Things You Notice When You Quit the News

Post by thenomad » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 12:53 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #287

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. In my experience, the people who actively don't follow any news at all are fully aware of their blindside. They just don't care (or have judged, quite reasonably, that they have more immediate personal concerns) The worst people are those who are glued to the TV or net, closely watching things as if the future of the world depended on whether they knew politician X was fired right now or five minutes from…

I agree. But I think someone's opinion on this will differ depending on where they fit on the political spectrum. Right-wing thinks MSM has liberal bias - would rather people avoid it. Left-wing wants people to consume more MSM - vice-versa.

Post by galfarragem » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

eigenvector wrote: post #195

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is Gell-Mann Amnesia: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cau…

My favourite example of this is the Economist news magazine. The Economist reports on a much larger range of country and topics than the typical magazine or newspaper. Many of its readers like it for that exact reason: it gives them information on stories they won't normally find in their local or national news sources and they want to be informed about, say, hydroelectric developments in the Congo. The problem is th…

Post by thenomad » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 1:02 PM UTC

knz wrote: post #67

codingdave wrote: post #13

I quit watching the news right around 1999. My family once challenged me how I knew about important events, and I told them that people in my life would let me know if anything occurred that I needed to know. They challenged me by quizzing me on major recent events. When they did find one that I had no idea about, they asked, "See? Nobody told you about that!" I replied, "You just did." And they have not argued about…

The downside of this approach is that if we all did it then the world would be a much worse place. Paying attention to current events and bearing witness to some of the darkest aspects of human history is important at a societal level and if you don't think it is important to you personally then consider yourself lucky to live a life where the real world doesn't creep in often. Understanding topics such as why refuge…

Post by veddox » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 1:15 PM UTC

thenomad wrote: post #356

veddox wrote: post #295

While I wholeheartedly agree with the author that we often spend way too much time "consuming" news, I do not agree with him that following the news is totally superfluous. As a citizen, I want to know what is going on in my country and what the government is doing about it, so that I can take an informed decision come the next election. I also want to know what is going on abroad because I have friends scattered all…

Where do you get your news digest from?

Post by nul_byte » Mon, Dec 12, 2016, 1:23 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #192

Tempest1981 wrote: post #8

The local news seems to always be about murders and violence. Why is it beneficial to learn about every instance of "humans behaving badly"? (Celebrities, ok, maybe, but random people?)

>Why is it beneficial to learn about every instance of "humans behaving badly"? Because it is your civic responsibility to care that such things are happening in your community, and to allocate your political activity, voting, and charitable giving in a way that you believe will mitigate that suffering. Because if everyone said, "sometimes humans behave badly; why should I care?" we'd be living in a hellscape.