171–180 of 203 posts
The former says that not reading the news is individually beneficial, whereas latter implies that it is socially beneficial.
Those are distinct enough qualities that, when coupled with missing "(2013)", inclines me to believe that the current headline is too misleading.
It should be changed to reflect its source.
It's not just news. I cut out mainstream media several years ago, and noted a definite improvement in my psychological well-being. As of the end of last year, I stopped engaging in mainstream social media. So much better. I still keep a Facebook account for Messenger and Events, but don't post, read timelines, or participate. Not only do I have more time to read books and learn new things -- made pita bread from scra…
I get that stopping watching movies and TV would improve your mood, but I love how music makes me feel and I think (though haven’t tested) that if I stopped listening to music id be a little less jolly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected representatives about policies that matter to me. Give an example. Otherwise it's a post-hoc hand-waving justification. Also include how you meaningfully communicated with your representative about the issue (e.g. writing a complaint email about the popular news of the day doesn't count).
I wrote to my governor and my districts state reps about making Net Neutrality Washington State law after the FCC repealed those rules. My state is now planning to pass a state law, despite federal law prohibiting us from doing so. I didn't do that alone, but if nobody was paying attention to the news and doing their part, it likely wouldn't have happened.
TV News, Radio News or the local newspaper?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support." I hope your correct in this; I've felt similarly in the past. As I've gotten older, I've felt more like a lot of what I was seeing as useful action was the fantasy of useful action. That is, I haven't seen a lot of real gains or losses due to my own political actions. Maybe I just don't give e…
> I would never have a problem with people advocating for incremental changes and I've seen people make small gains in those directions. > However, I believe that the complete disarmament of the police for and more or less the total abolition of prisions is the only workable solution. "Perfect is the enemy of the good," a common form of apathetic thinking. It's defensive in many cases, I grant, but it is still ultima…
Also true: we often prefer the fantasy of symbolic action over the realization that we have no power over some situations.
Often, small gains are a wedge that prevents real change. I know that probably needs support with examples for which I don't have time to provide, so let me just say that is just my view and I don't expect other people to share that idea.
Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have to admit, it's pretty wonderful. And somewhat ironic, given that I used to be the TL of Google News 10 years ago. I still read The Economist weekly, come to HN occasionally, and hear about important/local/political events from friends. I don't, however, have to…
Where I disagree is that I think being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention so we can vote as informed participants, and I don't know how to do that without reading the news.
And it's important to be clear that there's a lot still wrong with the world. The climate is in crisis; more humans are in slavery today than at any time in human history; we're in the midst of one of the great migrant/refugee crises of the modern world. Importantly, many media outlets largely ignore those things, but not all media does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support." I hope your correct in this; I've felt similarly in the past. As I've gotten older, I've felt more like a lot of what I was seeing as useful action was the fantasy of useful action. That is, I haven't seen a lot of real gains or losses due to my own political actions. Maybe I just don't give e…
> Consider, however, that the only folks who can actually make political gains are people that are already in a position of some amount of power and privilege. The basic premise of incremental change is that the kinds of changes that you'd like to see are sustainable via the system you're interacting with. No, it's not. There is no “basic premise of incremental change”; incremental change is a tactical choice that ca…
Also true: often incremental changes are a bone tossed to radicals who are then expected to be complacent even with fundamentally broken systems.
Look, I think this is great and all, but I'm pretty skeptical of this chant, "If the news bothers you so much because of what you're reading, just stop reading. It's not like you can change it." Obviously, events that already happened can't be changed. But a lot of what upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy. These things are changeable, and direct (and/or collective) action can chan…
If you read the conventional news, say, once a month, you would still be more than informed enough to know what way you should vote when the time comes. As for your health and wellbeing, mainstream news is probably worse than nothing, in that it skews your perception of where your risks are, and definitely worse than using your own research skills to find other (often primary) sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I would categorize as "bad news" (or "news news") all the FB outrage, policital stuff, the Waymo lawsuit, etc. Bad as in getting to read them for very small content almost everyday doesn't help. On the other hand, HN is very useful for keeping up with developments in my area, interesting technical articles, insightful discussions. HN is usually not "news news".
HN is a liberal echo chamber identical to all other social media where all dissenting viewpoints get suppressed. The truth is HN is Reddit, but with a better interface and a smarter crowd.
Carefully crafted traditional/conservative comments do get voted up, particularly if written knowing that they're addressing a potentially hostile audience. Those posting progressive viewpoints can generally get away with more blunt/aggressive language.
Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have to admit, it's pretty wonderful. And somewhat ironic, given that I used to be the TL of Google News 10 years ago. I still read The Economist weekly, come to HN occasionally, and hear about important/local/political events from friends. I don't, however, have to…
Hey, Chris! I largely agree with you, and think reading things like the Economist on a weekly basis is salutary - it's weekly, so building a reading habit around it doesn't lead to constant panic. It's broad, covers a lot of what's going on around the world and isn't as obsessed with the trivialities American media focuses on. As a guy who used to work on Google News with you, I always appreciated the effort to get m…
I see many people here who have said it, and I will say it; I haven't watched any mainstream news(Fox, CNN, ABC, etc) in years. All it is, is negativity and deception. For the most part, I don't care about what is going on. I get my fill of major events from browsing reddit and HN, and even then I just read the comments, rarely the article. I've never used FB as a source of information, that sounds about as bad of a…
I'm not so sure that "unbiased information" is a thing that really exists. For example, you would like to know the outside temperature, so you check online. That information comes from a sensor somewhere near where you happen to be. But who placed the sensor there, and why was that location chosen? Was the sensor calibrated? How was it originally designed? What choices were made in the design process, and how did the engineer's biases shape the final product. You could keep going.
Obviously, that's a bit absurd, but it's relevant to news. Even a simple reporting of facts about a car crash can be view through numerous lenses. Initial fact gathering by police and emergency workers all add their own perspectives and inputs to the "raw data", and then that has to go through a reporter who is also a person with their own world view, opinions, and experiences. Do they use the word "crash", or "accident"? Both words heavily bias the reporting of a car coming into contact with a guardrail at a particular speed. It would be hard to strip all bias from something so simple.
For murkier issues, like the actions of nation states, it is even harder to"stick to the facts". The facts may not even be clear. The data you include in a report has to be curated somehow, and that can't be free from bias. You have to select sources, and again those are decisions made by people.
Unbiased information is in my opinion a myth invented largely to discredit the idea that reporting is useful even with bias and that there can exist objective facts. Perhaps there is a problem of propaganda masquerading as news, or heavily biased reporting pretending to be wholly objective, but that's a different thing. Ultimately it's our responsibility as consumers of information to look at the information presented to us with a critical eye.