Should “news” be maintained at the speed of computation? Should “news” be constant? Does “news” lose perspective with no duration or distance from an occurrence? Does “news” have to be current? Is “news” pure topicality? Is it “news” if it’s news to you? “Should” “every” “word” “of” “news” “be” “in” “quotes”? How profitable is fear when it comes to “news”? Since no human communication can be completely stripped of opinion or personal context, should “news” be required to call out this handicap and difficulty, with regularity? How often does “news” call itself into question? Should “news” be shaped by instantaneous reaction or careful consideration? If no one really knows anything for sure, how does “news” know? Should all “news” articles have an accompanying hermeneutic article? Is “news” the voice of the people or information for the people? Is the same “news” the same for all people? If an identical bit of “news” is read both by a dying kidney patient finishing a dialysis session in Brentwood, California, and by a healthy marathon runner who just got a new puppy in La Plant, South Dakota, is it the same “news”? Is “news” a palimpsest or a perpetual tabula rasa? Should “news” be written by amateurs or professionals? Is “news” everything or one of infinite things? Does “news” ever exacerbate differences for profit? Is “news” more about money or more about information? If large businesses have to create self-serving defensible space around themselves to survive, and “news” companies are a type of large business, how does that effect the “news” transmitted? If “news” outlets are corporate structures beholden to things other than “news” (having major loans to repay, having billionaire owners, having boards of directors with particular bents, having paying perspective expectant subscribers, etc.) how does that effect the “news” transmitted? If you live in a big city are you closer to the “news”? If you are walking on the salt flats of Salar de Uyuni, in Bolivia are you farther away from “news”? Is it “news” if you curate it yourself? Is a twitter feed “news”? Should click trends shape “news”? Should reader feedback be considered in the generation of “news”? Is “news” more believable if it’s sanctimonious or serious? Is “news” words? Do fonts affect “news”? Can “news” be fun? Is “news” dimensional, does it like create a world? Does “news” create or describe? Is “news” objective or subjective? Should “news” seek to confirm a preexisting opinion? Does news laud the general or the specific? Should “news” be held responsible? Should personal “news” be considered news? Is “news” only “news” when it is about something political or a big issue? Is a death of a family member “news” if that family member isn’t famous? Should “news” sincerely try to strip itself of addictive qualities? Should “news” care whether it hurts the feelings of its readership? Should “news” censor itself? Is “news” a moral organizing principle like religion or more driven by sincere curiosity and a desire to get things right? Should “news” be more answers or questions? Should we hold “news” to a higher standard, by constantly holding ourselves to a higher standard? Should we as individuals sincerely try to make the world a better place? Yes. Is this news? No.

(We have no desire to cast aspersions on the entirety of journalistic efforts. The above is just a small exercise/response to a current situation where “news” seems to be on the verge of losing its dimension and meaning by overexposure and speed (the transcendental corporate computational take over). As well, it seems worth calling out, that we sincerely appreciate many journalists; we have gained much from the diverse efforts of those like Joan Didion, Charles Mackay, Melvyn Bragg, Harold Ross, etc. etc.).