Aaron Swartz's take on the news:
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001226
News is bad for you (2013)
41–45 of 45 posts
Re: News is bad for you (2013)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to found a subreddit with the idea that if some article is still interesting 6 moths after it's written, then it's actually interesting stuff. Most things in the world don't happen in a day. And even those that happen, are often understood only with time. But I can't keep a reddit account. The amount of misinformation in reddit and my tendency to correct people just gets too consuming.
I've had similar thoughts, though my time limit was 5 or 10 years, rather than months. My other thought was to tie it to current events, so if Iraq was in the news then dig out something from the archive that takes a long view, you'd probably learn more than you would from a list of who died yesterday.
Part of the idea was that we have "event bias". Lots of meaningful things happen in the world without any significant event. Look at gap minder or green revolution.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -Eleanor Roosevelt
Personally I don't like the idea of ranking people. There is nothing wrong discussing people or events. But I'm natural idea person and most websites have very poor signal to noise ratio in that respect.
Re: News is bad for you (2013)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to found a subreddit with the idea that if some article is still interesting 6 moths after it's written, then it's actually interesting stuff. Most things in the world don't happen in a day. And even those that happen, are often understood only with time. But I can't keep a reddit account. The amount of misinformation in reddit and my tendency to correct people just gets too consuming.
A 'Slow News' service sounds intriguing. Especially if it was covertly collecting 'data' points for each story on a day-to-day basis and presented these on a timeline when the story was surfaced. A kind of ultra-modern-history. The airliner crash in Sinai is a current example; there's really no pointin speculating or acting until the investigation team presents their findings, but every day people and states are taki…
It does already exist:
http://www.slow-journalism.com/
However, I can not say anything about that magazine's quality as I haven't read it myself.
Re: News is bad for you (2013)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to found a subreddit with the idea that if some article is still interesting 6 moths after it's written, then it's actually interesting stuff. Most things in the world don't happen in a day. And even those that happen, are often understood only with time. But I can't keep a reddit account. The amount of misinformation in reddit and my tendency to correct people just gets too consuming.
A 'Slow News' service sounds intriguing. Especially if it was covertly collecting 'data' points for each story on a day-to-day basis and presented these on a timeline when the story was surfaced. A kind of ultra-modern-history. The airliner crash in Sinai is a current example; there's really no pointin speculating or acting until the investigation team presents their findings, but every day people and states are taki…
You guessed the name right. And I found it again: https://www.reddit.com/r/slownews
You can probably guess who is that [deleted].
Re: News is bad for you (2013)
#45This article is unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim leading to an overconfident fear that encapsulates everything I hate about modern news including things inside the article. I'd hope the author was self aware enough to see the irony in writing this article but I feel to stick after reading half of it to find out.