71–80 of 275 posts
Trying to understand politics by watching the Web stream go flowing by is pointless. You need high-quality, big picture stuff that requires effort to produce and consume. In the US, the NYTimes and the Washington Post are the best sources. To ensure you're exposure is 'fair and balanced' I would add the Economist for a more conservative, but not xenophobic or straight-up nonsensical viewpoint. It has the nice additio…
I pretty far left, even for European standards, so this is my news: - https://morningstaronline.co.uk/ (UK Left news) - https://www.theguardian.com/international (Int. News) - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world (Int. News) - https://taz.de/ (German left newspaper) - https://www.sueddeutsche.de/ (German centrist) - https://www.theregister.co.uk/ (For IT news) - https://techcrunch.com/ (For Startup News) - https:…
I would strongly suggest that anyone in the UK finds a non-UK news source, and SDZ is a good choice. Irish Times also works - not remotely left, but outside the UK bubble.
It seems to be down at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would strongly suggest that anyone in the UK finds a non-UK news source, and SDZ is a good choice. Irish Times also works - not remotely left, but outside the UK bubble.
Do you mean https://sdz.today/ ? It seems to be down at the moment.
The problem is that online news sources are (almost) all the same - low budget, second tier silos of mostly trainee journalists. They have an emphasis on clicks and outrage and constant updates to keep you engaged and are a secondary (or tertiary) driver of revenue. The only exception I know of are The New York Times and maybe The Intercept. My tip is to read a (or more) actual (read: printed) newspapers: - they are…
Newspapers.
I try to avoid it. It's too much of a time sink and there's almost zero pieces of actionable information. I know it's offensive to claim it's merely entertainment but in concrete terms there's no material difference resulting from tuning into daily banter that's any different than watching some serial drama on television.
> there's almost zero pieces of actionable information. I don't agree with this. The news is filled with actionable information. If nothing more than constant reporting of problems, many of which could be solved with new businesses - there is value in knowing about that if only to be better positioned to start businesses. The world is full of people in pain, and often the news reports on that. That is actionable info…
> The world is full of people in pain, and often the news reports on that. That is actionable information. Other people's pain is not your entertainment. It is actionable information about how to help improve the world and reduce suffering.
There is far, far more of this than is actionable, and most of it isn't really actionable from this distance. You end up with "white saviour" disease.
The news is also full of my fellow voters saying that those in pain are lying, or that we should inflict more pain on them as a matter of policy. Those are somewhat hard to stomach.
Trying to understand politics by watching the Web stream go flowing by is pointless. You need high-quality, big picture stuff that requires effort to produce and consume. In the US, the NYTimes and the Washington Post are the best sources. To ensure you're exposure is 'fair and balanced' I would add the Economist for a more conservative, but not xenophobic or straight-up nonsensical viewpoint. It has the nice additio…
[1] https://embit.ca