Not Necessarily the News
I almost never watch network news. Whether it’s local coverage or the cable networks, it’s simply not on my radar. There are exceptions, of course. When tragedies strike, I tune in to get the brief of overviews. Then I ditch it for the internet once its clear that there won’t be anything useful following the first ten seconds.
The shows don’t offer any perspective. This has made the careful use of the internet’s resources invaluable. The internet is not an innately focused place, but the available options are immense when compared to TV. What does this have to do with long-term matters? Because you can’t properly evaluate the present and where we’re going if your thinking is fuzzy and uncritical.
Useless Labels
I lean left and right when you get down to it. Partisan political affiliations serve little useful purpose because they’re insufficient descriptors. I’ve discussed this previously. Causal factors, methodologies, and honest inquiry are far more important than some party platform.

This depiction (from Information is Beautiful) summarizes the generalities of political affiliations. Like all summaries, what it lacks in depth it makes up for by looking cool.
While not exclusive to them, this approach is more prevalent among my peers. Many Gen-X’ers like myself grew up in the shadow of angry Silent and Boomer political rhetoric. Whether left or right, we’ve had enough of your proselytizing, thank you very much.
I don’t want my notions validated; I want to figure things out. The former plays to my ego and the latter leaves me confused, but at least able to grope toward “more informed.” Tuning to the news in order to nod one’s head in agreement misses the point entirely.
My Sources
My StratFor addiction is well known. They may often be accused of leaning right, but at least they’re busy teasing out relevant details. NPR is accused of leaning left, but I’ve yet to hear an actual news reporter make distasteful mocking noises common to Fox. Beyond that, there are a number of interesting newsfeeds; the blogosphere contains insightful discussion that makes the cable talking-heads look like fools.
The closest thing to news that I watch on TV is The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I’ll be the first to admit those aren’t news programs. They’re critics and they serve a very useful purpose.
Gen-X to the Core
And it’s not just the content that’s rife for mockery, it’s the format. The standard motifs of the evening news are well known by most of us. We’re not fooled by the cheap ploys that give us the illusion of newsiness.
Such approaches are straight out of the Gen-X playbook. While Stewart, Colbert, and Brooker aren’t newscasters, they are informing us. They highlight the hypocrisy of elected officials and the morons that pretend to discuss their policies. They’re the unofficial fact-checkers – the skeptics of stated intentions.
I predict more friction ahead for those of us that embrace this analytical method. Our approach appears insulting and unserious to older generations. This is not an accident, but quite deliberate.
I’ll make the following deal with my elders. If you treat political discourse with seriousness, respectfulness, and genuine inquiry then I’ll stop making fun. In the mean time, I’ll get my TV news from the only people serious enough to relentlessly mock it.



Interesting blog, but it’s missing an important part of the equation: Generation Jones (between the Boomers and Generation X). Google Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten a ton of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) now specifically use this term. In fact, the Associated Press’ annual Trend Report chose the Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Here’s a page with a good overview of recent media interest in GenJones: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html
It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. And most analysts now see generations as getting shorter (usually 10-15 years now), partly because of the acceleration of culture. Many experts now believe it breaks down more or less this way:
DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946-1964
Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942-1953
Generation Jones: 1954-1965
Generation X: 1966-1978
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I will have to look into this new take on the generational breakdown. This is certainly worthy of further attention.
While I find that the broad overview of Strauss & Howe identifies generations in general terms, I feel that their breakdown is a bit too tidy. I will have to keep up with the Joneses.
Sorry about the pun – I couldn’t resist.