, if it’s too much gaslighting, misdirection, and outright lies, it feels more like being water boarded.
I was listening to NPR all day for awhile, and it was too much. Not that I feel they are lying to me, but just all COVID all the time was making me anxious and it was hard to sleep. Now I listen to a bit in the morning while I walk the dog, and the Newshour at 3, and that’s all I can take.