Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things You Notice When You Quit the News

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 502 posts

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#331

Post by hrxn »

tunap wrote: post #142
hrxn wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides is not a marketing trick. And comparing this with weather forecasts is a false equivalence.

I believe what parent is claiming is 'both sides' is a black & white gimmick that does not depict the spectrum between two polarized extremes.

"Both sides" is just a shorthand expression for principles otherwise better understandable as "due process", but this is hard to summarize in just some words or a couple sentences.

It basically means there are two sides (at least) to everything, that can't just be disregarded. Exceptions prove the rule, of course.

On another point, Hotelling's law is a really poor example when it comes to debates or questions of politics, in my opinion.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#332

Post by Nursie »

bshimmin wrote: post #261

I can't really get onboard with this. A lot of the comments here, and the commentary in the article itself, talk about how depressing the news is, how biased it is, about Gell-Mann amnesia -- and they're all right. But from my own experience, the people I know who don't follow the news (either at all, or extremely minimally) are spectacularly ill-informed; they get their news either third-hand (which suffers from all…

Eh, depends what's important to you.

Do you want to know about awful stuff people are doing to each other across the planet or spend an extra half hour on your pet woodwork project?

Choose the project most of the time and you'll likely be happier, though less informed. Why is it so important to be constantly reminded how awful humanity is every few minutes?

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#333

Post by Strom »

Nursie wrote: post #332
bshimmin wrote: post #261

I can't really get onboard with this. A lot of the comments here, and the commentary in the article itself, talk about how depressing the news is, how biased it is, about Gell-Mann amnesia -- and they're all right. But from my own experience, the people I know who don't follow the news (either at all, or extremely minimally) are spectacularly ill-informed; they get their news either third-hand (which suffers from all…

Eh, depends what's important to you. Do you want to know about awful stuff people are doing to each other across the planet or spend an extra half hour on your pet woodwork project? Choose the project most of the time and you'll likely be happier, though less informed. Why is it so important to be constantly reminded how awful humanity is every few minutes?

It doesn't have to be every few minutes. A few times per month would be enough.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#334

Post by kriro »

"""Imagine if you spent that time learning a language, or reading books and essays about some of the issues they mention on the news."""

This seems like a bootstrapping problem. How do you know what issues you should study up on. As a thought experiment, let's imagine a person that is completely ignorant of the news. How would they even know that Syria is worth researching without stumbling upon it by accident or getting input from another person that consumes news?

I think the pledge here is for better news and not for no news. I strongly believe that staying informed about what's going on in the world has value. It builds empathy and curiosity about different cultures and problems other people may have.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#335

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #329
masondixon wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News companies all have owners and management. I think it is important to be informed about who the owners of newspapers are, and what their political views are, because ultimately the owner will hire and fire the Chief Editor who sets the tone for the paper. It is also important to know what the Chief Editor's political views are too. Its important to ask yourself why you trust a certain news outlet.

I disagree with you (a lot, actually). You can never trust just one news outlet alone, but only ever several news outlets+reputed press agencies. That doesn't mean that you need to compulsively check all of them constantly, though, and that was my whole point. If there is some real news to share, all newspapers will quickly jump on it anyway, which a quick comparison will easily confirm. You can read any reputable we…

That may or may not be true in the US. It's very much not true in the UK.

The far-right crazy papers, specifically the Mail and the Express, are notorious for leading with spurious non-stories and for making up post-factual "journalism" when it suits them.

You'll get a very distorted view of the world if you rely on them for accurate news reporting.

Non-political stories - major accidents, earthquakes, and so on - are more likely to be reported in a consistent way across all the outlets. But anything with even the faintest hint of a political angle - which includes a lot of news - will be mangled by each outlet's political slant.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#336

Post by Disruptive_Dave »

bshimmin wrote: post #261

I can't really get onboard with this. A lot of the comments here, and the commentary in the article itself, talk about how depressing the news is, how biased it is, about Gell-Mann amnesia -- and they're all right. But from my own experience, the people I know who don't follow the news (either at all, or extremely minimally) are spectacularly ill-informed; they get their news either third-hand (which suffers from all…

I haven't intentionally ingested the "news" in any considerable manner in at least 10 years, probably more. That's by design; I just don't place a premium on it. Time, energy, and attention are all limited resources and I've decided that mine are best utilized in other ways. To the best of my knowledge, I can't say that my life has been negatively impacted at all by this decision. Sure, I'm left out of some cocktail party discussions, but those aren't very attractive to me in the first place.

A guy like me turns the "news" on and at best it feels like an advertisement wrapped in a reality show. At worst, it feels like a bunch of young children yelling at each other on a playground. There's an infinite amount of noise out there and it's my job to control the tuner and volume buttons.

All that said, I presume the real problem comes into play here when the ill-informed make decisions based on their position without acknowledging the situation.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#337

Post by leephillips »

nostrademons wrote: post #317
sooheon wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same question as you and skimmed Eichenwald's article. He claims that his own words were attributed to someone else (Blumenthal) in these manipulated leaks, and subsequently parroted by trump. He had written a long article about Benghazi, and the email leak takes Blumenthal's quotation of that out of context, misattributing it. It checks out, and at least on that point Eichenwald seems to be closer to the t…

Eichenwald's article is significantly rewritten from when it first came out, and you're probably not reading the version Greenwald was responding to: First publication: Oct 10, 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20161010235349/http://www.newswe... Today: http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hil... Differences start around paragraph 6.

It's not "significantly rewritten". Some details were added and clarified. Most relevant is the fact that the most recent version, and all other versions (I read them all) make it completely clear that Eichenwald has no reason to think, and does not say, that the emails as leaked by Wikileaks are fake. So Greenwald is still lying, no matter which version you are looking at.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#338

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

voidz wrote: post #267
bshimmin wrote: post #261

I can't really get onboard with this. A lot of the comments here, and the commentary in the article itself, talk about how depressing the news is, how biased it is, about Gell-Mann amnesia -- and they're all right. But from my own experience, the people I know who don't follow the news (either at all, or extremely minimally) are spectacularly ill-informed; they get their news either third-hand (which suffers from all…

I think this is inevitable. Even the effect of mass media going against so-called "fake news" won't have the effect they desire: In my estimation people will stop trusting and hence following all of it. It pays off, for as you and I have both gathered from the comments it is obvious that people do feel their lives improve once they "tune out". Since 2010 or so, this applies to me as well. Besides, I don't know for ho…

We didn't manage just fine before TV. We had two incredibly destructive World Wars, both following a much longer but even more violent history of colonial imperialism and domestic revolution.

In the UK we didn't get voting rights for all males until 1918, and voting rights for women until 1928. The US didn't get votes for women until 1920.

Before then, news had very limited popular political influence.

With the internet, we're increasingly seeing automated and industrialised fake "news" generation used for political leverage at the expense of impartial reporting of objective fact.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#339

Post by jonathanstrange »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #335
jonathanstrange wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you (a lot, actually). You can never trust just one news outlet alone, but only ever several news outlets+reputed press agencies. That doesn't mean that you need to compulsively check all of them constantly, though, and that was my whole point. If there is some real news to share, all newspapers will quickly jump on it anyway, which a quick comparison will easily confirm. You can read any reputable we…

That may or may not be true in the US. It's very much not true in the UK. The far-right crazy papers, specifically the Mail and the Express, are notorious for leading with spurious non-stories and for making up post-factual "journalism" when it suits them. You'll get a very distorted view of the world if you rely on them for accurate news reporting. Non-political stories - major accidents, earthquakes, and so on - ar…

That's interesting, I didn't know that. I didn't have yellow press (aka "boulevard journalism) in mind, though, to which I would definitely count Dailymail, Express or the German Bild. They tick differently and I wouldn't recommend any of them as a source of any information.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#340

Post by leephillips »

nkurz wrote: post #173
leephillips wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenwald's "excellent" piece is itself fake news. It deliberately misrepresents the reporting done by Kurt Eichenwald about the leaked emails. We know it's deliberate because he's distorted the story the same way in the past and it's been pointed out to him. Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false, but showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russia…

Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false When I follow a link from Greenwald's piece I see this tweet that was sent by Eichenwald: "Russian gov manipulates email to @johnpodesta. Publishes disinformation. Takes it down. Trump recites false info." https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/785676641880027136 I interpret "manipulates" as claiming that the emails to Podesta were changed by the Russi…

Greenwald is claiming that Eichenwald is reporting that the emails leaked by Wikileaks are fake. In repititions of this claim he either refers to Eichenwald's article directly[0] or indirectly by linking to a tweet that mentions it. Greenwald's claim is a lie. Eichenwald never says that the emails are fake. Read the article. Greenwald certainly did. If you actually read the article in Newsweek you will learn that "manipulates" means that the Russians distorted the meaning and content of the documents in their propaganda, and Trump repeated the identical distortions nearly simultaneously. In fact, Eichenwald's story only makes sense if the Wikileaks version is unaltered, and this is implicit in his reporting.

[0]http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hil...

Post reply on HN