Can You Help Me Become Politically Unchallenged?

November 16, 2006 11:13 AM

How do I become more politically savvy or aware?

So, last night I sat down to watch tv and ended up watching a news channel. I had no clue who any of the people were, who they were talking about, or what events they were talking about. I'm politically stoopid, it seems.

It seems that all of the events have long histories and I don't even know where to begin. Where do I begin?

Another problem is that I'm fairly neutral on so much. I can really see both sides to every story. So, now what? Can I be passionately neutral? Is there such a thing? Or does my neutrality really point to apathy?

posted by Sassyfras to Grab Bag (34 answers total)

Wikipedia's current events section is one place to start, since if you dont know who someone is, you can click away and learn more about them what makes them significant.
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 11:18 AM on November 16, 2006

Subscribe to The Week, which is like The Economist for the uninitiated.

Actually, The Economist offers a very balanced, although sometimes painfully detailed look at the world. It covers everything going on, large and small, insightfully, and *generally* with relative neutrality in its own way. It's a bit pricey, but it lets you in on what's going on, and lets you formulate your opinions by informing you better.

Give a few issues from the newstand a shot and see what you think. Watch the news more, read more and subscribe to a newspaper and you'll be where the rest of us are.
posted by disillusioned at 11:20 AM on November 16, 2006

Subscribe to The Economist. Read it, without worrying about not getting the background of the stories. In a few months, you'll be informed.

They do a decent job of integrating some discussion of where things have been into their stories about what's going on. They carry a fairly strong classical-liberal bias, but they're up-front and clear about it so that it's easy to deal with. It is far and away the most comprehensive and relentlessly international news magazine you will find on this planet, and it's bitchy enough to usually be a good read.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:23 AM on November 16, 2006

Read Slate and Salon and blogs to know who/what people on the Tube are talking about in the latest issue grabbing the short-attention-span media cycle.

About the second issue, it's ok to not take a side. In general as you become more up-to-date you begin to side with certain partisan camps or ideologies or whatever because the way they view the world fits your own.
posted by Firas at 11:30 AM on November 16, 2006

Read a local daily newspaper. It will include national, international and local news -- so you'll be better informed about what's happening on the TV news, but you'll also have advance warning about changes coming to your own community. Newspapers generally have opinion pages that include columns from a number of different perspectives, so you can also read about how different people feel about the topics of the day. That may help you form your own opinions.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:33 AM on November 16, 2006

I started watching cable news channels each morning (especially on Sundays) a few months ago, and I knew from the start that they're not the best sources. I do get a recap of headlines each morning that I can research at my leisure later in the day. I think it's been a very effective intro and a great way to build a list of topics I'm interested in. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are also a great way to get the headlines.
posted by Science! at 11:34 AM on November 16, 2006

Listen to NPR news.
posted by muddgirl at 11:39 AM on November 16, 2006

Best answer: Paying attention to the news is like jumping into the middle of a long-running soap opera. You just have to watch for a while, and pretty soon you'll get a feel for who the characters are. You'll also start to decide who the good guys and bad guys are, based on your own opinion. For background research, the sources linked above are pretty good.
posted by nickmark at 11:42 AM on November 16, 2006

To second just about everyone, yeah, just start absorbing as much journalism as you can. Soon, you'll develop taste and discernment, better enabling you to choose sources that you trust.

Chase down your curiosities online. If you feel a story you just read didn't cover enough, continue pursuing it until you're satisfied - concerning specific incidents or people, look past the national news and try to pin down accounts from local sources.

Read the opinion page of your local paper, as well as letters to the editor. Soak up as much as you can - you'll come to sift out the chaff quite naturally.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:43 AM on November 16, 2006

The Economist is classical-liberal? You haven't read it recently, I suppose. Maybe half of Economist articles take little political stance. The other half are solidly free-trade-is-great, unions-suck, big-business-is-great, libertarian-Republican - fairly sane Republican compared to politics in the U.S., but Republican nonetheless. They're not "liberal" on much of anything.

Recent stories include "why raising the minimum wage won't help poor people", Kerry-bashing, "why the Democrats hate free trade", etc. Reading The Economist is fine, but be aware of where they are coming from.

Easiest way to become more politically aware? Watch The Daily Show. It's the least painful political news available.
posted by jellicle at 11:51 AM on November 16, 2006

I'm happy to see so many people recommend The Economist. It's a great news source. (Expensive, but you get what you pay for...)

Take cable news networks with a grain of salt. They really are infotainment, not the sort of stuff you should depend on for any deep understanding of politics. (They are good when stuff blows up, tho.)

The most important component to understanding politics is understanding history. Picking up some books on American history in the 20th century will give you a superior grounding in current events. (for instance to really understand the problems surrounding a guy like Trent Lott you need to go back to Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrats, the GOP's southern strategy, the civil rights era, etc.)

Kudos to you for reaching out to politics! I read recently that only 10% of Americans are political aware and informed.

Now if only I'd take time to learn more about the economy and law...
posted by wfrgms at 11:52 AM on November 16, 2006

jellicle, classical liberal is the 'original liberalism' that challenged any state authority derived from that every man is not born equal, and thus argued that the state should keep its hands off people as much as possible. In the USA it's sometimes called libertarian.
posted by Firas at 11:55 AM on November 16, 2006

( I wouldn't go so far as to call the economist what I consider to be libertarian. They definitely acknowledge that the market is not the solution to everything, and that markets often require regulation)
posted by Good Brain at 12:11 PM on November 16, 2006

I highly, highly, highly recommend that you check out Stratfor. Stratfor has been called, among many other things, "the shadow CIA." They're a private company that maintains its own intelligence network worldwide, for the purposes of disseminating need-to-know information to anyone who wants it.

Typically I think their customers are corporations and such, but they have affordable subscriptions for the layman as well. I don't even go that far, though - they also have three free mailing lists you can sign up for; their Terrorism, Geopolitical, and Public Policy reports. Each week on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday you get an email with the week's report. I find the Geopolitical report to be absolutely fascinating, and I look forward to it every Tuesday.

The nice thing about these guys is that they are not a news organization and not a government organization. Their mission is to be RIGHT all the time, not to tell people what they want to hear. You'd be amazed at how often they predict something, and then I read about it in the news a few days or weeks later. Just as an example, in their Geopolitical report from last week, they predicted that the US is going to have to negotiate with Iran in order to get out of Iraq. A week later, what do you know - reports in the media that there are secret back-channel discussions going on about this very thing, between our two governments.

Reading these reports will start to give you an understanding of how totally interconnected everything is. Politics, economics, the whole bit. In addition to the weekly reports, you'll also occasionally get access to a special report of some kind or other, which had been previously offered to their Premium subscribers only. I got one of those this week, about the world economic situation. Check it out here. Again, just a really interesting read that will give you a slick summary of the situation that you can use to impress your friends or men/women you meet in bars.

I focus on reading these reports every week, and then augment them with other mainstream news. If you do it the other way around, you may find yourself rather behind the curve.
posted by autojack at 12:14 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

The Economist is classical-liberal? You haven't read it recently, I suppose. Maybe half of Economist articles take little political stance. The other half are solidly free-trade-is-great, unions-suck, big-business-is-great, libertarian-Republican

Jellicle, this is the essence of classic liberalism. I think you are confusing liberalism as a political ideology with (small 'l') "liberal" as used as a descriptor of a social stance in American politics, also not to be confused with (big 'L') Liberal as used in Canadian politics.
posted by modernnomad at 12:20 PM on November 16, 2006

Oh, and I also give a thumbs-down to using the Daily Show as a news source. If that is your only source of news, you certainly won't be any more "politically unchallenged". 10 mins of jokey headlines and puns won't change that.

This isn't a criticism of the Daily Show; I am big fan. Simply put, the Daily Show is much, much funnier when you actually understand the news beforehand.
posted by modernnomad at 12:24 PM on November 16, 2006

Also, rather than waiting for someone to write an interesting article, get used to looking things up when you're curious about them. The internet is a great tool, especially if your main goal is simply understanding (as opposed to hard-core scholarship). For instance, if you're like the president of the U.S. and you don't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a, go to Wikipedia and look up Sunni and Shi'a. If you don't trust Wikipedia (maybe you shouldn't) go to the bottom of the page and check out their references and external links. Or go to google. If you get in the habit of doing this, you'll quickly find yourself with exactly the opposite of your current problem ---you won't be able to stand cable news because they don't know anything.
posted by Humanzee at 12:27 PM on November 16, 2006

Best answer: My advice is to read both sides of everything that you can. Don't just absorb whatever DailyKos is spewing.
posted by drstein at 12:47 PM on November 16, 2006

Best answer: The Economist is an excellent recommendation. The writing style is excellent, far more concise and readable than most other newspapers. It doesn't get bogged down in the day-to-day ephemeral political gossip, and instead gets to the crux of an issue in a clear, efficient manner.

Also, if you go to Economist.com, they provide "Backgrounders", which are short introductions to current political and economic issues, with hyperlinks to various relevant Economist articles where you can learn more.
posted by matthewr at 1:22 PM on November 16, 2006

Be aware that The Economist is a weekly publication. Though it is not lengthy in page number (relative to other popular magazines) the content is quite dense and takes me longer to process. You may not be able to read it cover to cover before the next one shows up in your mailbox. Therefore, I suggest choosing the most interesting article to read first and then tackling the rest of the magazine if you get through that one. It won't be long before you're under piles of them.
posted by dendrite at 2:46 PM on November 16, 2006

Also, if you read The Guardian there are usually smaller, sub-reports on the areas and people that the main articles reference.
posted by craven_morhead at 2:54 PM on November 16, 2006

Learn to decipher the political bias of your source. Everyone is biased and people who say the aren't are frauds. Pay attention to all sides of the arguments. Stay away from blow hards on both sides.
posted by spankbot at 3:26 PM on November 16, 2006

A different tack, and please don't take this as an insult, but what about a news TV show intended for younger viewers?

I saw that PBS item about Nick News and was quite impressed.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:40 PM on November 16, 2006

Second the NPR recommendation.
Mmm, non-commercial radio -- the only way to go.
posted by Rash at 4:13 PM on November 16, 2006

The Economist now has a lot more online that it used to. You could probably get by without subscribing and just reading it online.

Also, to balance, read the Guardian as suggested.

The other thing that may be worthwhile is reading some stuff from somewhere outside the Anglo-Saxon world. Der Spiegel publishes a lot in English as does Al Jazeera and The Hindu.
posted by sien at 4:20 PM on November 16, 2006

I like the Economist, but the OP is someone who didn't have any idea what the the people on CNN (or whatever TV news broadcast) were talking about. The Economist might be a bit too intimidating for someone like the OP. As far as I could tell the question was not, "Where can I get the most thorough weekly discussion of the most complex international issues? And I don't mind paying $50-70 for it." The question was, "What can I do to figure out who John Murtha is?"

For that, I suggest reading the local daily paper, along with a mainstream newsweekly, like Time or Newsweek (I've heard good things about the Week, too.) Time and Newsweek are accessible and fun, too.
posted by hhc5 at 7:09 PM on November 16, 2006

Being politically savvy and politically aware are two different things. Anyone can consume massive amounts of news; it's a learning process to be aware of what's fact and what's propaganda. Usually everything is a mix of the two.

Do not rely on one source of news. This doesn't mean you get four newspaper subscriptions; it means that whenever you read a story that really interests you, read the coverage in a rival publication or two. This will not only give you a fuller picture of an issue - it's also the best way to get a feel for media bias, both how it operates generally and in your local media.

If you watch TV, do watch the Daily Show, and complement it with CNN. Don't overdo TV, especially CNN - they are trying to keep you in your seat to watch commercials. They're not trying to get you politically engaged.

The key, really, is to talk to people. Read posters in your neighbourhood, go to talks or rallies that interest you (being aware that most of the people involved are good souls; some will be automatons working for political cults). Ask people what they think about things.

When confronted with or curious about anything, always ask yourself, "Who benefits?" Don't be satisfied with your immediate answer.

As said, read the Economist and the Guardian. Start with the Guardian if the Economist is too much. Al Jazeera, too.

But be sure not to neglect local news and events. Despite what some people would probably like you to believe, this is actually where most politics happens.

At the same time, familiarize yourself with how the news media do what they do. Chomsky is immensely helpful in this way. (Say what you will about his politics, his systemic analysis of a for-proft media would seem to be spot on regardless of ideology). Familiarize yourself with media concentration.

As for political terminology, be suspicious of either/or and left/right simplicity.

Required reading/viewing/listening:

* A People's History of the United States.
* The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization.
* The No- Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade.
* Glass, Paper, Beans.
* 1984, especially Goldstein's fictional banned book near the middle.
* The documentary This is What Democracy Looks Like.
* The Utah Phillips CD The Past Didn't Go Anywhere.

Talk to people. Talk to people. Talk to people.
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:58 PM on November 16, 2006 [3 favorites]

Oh, and...

Can I be passionately neutral? Is there such a thing? Or does my neutrality really point to apathy?

Howard Zinn said, "You can't be neutral on a moving train." To not act (or at the very least opine) is to accept the status quo, and the status quo is not static.

But, an ability to see through both sides' bullshit is a wonderful gift :) ... if you do nothing else, learn how to be politically engaged without losing that. It's what we need more of.
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:02 PM on November 16, 2006

Ugh, all those resources were by white men, weren't they?

* No Nonsense Women's Rights
* Probably best read after reading some of the above items: The Wretched of the Earth.

Sorry for the flood - poltical education is part of what I do :)
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:14 PM on November 16, 2006

I want to strongly emphasize what only a couple of commenters have mentioned: read up on history.

Politics is history-in-the-making, and knowing a little about how we got here is important for understanding what's going on.

What was helpful for me when I became politicized a few years back was kind of immersing myself in reading some history and political analysis, and then developing a framework for understanding politics that helps me understand much of what's going on today without knowing every detail.

A People's History of the United States is a great resource (long, but great).

Use Wikipedia. It's a good introduction to everything.

Some baseline ideas to keep in mind:

politics is about struggles for power.

money is power in an abstract form, so any economic issues (taxes, unions, regulation, civil lawsuits, YOUR JOB, etc.) are inherently political.

while there's something to be said for appreciating different sides of an issue, there are a lot good-guys-versus-bad-guys fights out there. Pick a side. It matters.

you can't take political actors at their word - none of them. Political speech is intended more for display than for communication.

Good luck, and give yourself plenty of time for things to sink in.

posted by univac at 9:16 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]

So to add to all of the recommendations of listening to NPR, watching the News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer, reading the Economist and following your curiosity, I also subscribe to this weekly newsletter called Activate.Their tag line is "World News Once a Week" and it's basically an aggregator of many different sources. It's published by Flavorpill which skews young and urban but I read it every week in case I'm remiss in following what is being put out by other media. It's like the NYT Week in Review for the technologically hip.

And I agree wholeheartedly that TDS/TCR are way funnier if you actually know what is going on in the world.
posted by lannanh at 9:53 AM on November 17, 2006

You'll be hard pressed finding a completely unbiased political opinion, but the economist does a good job.
posted by freddymetz at 4:22 PM on November 17, 2006

You'll be hard pressed finding a completely unbiased political opinion, but the economist does a good job.

Right, because status quo isn't a bias?

The people at the Economist are on a side. There's no such thing as less-biased or more-biased news, just worse-written and better-written.
posted by poweredbybeard at 10:56 PM on November 17, 2006

I was indifferent. I listned to NPR during drive time and six monhs later I felt informed.

(I blame my wife.)
posted by UncleHornHead at 8:32 PM on November 20, 2006