Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

news.ycombinator.com

241–250 of 262 posts

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the false equivalence of “I just want a news source that actually critically evaluates what leftist politicians in power say” with “I wish they would bring Hitler back”. > There is no such thing as a neutral news source. No there isn’t, but there are news sources that try to be critical of the points they normally support and don’t let people get away with bullshit for “the greater good”. NPR (KQED in particu…

There are very few leftist politicians in power, and nearly zero in the US. Kshama Sawant, for sure. And who else? Maaaaaybe AOC and the "progressive caucus"?

If your definition of “leftist” doesn’t include anyone considered “leftist” in the US Zeitgeist, then there really isn’t a point in having a conversation here because you’re just pointlessly getting hung up on irrelevant details.

Replace “leftist” in what I said with “elected under association with the Democratic Party in California”.

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#242
I wish I could. The thing is though, a lot of really shitty stuff is coming to a head precisely because people who don’t need to care tune out.

I don’t have a really great answer to the problems of modern media coverage, but burying our heads in the sand isn’t a good answer.

As a gay person, for example, things are rapidly trending towards the “first they came for trans people” territory. Is it even remotely wise for me to ignore the news given the ever-escalating attempts to eradicate fellow queer people from public life? Like, for no reason other than self-interest: I must pay attention.

I envy everyone on here who can truly disconnect. I really, honestly do. My only request is that you find a way to pay some kind of attention to what’s going on in the world, because looking away only emboldens people looking to do harm.

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#243
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general case it is impossible to report news objectively. I personally do not mind propaganda per se anymore. I mean it is ok with me, if the source has a political agenda. I praise media who state their agenda clearly. But what I do not tolerate is the outright lying. I do not like hidden agenda, though it can be revealed by watching a source for some time. Moreover propaganda-phobia is bad by itself. It can be a…

I disagree profoundly. I can do good work which will still never be perfect. Doesn't mean I don't try to do a good job. Without objectivity, what does a news story have left? Amounts of clicks? Granted, that is the current economic reality of news writers. To teach and inform someone means to broaden their perspective. Without a goal like objectivity, a news story has no value. Why even listen to propaganda, it would…

Nothing is objective.

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#244
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Most western media (Murdock/Berlusconi type oligarch media aside) is fairly factual. It doesn't have 'spin' or 'agenda' in the sense that the journalists conspire to mislead..." I have a hard time believing that anyone can be this naive. We're you paying attention the last two years? When journalists lied, suppressed and told everyone that Hunter Biden's laptop from hell was 'Russian disinformation" and refused to…

Hunter Biden's laptop isn't news. It is a US-centric celebrity story. Thus all reporting on it was tabloid style sensationalism.

> "Hunter Biden's laptop isn't news. It is a US-centric celebrity story."

Hunter Biden's businesses dealings are not "U.S. centric" and Hunter Biden is not a celebrity (except maybe in addiction recover centers). They involve allegations that the son of a sitting VP (at the time), who had absolutely no experience in the energy sector, used his father's influence to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in business dealings with Chinese and Ukrainian energy firms. That involves allegations of international corruption. Including having a prosecutor removed who was investigating one of the businesses tied to Hunter Biden (you know, the famous Joe Biden story about how he told Ukraine to fire the prosecutor or they would not receive a billion dollars in U.S. aid).

> "Thus all reporting on it was tabloid style sensationalism."

Except the reporting was not tabloid style sensationalism. It was actual investigative reporting that the media tried to CONVINCE people was "tabloid style sensationalism".

If you'd like to see how the media worked to convince you that the whole story was just "sensationalism", take a look at how the NY Times repeatedly dismissed everything that was being said before the election (when they called the laptop "unsubstantiated"), but then earlier this year (when it could no longer hurt Biden's chances) finally admitted that at least some of the allegations are likely to be true: https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/the-times-finally-admits-hunte...

But my suspicion is, you really wouldn't care in the slightest if Joe and Hunter Biden are actually corrupt.

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few leftist politicians in power, and nearly zero in the US. Kshama Sawant, for sure. And who else? Maaaaaybe AOC and the "progressive caucus"?

If your definition of “leftist” doesn’t include anyone considered “leftist” in the US Zeitgeist, then there really isn’t a point in having a conversation here because you’re just pointlessly getting hung up on irrelevant details. Replace “leftist” in what I said with “elected under association with the Democratic Party in California”.

Language is important. There's a clear distinction between the left, leftists, and the Democratic party.

We often call the Democratic party the left, but they are not a leftist party. (In fact they are a pretty bog standard centrist party these days).

Just like the right isn't some monoculture, the left has pretty important sub groups. Leftist typically implies socialist, anarchist, maybe social democrats, communists, etc.

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your definition of “leftist” doesn’t include anyone considered “leftist” in the US Zeitgeist, then there really isn’t a point in having a conversation here because you’re just pointlessly getting hung up on irrelevant details. Replace “leftist” in what I said with “elected under association with the Democratic Party in California”.

Language is important. There's a clear distinction between the left, leftists, and the Democratic party. We often call the Democratic party the left, but they are not a leftist party. (In fact they are a pretty bog standard centrist party these days). Just like the right isn't some monoculture, the left has pretty important sub groups. Leftist typically implies socialist, anarchist, maybe social democrats, communists…

> Language is important. There's a clear distinction between the left, leftists, and the Democratic party.

No there isn’t. There are localized differences. A leftist in Denmark is nothing like a leftist in Germany nor a leftist in Canada.

> We often call the Democratic party the left

Then why the fuck are you pretending to be so confused?

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#247
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sources of news are reliable on the conflict? I can't find anything which doesn't reek of propaganda: Western or Russian.

This seems to be a core problem of a lot of people. The inability to discern that not everything has an agenda and is propaganda. Most western media (Murdock/Berlusconi type oligarch media aside) is fairly factual. It doesn't have 'spin' or 'agenda' in the sense that the journalists conspire to mislead (they don't have time for this).

Are you high? Murdoch has a massive agenda. They have persistently chosen governments to favour in multiple countries. Honestly just have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#248
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Crimea's election committee said that 97% of voters backed a union between the largely ethnic-Russian peninsula and the huge neighboring country.” “Residents of Crimea, up to 60% percent of whom are Russian, were given a choice of either joining Russia or opting for more autonomy from Ukraine under the 1992 constitution.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/16/crimea-...

There's a political process for that, which necessarily includes central government. Isn't it suspicious that Ukraine's large, aggressive, well-armed neighbor was somehow involved in the referendum, and then sent in the "green men" to enforce the inevitable results? And what about the native ethnic Tatars? Russia pretends they don't exist.

If you look at surveys conducted even when the region was under Ukraine, you'll see that it's always had a very pro-Russia bias (Eastern Ukraine in general was staunchly opposed to the Euromaiden protests).

However, it's worth mentioning that Eastern Ukraine has also been heavily targeted with Russian propaganda for decades now and it's quite likely that had an impact. I haven't read into it, but I'd be surprised if they didn't also encourage Russians to move to Ukraine to make it more ethnically Russian. This is pretty much in the playbook of every colonizer (e.g. Israel with Palestine, Morocco with SADR, or China with Xinjiang).

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#249

I’m going darker by the day. I don’t seek out news, and when I do read it, I tend to feel disturbed by how little it presents as reporting, and instead, how much it appears to have an agenda. I could do better. I followed the Ukraine-Russia war for a while, and although I wasn’t glued to it, I put too much focus on it. There is literally nothing that happens if I know what’s going on there. Nothing at all. It distrac…

> There is literally nothing that happens if I know what’s going on there. > Nothing at all. It distracts me from my family, friends, work, and myself. > I have no interesting insights or original thoughts about it, and if I did, > absolutely no one would care. So why read it? Do you vote or participate in politics in any way or do events in the news directly affect your life? One reason it's rational to read the new…

A lot of news is extremely hard to avoid and I’ll inevitably be exposed to it. If it seems important like the types of topics you’re describing, I’ll carve out some time to find out if it’s actually important.

Most of it is a spectacle and my actions and point of view are entirely irrelevant to it. Frankly, I don’t believe a lot of the news is even rooted in reality. To have a point of view on it, or to have feelings about it, would be to lend legitimacy to something I sincerely believe is part of a bizarre, performative, ephemeral blob of social invention. I don’t mean to sound absurd or like a conspiracy theorist at all; I really can’t see how much of what’s in the media is remotely objective or connected to any kind of shared reality that is practical and sane.

As far as being embarrassed, I find I can get by with simply listening to people and letting them get their ideas across. They like to express themselves and I’m content to listen. I typically won’t be embarrassed because no one really cares what I think or what I think I know, too. No one asks unless I say something in the first place.

I think we’re encouraged to believe it’s some other way, but if you keep to yourself you’ll find very quickly that indeed, almost no one cares. Even here on hacker news, the vast majority of readers don’t care about what I wrote. It’s irrelevant to them, and that’s okay. It’s probably a good thing.

The only people in my tiny corner of all of this who have any remote concerns about me are right here, near me, in my life. The rest is mostly a spectacle. If it can effect me, the chances that I can effect it in any meaningful way are infinitely tiny.

I do vote, too, but again… I’m not convinced it means what people think it means, or that it leads to things I hope it will. On the other hand, by working on local concerns I can actually make a difference. The changes we can make like restoring a watershed to improve wildlife diversity, reduce erosion, improve runoff capacity, and so on can be a real model for improving these features of other municipalities. That can matter many times more than a vote for the leader of my country; it can lead to real data that people turn to improve the places they live in. It seems totally uninteresting and pointless compared to the notion of democracy and national governance, but from my point of view, it’s far more pragmatic and connected to reality.

I agree with you overall. I want to be aware of contentious issues on which I might have a side or a stake too. I think the difference between us is only that I think the scope of these issues is extremely small; there’s very little I come across in my day where it truly matters at all what I believe, and any stake I may have is almost exclusively relevant to me alone.

Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is literally nothing that happens if I know what’s going on there. > Nothing at all. It distracts me from my family, friends, work, and myself. > I have no interesting insights or original thoughts about it, and if I did, > absolutely no one would care. So why read it? Do you vote or participate in politics in any way or do events in the news directly affect your life? One reason it's rational to read the new…

> If you don't read the news, then you're at risk of lacking important contextual knowledge about society and social norms. It’s been at least a decade since news has been a reflection of social norms (I’m in Canada). It feels more and more disconnected and like they’re either pushing agendas or simply filling airtime so they can serve the right amount of ads.

This is what I find most troubling. It really does seem to be a spectacle that’s meant to capture attention, only rooted in reality insofar that it’s based off of real-world topics we all recognize and only ostensibly care about.
Post reply on HN