Newspapers over newsfeeds

Three years ago, I kept running into a frustrating problem - one of those issues that people create start-ups over. The local newspaper delivery system was shady. They wouldn't give me a receipt for the monthly payment, all records were kept in a book they maintained, and cash-only payment frequently meant that they'd pocket the change, even though they pretended to write down details in their book; the details curiously missing the next time they showed up for cash.

Were I more entrepreneurial, I might have created a start-up that let people buy and pay for newspapers subscriptions online and provide a professional service. I'd have failed, given my utter lack of people-skills and logistics being a nightmare to maintain. So, I did what my aversion to conflict prodded me towards. I cancelled my newspaper subscription; the first time I truly had been without a newspaper since childhood.

It was great for a while. I was able to focus more on news that I wanted to read, rather than what someone had curated for me. I could research a topic in detail myself, what I could only read a few pages about earlier. With newly created algorithmic overlords, I even had newsfeeds populated for me to read based on my interests. These overlords knew what I needed, and they kept serving me more bubbly fresh news. I felt my confidence in knowledge about topics growing as I "researched" stuff myself. I was spending increasing time reading about news and events and found that I had increasingly concrete opinions on the state of the world, even anger about the lack of understanding and empathy everyone seemed to have about daily problems with the world.

I have since come to realize that this way biases lie.

Algorithmic overlords are no journalists and their focus isn't unbiased reporting. They in turn, are lorded over by creatures whose feed on "engagement". So, news that keeps people hooked, is kept on top of our newsfeeds. News that's fast and exciting gets propelled up the algorithmic ladder. People should keep engaging after all. People are asked to like, comment and share, because viral news is the best kind of news. The more something is seen, the more people believe it. Just ask anyone in advertising.

Now, here's the problem. This system doesn't promote truth. Truth seems like a simple concept: one lays down facts and establishes the truth. Common sense really! Well, truth always triumphs, but no timeline is specified. For all we know, truth may triumph in a million years. Truth, it turns out, is very nuanced, and nuances are boring. When a scientist says that something is more likely to do something than something else, so that they are as truthful as possible, they are also putting everyone to sleep with their wishy-washyness. Yawn! We want certainty! When someone comes along laying down facts and claiming to be a herald of the one truth, we listen and we believe, especially if it matches what we already believe in. What if some facts were omitted or misrepresented? They don't matter! See, here's another article that proves our point, and it's right below this one. There's another right below that one too. How very convenient!

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” 

- Mark Twain

When was the last time someone linked to a previous post and pointed out errors they had made when first publishing it in a newsfeed? Even if they did, did it receive the same virality as the original post?

Ever notice that newsfeeds rarely have an end? We keep scrolling and scrolling, but like an Akshaya Patra, we keep finding there's more left. Unlike the mythological vessel however, the contents aren't always palatable. It is a spiralling staircase, that leads us deeper into the cavern that is social media. Soon, we find our own echo chambers, where we were right all along, and everyone agrees with us! Dynasties have fallen when kings surrounded themselves with yes-men. Can you imagine it's impact on democracies, where each vote matters? It is important to be as unbiased in our news sources as possible, especially given that unbiasedness is extremely difficult to achieve.

Newsfeeds aren't responsible for unbiasedness. Their only goal is to keep us engaged. Like Narcissus, we are easily enthralled by our own images. He was turned into a flower so he might keep looking at his reflection in the water. Fate might not be so kind to us.

When I realized these issues, my first instinct was to go to a news site trying to keep myself abreast of news backed by quality journalism. News sites, however, have the difficult task of being both current and profitable. With much of their revenues coming from advertising, their incentives look a lot like social media, but they suffer in presentation because they lack the engineering might that social media giants have.

News sites are still a great way to read and research news, but they don't lend themselves well to providing dense information on a wide array of topics. Also, since everything remains up all the time, the delineation between current and previous news is hard to find. If you want to get into a rabbit-hole of articles, news sites will work for you, but if you want to get a sense of what the state of the world is in about 30 mins and move on with your day, they don't work.

We also have a lots of news services that curate the news for us based on our requirements. Some even provide us a summary of relevant/trending news instead of us having to read through the entire article. Reading an entire article! Oh, the horror! So, to keep track, there are inherent biases in humans. Journalists trained to recognise and avoid biases write an article. The articles are then curated and shortened for us by others, who may or may not have this training.

So, I was looking for a way to get my news that was

• Backed by quality journalism
• Current
• Local
• Curated to cover several domains

That... that's a newspaper.

Turns out, curated news covering various domains, wrapped in a roughly 30-45 min reading format has always been available. The news is well researched, and data driven. Corrections are published for anything they might have gotten wrong. It has local news without the anecdotal flavour of a WhatsApp message. Op-eds are an amazing peek into the details and nuances that go into policies and processes that run our world, and we take for granted.

All this of course, requires trust in the editor's unbiasedness. So, we need to choose a good newspaper with a history of unbiased news and journalistic integrity. I subscribe to The Hindu, which I find relatively unbiased, with a slightly left-leaning stance. You may wish to choose your newspaper based on your leanings, but unless you choose something that's a blatant mouthpiece for a political party, you'll notice the arguments are still relatively balanced. One way to understand if an article is biased, is differentiating facts from opinions.

"The government forced out the families to make room for an ostentatious dam" vs 

"The government relocated families in the area to make room for a new dam. The families have accused the government of forcibly removing them."

Guess which one of these is biased. This comparison also demonstrates that an opinion is faster to present than unbiased reporting. Brevity needs to be carefully applied.

Still not willing to deal with the newspaper delivery system, I turned to e-papers. Except for delivery mechanisms and an ability to clean mirrors, newspapers and e-papers are the same. Some might want to stick to print editions. For the rest, I'd recommend trying out e-papers. Start with local news editions that are available online. Try Hindustan Times for North India or Deccan Herald for South India. In addition, subscribe to a newspaper of record if you can. Maybe try a regional language newspaper. International newspapers are available if you're so inclined. Spending 30-45 mins in the morning instead of a pavlovian refreshing of newsfeeds is incredibly freeing.

Journalism is one of the four pillars of our democracy, meant to keep the other three in check. It requires discipline, time and commercial success. Without supporting journalism, we risk losing democracy itself. Journalistic freedom is necessary for democratic freedom. Without it, people would miss many of the nuances and issues that affect governance and daily life. A lot of journalists get into journalism starry eyed and run into walls of commercial pressures. Just like voting, supporting journalism is also necessary for democracy. Journalists also need to speak out more about biases within their ranks. Loudmouths can be entertaining, and at times cathartic, but that isn't journalism.

This isn't to say newsfeeds are evil. They serve an important function in our connected world. If something is happening around you right now, open your newsfeed to find out faster than any news organization. That's where it excels. Remember though, to open your local newspaper tomorrow to find nuances that might have been missed.

You might find that a holistic view of the news is much more valuable than fast news.