People growing sick of the "news"?

[renard_ruse]

Talked with two people in the past day who are sick and tired of the "news" being entirely dominated by this stupid ISIS obsession.

They are both the kind of people who are basically apolitical and don't usually question the "news."

I think the media obsession and saturation coverage is starting to turn off the average member of the general public.

Enough already with ISIS. Give it a damn rest media and that goes for you politicians too.

The chances of being a victim of "terrorism" are less than being struck by lighting. The public is starting to realize its all a big con job by the war mongers.

 

[BabblingBrooke]

The news is generally sensationalistic in nature, from weather warnings to disasters to terrorist attacks. It gets hard to stomach, definitely. I do prefer reading my news and generally find the BBC and AP to be the best source.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm not apolitical, at least not in the grand scheme of things. I am however annoyed by the constant ISIS/ISIL coverage for a couple of reasons. First I don't think that there is a single thing in the entire history of the world that is truly worthy of this kind of coverage and that includes 9/111, putting a man on the moon and my glorious birth. (According to legend I was procrastinating on that whole birth thing, then they threatened to cut my mother and I came out kicking and snarling. One of these three things has changed over the years and it ain't my procrastination.)

The media is out to make money and while there are (I guess) ways to minimize that that there are no ways to eliminate it. When I say I guess, I imagine you could probably try some various government incentives but I'm uncertain how well they would work in practice.

Anyway they compete for viewers which means they do a few things. They first find their audience and focus in. They also stick to things that catch your eye. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a common phrase. That's just the nature of the beast and it's hard to be upset about it once you get how it works.

The reality is that the 24 news cycle is too long for them to not be dedicated educators.

 

[Que]

The news is generally sensationalistic in nature, from weather warnings to disasters to terrorist attacks. It gets hard to stomach, definitely. I do prefer reading my news and generally find the BBC and AP to be the best source.

I seem to keep finding myself in places with no TV provided. I'm not interested enough to go out and have it hooked up. a friends house that I stop by for some odd reason he started watching Russian television I'm finding it to be less biased than you would think. I think it's just that America really doesn't have journalism anymore.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I don't watch the news.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm not apolitical, at least not in the grand scheme of things. I am however annoyed by the constant ISIS/ISIL coverage for a couple of reasons. First I don't think that there is a single thing in the entire history of the world that is truly worthy of this kind of coverage and that includes 9/111, putting a man on the moon and my glorious birth. (According to legend I was procrastinating on that whole birth thing, then they threatened to cut my mother and I came out kicking and snarling. One of these three things has changed over the years and it ain't my procrastination.)

The media is out to make money and while there are (I guess) ways to minimize that that there are no ways to eliminate it. When I say I guess, I imagine you could probably try some various government incentives but I'm uncertain how well they would work in practice.

Anyway they compete for viewers which means they do a few things. They first find their audience and focus in. They also stick to things that catch your eye. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a common phrase. That's just the nature of the beast and it's hard to be upset about it once you get how it works.

The reality is that the 24 news cycle is too long for them to not be dedicated educators.

Since you are one of THE most intelligent contributors in this forum, I'm going to pick on you first.

I happened to have majored in journalism in college and worked in the industry some years after graduation. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I also happened to have worked in politics and government, so I've had a foot in both camps, so to speak.

Rather than launch into a long lecture as is my habit, I just want to start by asking you a few questions. As someone who thinks ISIS is not "worthy of this kind of coverage," but who also believes the 24-hour news cycle is sufficiently long enough that media outlets should be "dedicated educators," just what is it you expect reporters and editors to do? How much coverage is enough? What is the standard by which they should make that decision? What things do you believe they should NOT do? What information or photos should they NOT tell or show you?

This most of all: After a news outlet gives you the NEWS, what is your responsibility to research and investigate the SUBJECT to your own needs and interest and to satisfy whatever your "responsibility" is to be a well-informed citizen?

Feel free to parse your answers with respect to radio, TV, newspapers and magazines as you wish.

Thanks in advance for the conversation.

 

[Hard_Rom]

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”
― Mark Twain

 

[Hypoxia]

I knew someone who only read newspapers thet were ten years old. Needed time to put things in perspective and see what was *really* important.

One way to see the sights is to go to some popular tourist vantage and then turn around and look in the opposite direction. Apply that tactic to news consumption. Whatever the leading-bleeding story is, turn it around and see what's opposite it.

 

[about_average]

This most of all: After a news outlet gives you the NEWS, what is your responsibility to research and investigate the SUBJECT to your own needs and interest and to satisfy whatever your "responsibility" is to be a well-informed citizen?

Large. On the other hand most people don't have the resources to really research the information on their own so they have to rely on the resources of journalists to collect and report the information. Or at least a superficial reporting if it has to do with government and public information. For instance, legislative references, SCOTUS rulings, etc.
Books are great, but rarely timely and are generally only one view even if they are timely.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Since you are one of THE most intelligent contributors in this forum, I'm going to pick on you first.

I happened to have majored in journalism in college and worked in the industry some years after graduation. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I also happened to have worked in politics and government, so I've had a foot in both camps, so to speak.

Rather than launch into a long lecture as is my habit, I just want to start by asking you a few questions. As someone who thinks ISIS is not "worthy of this kind of coverage," but who also believes the 24-hour news cycle is sufficiently long enough that media outlets should be "dedicated educators," just what is it you expect reporters and editors to do? How much coverage is enough? What is the standard by which they should make that decision? What things do you believe they should NOT do? What information or photos should they NOT tell or show you?

This most of all: After a news outlet gives you the NEWS, what is your responsibility to research and investigate the SUBJECT to your own needs and interest and to satisfy whatever your "responsibility" is to be a well-informed citizen?

Feel free to parse your answers with respect to radio, TV, newspapers and magazines as you wish.

Thanks in advance for the conversation.

I hardly know where to begin that I didn't cover. Because at the end of the day I understand that they are out for viewers and clearly what they are doing works as well as it can. I know viewers for the networks have been declining but I suspect we'll eventually hit some sort of critical mass because the viewers aren't watching CNN because they are reading this blog or that blog but they got their information from CNN or some other large media outlet.

Ideally they would stop covering a story once they have given all of the important information. In a world with the internet and ondemand and the like them telling you that you can catch up on the this or that at their website while they educate you on various banking legislation would be nice.

I would love for them to ignore celebrities but obviously someone cares what Caitlyn Jenner is up to.

 

[kbate]

Talked with two people in the past day who are sick and tired of the "news" being entirely dominated by this stupid ISIS obsession.

They are both the kind of people who are basically apolitical and don't usually question the "news."

I think the media obsession and saturation coverage is starting to turn off the average member of the general public.

Enough already with ISIS. Give it a damn rest media and that goes for you politicians too.

The chances of being a victim of "terrorism" are less than being struck by lighting. The public is starting to realize its all a big con job by the war mongers.

I don't believe you. Mostly that you talked to two people. The rest might be true, but the bit about talking to two people is an outright lie.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I hardly know where to begin that I didn't cover. Because at the end of the day I understand that they are out for viewers and clearly what they are doing works as well as it can. I know viewers for the networks have been declining but I suspect we'll eventually hit some sort of critical mass because the viewers aren't watching CNN because they are reading this blog or that blog but they got their information from CNN or some other large media outlet.

Ideally they would stop covering a story once they have given all of the important information. In a world with the internet and ondemand and the like them telling you that you can catch up on the this or that at their website while they educate you on various banking legislation would be nice.

I would love for them to ignore celebrities but obviously someone cares what Caitlyn Jenner is up to.

I guess what I would vainly hope for people to understand is that journalists are in the business of providing information. In the good old days they were in the profession of providing meticulously accurate information, and they didn’t give half a damn about the business of making money. It was someone else’s business “upstairs” to figure out how to make a profit off of journalists doing journalism, and there was simply no point in discussing that other tawdry business with journalists since the two had nothing in common.

When people talk about networks competing for viewers today, forgive me for assuming that what they really mean is “pandering.” And while journalists themselves no longer have the luxury of ignoring the demographics and informational demands of their readers and viewers, that does not make them hucksters. They don’t get paid or docked upon miniscule fluctuations in their circulation and audience size, although your paycheck will most certainly be larger if you work for the New York Times rather than the Bigsby Bugle.

Furthermore, the general public is constantly mischaracterizing NEWS reporting with feature writing and reporting. It’s certainly understandable. The stories are broadcast or published by the same companies and are often authored by the same reporters. But straight news appropriately concentrates on hard facts. Features and interpretive pieces go much farther afield into analysis, opinion, trends, etc. Because of this distinction, feature stories are far more sensitive to the media company’s target audience than is its news coverage. And while media companies have every desire to cater to your wishes re Caitlyn Jenner and exploit your disdain for Fox News, the one common bias within the news media is their belief that EVERYBODY is entitled to the NEWS – whether you want it or not.

Thus, when something like Paris breaks, the sheer novelty of it, the obvious drama and tragedy, the political impact of another terror attack and the wrinkle of the coordination of a multi-targeted operation ensure that the event will get saturation coverage despite the attitude of those like Smoot who are irritated at having TMZ preempted. Meanwhile, I am feverishly in the process of flipping channels between the major big three networks and Fox and CNN because I know everybody is covering the story the same way and asking the same questions: who, what, where, when, and how. Right back to the high school journalism basics. And I have a natural desire as a news consumer to get those questions answered both accurately AND as quickly as possible.

Where journalism and journalists are under the most pressure today is how the process of collecting information has changed from when I was studying to be a reporter back in high school and college. Back then when a journalist arrived on scene to cover a breaking story, especially one of murder and mayhem, the authorities were already on the scene. Those authorities generally shared what information they had, and the reporter had at least a few hours to compile that information and maybe even mix it with other facts garnered independently before publication or broadcast later that evening or the next morning.

Not anymore. Today, the internet and smart phones have made every person walking the street a potential reporter and videographer. Unfortunately, that also means that there are far more unfounded rumors, premature opinions and flat out lies flying around in the very same moments when accurate information is most needed and hardest to come by. The hot shot big boys of NBC and the Washington Post can no longer count on having the “best” information gathering vantage point inside the police lines, and the public is no longer dependent on what “they” tell us about what is happening. There are another hundred reporters and photographers inside the building, many of whom are recording their own deaths and those of others.

Back in the day, we’d call that a “scoop.” Today, it’s called life.

No news organization today can match the information gathering resources of a citizenry equipped with HD cameras and instantaneous satellite communications. But the pressure to respond just as quickly is still there. And that pressure generally renders journalists poorly suited to perform the “educational” function you spoke of. It takes too much time and research. It also triggers the demographic pandering temptation. If my best, truthful analysis is going to make you angry enough to cancel your subscription, do I give it to you straight, hedge my bet and acknowledge more prominently the minority view you favor, or turn my attention to another story entirely that causes you to sing my praises? In the realm of feature reporting, I am far more free to make those decisions to my commercial advantage. If Presidents have been known to fudge the best efforts and analysis of their intelligence agencies, what do you think the rank and file couch potato is going to do with messages from the news media?

As a result, most organizations now bring in the "compensated subject-matter expert." That has its own separate set of pros and cons, not the least of which is that the commentator does not necessarily have a sense of journalistic responsibility in the abstract as well as perhaps having his own personal agenda to pursue based on past battles and future ambitions.

Ultimately, we ARE entitled to the information we want, and the information we WANT has caused us to choose up sides among the people who give it to us. Fox News vs. MSNBC. There could be no better contrast as to the state of journalism today. THAT is what we demanded, and that is what we got.

And we are so much the poorer for it no matter which side you chose. And I find it a little bit disingenuous (but only a little) to blame journalism.

But if you have any desire to be truly well informed, you will spend much more time doing your own independent research, and that will necessarily entail spending a lot more time listening to people and reading writers you normally would not wish to read or listen to.

Not to blow my own horn, but it’s a big reason why I am here and why I post what I post. I only say that because I suspect you already realize it. But I think it is worth emphasizing because it is fundamental to the point I’m trying to make.

And that’s the way it is….

 

[Sean Renaud]

Okay, I'm mostly in agreement with you there though I admit to not really making a distinction between journalists and the networks they are on.

I think you're mistaken on competing for viewers meaning pandering. Pandering is the symptom not the disease so to speak. Your network grows by having more viewers and thus the guys at the top make more money selling ads and the like. Pandering just the simplest way to do it.

I apologize if I demonized the Journalists since I recognize that they are not the problem. It's the execs upstairs but the problem remains.

As for the speed of the media preventing them from educating us there are times and subjects where that is true and others where it's not. If there is an active shooter you need to just go with what you have because you won't have time to talk about it later. And for fairly obvious reasons you can't just let the other guy cover it. But not everything is like that.

For example the Keystone Pipeline was discussed for what? Four years, five? I remember a lot of Republicans thinking it's approval would be the October Surprise to keep Obama in office back in 2012. Aside from the issue that it wouldn't get viewers I don't see a good reason why they can't explain the facts of the pipeline and the Agalla (I think that's the aquifer beneath it's route, not looking it up because it's not important to my point) Aquifer. We're fifteen years into the War on Terrorism we should all be fairly familiar with Middle East politics at this point. We're seven years past the the housing collapse, people SHOULD know what Glass Steegal was, what the CRA is. I would think a crash course on the Constitution, Civil Disobedience, LGBT Rights and how it relates to Kim Davis would be appropriate.

I know how to keep myself informed but I do want an informed populace and clearly the news is both the best tool for that and failing at it as well.

PS: Knowing that it's a vicious cycle of them pandering to us so we watch more and us watching more so they pander to us more doesn't make it less frustrating. If anything it makes things mildly more frustrating cus I know what the problem is and have no means to fix it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Okay, I'm mostly in agreement with you there though I admit to not really making a distinction between journalists and the networks they are on.

I think you're mistaken on competing for viewers meaning pandering. Pandering is the symptom not the disease so to speak. Your network grows by having more viewers and thus the guys at the top make more money selling ads and the like. Pandering just the simplest way to do it.

I apologize if I demonized the Journalists since I recognize that they are not the problem. It's the execs upstairs but the problem remains.

As for the speed of the media preventing them from educating us there are times and subjects where that is true and others where it's not. If there is an active shooter you need to just go with what you have because you won't have time to talk about it later. And for fairly obvious reasons you can't just let the other guy cover it. But not everything is like that.

For example the Keystone Pipeline was discussed for what? Four years, five? I remember a lot of Republicans thinking it's approval would be the October Surprise to keep Obama in office back in 2012. Aside from the issue that it wouldn't get viewers I don't see a good reason why they can't explain the facts of the pipeline and the Agalla (I think that's the aquifer beneath it's route, not looking it up because it's not important to my point) Aquifer. We're fifteen years into the War on Terrorism we should all be fairly familiar with Middle East politics at this point. We're seven years past the the housing collapse, people SHOULD know what Glass Steegal was, what the CRA is. I would think a crash course on the Constitution, Civil Disobedience, LGBT Rights and how it relates to Kim Davis would be appropriate.

I know how to keep myself informed but I do want an informed populace and clearly the news is both the best tool for that and failing at it as well.

I basically agree with you here, and, imho, it is the media's greatest fault like the subject of terrorism broadly and the Keystone pipeline.

But I also have sympathy with the messenger because it is a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. People have short attention spans, and they're not getting longer. I don't believe the media caused this, but they certainly cater to it because they ignore it and swim against the tide at their own peril.

There is nothing sexy about the competing economic and environmental issues surrounding Keystone. And the historical background of Sunni vs. Shia and the nuances of jihad within Islam is a narrative this is centuries long. Documentaries on these subjects are not going to attract a large audience. I think they should be done regardless, and if I had my way, every man, woman and child would be strapped down and force fed. And there will be a test later.

But I appreciate the civil liberties conflict my plan presents.

 

[about_average]

Ideally they would stop covering a story once they have given all of the important information. In a world with the internet and ondemand and the like them telling you that you can catch up on the this or that at their website while they educate you on various banking legislation would be nice.

The News Hour on PBS does that.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Large. On the other hand most people don't have the resources to really research the information on their own so they have to rely on the resources of journalists to collect and report the information. Or at least a superficial reporting if it has to do with government and public information. For instance, legislative references, SCOTUS rulings, etc.
Books are great, but rarely timely and are generally only one view even if they are timely.

I missed this post earlier.

I would simply note that the full text of most Supreme Court opinions are fully accessible online, as is the complete United States Code (federal laws). Finding the specific laws under the Titles, Chapters, Sections and sub-sections of the code can be a bit challenging, but they're there.

Search engines will generally get you almost any place you want to go.

 

[Fala]

Since you are one of THE most intelligent contributors in this forum, I'm going to pick on you first.

I happened to have majored in journalism in college and worked in the industry some years after graduation. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I also happened to have worked in politics and government, so I've had a foot in both camps, so to speak.

Rather than launch into a long lecture as is my habit, I just want to start by asking you a few questions. As someone who thinks ISIS is not "worthy of this kind of coverage," but who also believes the 24-hour news cycle is sufficiently long enough that media outlets should be "dedicated educators," just what is it you expect reporters and editors to do? How much coverage is enough? What is the standard by which they should make that decision? What things do you believe they should NOT do? What information or photos should they NOT tell or show you?

This most of all: After a news outlet gives you the NEWS, what is your responsibility to research and investigate the SUBJECT to your own needs and interest and to satisfy whatever your "responsibility" is to be a well-informed citizen?

Feel free to parse your answers with respect to radio, TV, newspapers and magazines as you wish.

Thanks in advance for the conversation.

Well, as the resident dummy here (me) I would suggest changing the channel if you don't like what you see.

However, I am the type of American who welcomes anybody into our country, I do agree, however, that a vetting of those people needs to be done under the recent circumstances.

Also....those who wish are welcome to ignore and avoid any news about ISIS. Go ahead...deafen and blind yourself as to what's going on around you. Stroll on down to the local coffee house and wonder why nobody else is there.

BOOM.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yep. The subjects aren't sexy but it would be nice if the information was presented more readily.

I'm aware of the cycle that they pander to us to get us to watch and we watch them because they pander. This falls under a case of I'd probably be happier ignorant. I'm not fond of problems that I'm not fond of scenarios where I can clearly see the problem but can't come up with a solution.

On the original subject however if you're not going to start giving me a history lesson on ISIS you don't need to keep repeating yourself all day. And that I think is a direct fault of 24/7 news. That's a LOT of hours to fill and there isn't enough going on in the world on any given day. So we get "sexy" filler like Dirty Jobs, the Five and whatever MSNBC does.

I think something as simple as a network plugging its website at the top/bottom of the hour and directing you to sources would be tremendous.

Because even if they don't have the time to educate us directly on this that or the other they can certainly help guide.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

See I'm pretty good with that first group, side effect of being a smug prick. I'm as good at that second group as I feel like being on any given day. I have google and the internet is filled to the gills with information. However that third group, well on a good day it's a crap shoot and on a bad day it's an absolute fucking disaster. I do think a slightly more diligent news media could help with.

On current events I think that might be an excellent way to do presidential hopefuls. I can't imagine that when the election cycle started in fucking April that by now we couldn't have done an hour or so on each of them. Now I heavily suspect that again, ratings are the goal and that's why instead of just picking a reporter or two and Monday:Trump, Tuesday: Carson, Wednesday: Bush, Thursday: Cruz, Friday: Christie, Satuday: Recap+blatant bullshit candidates tried to peddle hoping you didn't know what google was. Sunday: All Six back to back to back! And keep going on like that.

Hell maybe take a page from WWE or AMC's The Walking Dead where they flat out encourage you to have a "two screen experience" and follow along online while watching the show. And THAT might be a winner money wise.

I don't know what number PBS is but I'll go hunt it down, thank you average!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

On the original subject however if you're not going to start giving me a history lesson on ISIS you don't need to keep repeating yourself all day. And that I think is a direct fault of 24/7 news. That's a LOT of hours to fill and there isn't enough going on in the world on any given day. So we get "sexy" filler like Dirty Jobs, the Five and whatever MSNBC does.

I think something as simple as a network plugging its website at the top/bottom of the hour and directing you to sources would be tremendous.

This is where I suspect our views really start lining up. I defend my profession and its approach to covering news. But when it comes to in-depth analysis most broadcast journalists in particular are about as "air-worthy" as an ostrich thrown off a cliff. And they easily could be better and damn well should be if they are going to hold themselves up as quasi-expert commentators.

I don't mind shows like Dirty Jobs. That's primarily entertainment. But shows like The Five, Outnumbered, The Situation Room, etc. -- I'm sorry, but just being employed with the network for a decade or so doesn't qualify you to just go live and start spouting your opinions. Know something about the law that the man in the street doesn't know. Know something about science that shows me you, as a reporter, at least has an above average intellectual curiosity about the subject. Know something about medicine that will impress me that you have obviously done your homework on the topic upon which you are pontificating.

John Scott on Fox's morning and early afternoon show "Happening Now" also just happens to be a private pilot. Whenever an aviation story is running he invariably has an insight drawn from his personal flying experience that is enlightening and adds to the viewer's understanding. My point to other reporters is, you don't have to be a pilot to have some of that same expertise on the same subject. I know because while I am NOT a pilot, it just so happens I took an elective ROTC course in college where I basically went through private pilot ground school. I even passed the FAA written exam. But you would NOT want me at the controls of a plane in which you were riding. But I do have some insights into aviation. And everything I know and much, much more is readily available to any reporter on the internet.

On the Apollo 11 moon landing, at 6:35 minutes before landing at an altitude of about 28,000 feet above the lunar surface, Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin reported a "1202 program alarm" to mission control in Houston. To the TV network anchors reporting the landing live and broadcasting the ground-to-spacecraft audio transmissions, the word "alarm" should have been sufficient to signal that something unusual was occurring. When several seconds passed and Neil Armstrong called back and pointedly asked for a "reading" on the alarm, Walter Cronkite of CBS at least had the presence of mind to raise the issue with co-anchor and astronaut Wally Schirra who mumbled something about a "computer noun" issue. Over on ABC, science editor Jules Bergman let the moment pass without comment.

To me, that kind of thing is inexcusable. Anyone covering such a story MUST know what the nominal sequence of events are going to be. When something occurs outside those parameters, it is your job as a reporter to question it.

As I have posted here before, there are significant legal issues surrounding the broader issues of both the closing of GITMO and the NSA telephone metadata collection program. And I've never heard a single TV reporter discuss those legal issues whatsoever. It's always just about whether Obama will make good on his promise and how are we going to balance the need for security with the NSA's "illegal spying" (still a blatantly inaccurate meme) on Americans.

So, yeah, when the media unmistakably falls down on the job in the very midst of supposedly doing it, I am more offended than most people. It literally makes my blood boil.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'd probably mind Dirty Jobs 90% less if it was still on Discovery and not on CNN. But yes just like whatever show is about traveling the world and eating cultural dishes, it's ultimately harmless. At the moment my point was merely that 24 hours is a lot of time to fill which I do think is part of the reason they'll sit around talking about very little.

That said I completely agree that reporters should know the subjects they are talking about. They obviously don't need to be experts but they need to at least have enough knowledge that they can ask the proper questions when they get on the air.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Alright, here is a rundown of today's news broken down to it's most fundamental components.

*War
*Military industrial complex
*Increased profits for the defense industry
*Refueling the war economy
*Ludicrous exaggerations of terrorism to frighten the public so we can start more wars to generate profits for the defense industry and exploit resources in the middle east.
*Crony capitalism
*Vertical integration and consolidation of the global economy by crony capitalists
*Corporatism and war corporatism
*Oil/Resource exploitation
*False flag operations
*Military industrial espionage complex
*Money
*Power
*Greed
*Corruption
*Merger of corporate and state power
*The slow unraveling of democracy both in America and the rest of the free world

 

[girlsmiley]

I don't believe you. Mostly that you talked to two people. The rest might be true, but the bit about talking to two people is an outright lie.

1.25 people at the most.

 

[putzpotus]

we are into WWIII and they are tired of the news?

what DUMMIES!

hiding from it, wont make it less dangerous

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[about_average]

I missed this post earlier.

I would simply note that the full text of most Supreme Court opinions are fully accessible online, as is the complete United States Code (federal laws). Finding the specific laws under the Titles, Chapters, Sections and sub-sections of the code can be a bit challenging, but they're there.

Search engines will generally get you almost any place you want to go.

Right, that's what I meant. Most people can usually find them with some time, but if some past law/ruling applies to a current situation that is in the news, I consider it warranted for journalists to refer to it so people can find it more easily.
But those are about the only things that people can find online that haven't been written by journalists who are doing the education referred to by Sean R. Or hacks, as the case may be.