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

371–380 of 502 posts

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#371

Post by glaberficken »

cyberferret wrote: post #296
glaberficken wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my place (me, my wife, 6yo and 1yo daughters) we have done the same (got rid of our TV about 5 years ago). We watch the occasional TV show via on demand streaming (guilty pleasure="The Voice", food for thought="several long form journalistic features, tv documentaries etc") The improvement to our quality of life at home as been significant. In the little free time our daily chores still leave us, we simply play wi…

Good move. How I counter this news awareness in our house is to actually have discussions with my kids about news that I know they are interested in. For instance, my younger son is super interested in space and space exploration. Whenever I see a news article or announcement on the web (or even right here on HN), I read up a little about it and then seek him out with a "Hey, did you hear about ...". This often leads…

Thanks, that's great advice.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#372

Post by VLM »

cyberferret wrote: post #70

I haven't had a TV in the house for nearly 8 years now, and don't miss it at all. The biggest problem to me, seems to be the 24 hour news cycle for things like wars, elections and the like. I was visiting friends during a couple of major air accidents in the past couple of years (The MH370 and MH17 incidents in particular), and was astounded at the propensity for news stations on ALL channels to fill every minute of…

I'm not disagreeing with any of your post but one bombardment which I can't stand now that someone "helpfully" pointed it out to me, is when I was a kid and still watched news, "breaking news" complete with animation and breathless commentary and interruption to regular programming, this meant that a pope had died, or Reagan was shot, or a new Russian leader, another war or coup started, or at minimum a major airliner crash, Challenger explosion, that level of significance.

In the 2010s, "breaking news" apparently means early news cycle filler as opposed to late cycle filler that's already been reported 47 times in the last 24 hours, so after the attention grabbing fanfare, the breaking news is the national christmas tree lighting ceremony in DC, or surprisingly it snowed in the winter in the midwest yesterday, or congress is boringly making sausage as usual, while I'm sitting there waiting, come on, whats the breaking news part, did the ISS re-enter, has a political leader died, has a new war begun? And then they go to yet another old person pharmaceutical commercial, because those are the only people who still watch news channels, and I'm all question marks. Where's my important news?

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#373

Post by torrent-of-ions »

cyberferret wrote: post #70

I haven't had a TV in the house for nearly 8 years now, and don't miss it at all. The biggest problem to me, seems to be the 24 hour news cycle for things like wars, elections and the like. I was visiting friends during a couple of major air accidents in the past couple of years (The MH370 and MH17 incidents in particular), and was astounded at the propensity for news stations on ALL channels to fill every minute of…

> I used to be a commercial pilot, and I could not believe the amount of disinformation and outright ridiculous theories being bandied about by so called 'reputable' news sources.

This is what I hear from real experts every single time their subject is dealt with by the news. I've experienced it first hand myself with certain technology-related news where I've been heavily involved in the real thing. So when they report on economics, health or anything else I'm not an expert in, I assume that the real experts are shaking their heads just like I shook mine.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#374

Post by DonaldFoss »

cyberferret wrote: post #114
blhack wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not only that, I used to be a commercial pilot, and I could not believe the amount of disinformation and outright ridiculous theories being bandied about by so called 'reputable' news sources. This is true every time there is a news story on about anything that somebody around me is an expert on. It's always "what the hell are they talking about!?" I've seen this directly, too. I've been on the local news quite a fe…

It definitely is frightening at times. And frustrating at all other times too. I remember when news articles reported all the known facts up front, or they would do some research to post base facts. Talking about air accidents above, I remember when the first lines of a news article would contain the location, info on the airline as well as the aircraft type, departure and destination information etc. But it appears…

You hit the proverbial "nail on the head." Before 24/7 news channels and online access, the rush to "scoop" another newspaper still had a 16-hour cycle due to daily print runs. The infamous incorrect front page presidential election result made editors back up and double check things before rushing a story, but it didn't last long. Many years later, Dan Rather lost his job for not fact checking before reporting something he wanted to believe.

When television news first appeared in the US, some claimed the death unfiltered information, which was already filtered, while others claimed the death of newspapers. The first didn't change much and the second barely changed.

24/7 cable news was already in vogue before Dan Rather's incident, who I believe claimed the high road, which helped remove Dan Rather. All that changed when the revenue sources changed.

What I personally find hypocritical is the different standard for "breaking" news versus "regularly scheduled" news. Bryan Williams was excoriated for honoring veterans and having a normal, human memory. Breaking news and special updates are blatantly suspect and misleading, feeling line "spray and pray", with minimal or no fact or source checking, and there appears to be no consequence. I believe the Rather case was egregious and the Williams case trivial.

I have a link to a study I need to find and post relating to the amount of international news viewing by country. More international news generally means more sources, purportedly meaning more viewpoints and balance.

It feels like P. T. Barnum is running much of today's media outlets. Sensationalism combined with instant gratification gets more views = more ad revenue. "Always follow the money." as told to Bob Woodward in _All The President's Men_.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#375

Post by jazzyk »

siberianbear wrote: post #203
colordrops wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist also has a fairly evident political agenda.

Has The Economist shifted? I started reading it in about 2000, and at the time I really liked it because it seemed so intelligent and neutral. It seemed like such a pleasure to read something that went deep into interesting topics without an obvious axe to grind. In the past ten years it seems to have drifted gradually leftward. Sometimes I can't reconsile The Economist of 2000 with the one of 2016. Did The Economist…

They have shifted over the past years, from small-business, fair/relatively-free market stance towards elitism/globalism.

My subscription is up in January, and -for the first time in 25 years- will NOT be renewed.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#376

Post by talmand »

ideonexus wrote: post #363
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…

There's a bit of irony in this quote coming from Michael Crichton. When I started hanging out with the Science Online community in the early 00s, I learned that Crichton was widely regarded as spreading bad science by regularly citing discredited studies or fringe research in his books. He was also known for getting even basic science wrong, like in "Jurassic Park," where the scientists fill-in missing dinosaur DNA b…

>> How could someone with so many references and claims of research in his books miss such an elementary fact?

Because following that scientific fact would have ruined one of the major plot points of the story? Fiction authors do take some liberties to suit their fictional stories.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#377

Post by miobrien »

I agree with some of the points in the article. The "news" has become a hydra-headed monster - the media has turned everything into news. And it has also merged news with entertainment.

However, I don't think refraining from the news will solve these issues.

I think you don't need to read the news every day.

I think each person needs to diversify its consumption. IMO you can rely on any single source anymore. I'm not saying you need 100 different sources. But I think you should be actively jumping around to see what other outlets are saying.

Finally, although people should have opinions about a wide range of subjects, I think people need to realize that - a lot of the time - they just shouldn't have an opinion on an issue because they're not qualified to really make an informed one. In sum, opinions are cheap; be more open-minded.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#378

Post by talmand »

seandougall wrote: post #169
elsonrodriguez wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media wants to be shocked that covering Trump 24/7 yielded a victory for Trump.

And by complete coincidence, they now have a lot more to get people riled up about (and more clicks to sell) for the next four years.

That goes along with my thought that sometimes the NRA would rather have a Democrat in office for much the same reasons.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#379

Post by makomk »

trendia wrote: post #98
m_mueller wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend the following Planet Money episode if you want to know a bit of the economic background of fake news. They even got a fake news publisher to speak. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episo...

I thought this episode was rather funny, because they found that a right wing fake news site was actually run by a liberal who wanted to prove there was right wing fake news (and that it would be shared on social media, which they ensured by spreading it themselves). It turned out to be rather profitable for him.

The part I found hilarious is that there was one particular quote from the NPR coverage which spread like wildfire on social media - the one about how he tried to write fake news for liberals, but it just didn't catch on. Except that when I went looking for more information, one of the first successes I found reference to - via the Denver Post's article[1] about the FBI agent suicide fake - was "ATLANTA OFFICER KILLS BLACK WOMAN, INJURES CHILD, FOLLOWING BREASTFEEDING ARGUMENT"[2]. The site used was even stuffed full of the kind of conservative-targeted fake news that liberals mock conservatives for believing, and it still worked.

A self-confessed fake news creator made a dubious yet flattering claim about liberals not believing fake news because they were too smart, which fell apart upon a brief check, and liberals everywhere believed it. Brilliant.

[1] http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/05/there-is-no-such-thing-...

[2] http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcpnews-someone...

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#380

Post by DonaldFoss »

croon wrote: post #290
sooheon wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but even I don't follow your logic. AFAICT your parent is simply pointing out the pot calling the kettle black.

He's saying that if the "suspect" is NYT, then his logic fails because they're reporting on their own fake news.

I believe the parent poster is saying that fake news isn't a new phenomena; I don't believe it was condemnation of any specific news outlet.

Any search of history can find fake news going way back; the difference today is the ease of producing it and how easy it is to spread rapidly.

Post reply on HN