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

Stop Reading News (2013)

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 213 posts

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#161

Post by zimpenfish »

skh wrote: post #137
zimpenfish wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read Surely that only works if the same combination of journalists and subeditors work on all the stories? Just because Margaret has written some pop-sci junk about robots doesn't suddenly make Malcolm's commentary on Botswana any less valid.

An expert read articles in his area of expertise and found them to be rubbish. Thus his anecdotal evidence is that the reporters get it wrong and so he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise. If newspapers get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about?

> he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise

Let me refocus that to highlight the silliness:

> If doctors get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about?

If my doctor knows not even the slightest tiniest thing about computers, the internet, etc., I'm still going to trust him on medicinal matters.

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#162

Post by koheripbal »

jshowa3 wrote: post #104
afiori wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An uninformed populace is a malleable one. A overreacting population is even more malleable. >This isn't news, it's opinion. Don't read this. >Be a discerning news consumer. Media, even big mainstream media, is very flexible regarding the distinction between news and opinion; the latest big example being the maga-kids and how people were rewriting the same articles over and over on debunked facts. I am not saying t…

How does this make any sense? Why should you distrust news because they report on inconsequential stuff? Whatever is on twitter is still a real fact because they repeat, verbatim what people post on it. Distrust implies they're lying to you, when most of the time they aren't.

> "Whatever is on twitter is still a real fact because they repeat, verbatim what people post on it."

This, right here, is the problem. Something is not a FACT just because it's being repeated over and over on Twitter. In fact, I have a feeling the correlation between accuracy and Twitter-repetition is probably inverse.

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#163

Post by untog »

skh wrote: post #137
zimpenfish wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read Surely that only works if the same combination of journalists and subeditors work on all the stories? Just because Margaret has written some pop-sci junk about robots doesn't suddenly make Malcolm's commentary on Botswana any less valid.

An expert read articles in his area of expertise and found them to be rubbish. Thus his anecdotal evidence is that the reporters get it wrong and so he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise. If newspapers get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about?

Because topic areas are in no way equivalent. My expertise is specific and not of broad public interest. But tax policy, for example, absolutely is of public interest. And news organisations have been covering for years. Individual journalists have been covering it for years and are as much experts as anyone out there.

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#164

Post by untog »

scoutt wrote: post #157
untog wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about following news in order to be an informed citizen, who makes informed choices about how to vote, what to protest and what to support?

Why one has to be an informed citizen? Why one has to vote? Why one has to always protest? Why one has to always support something? > We’re afraid to ask ourselves deep and meaningful questions. Noise and news are an incentive for people to play this left-right, right-wrong game you described in your comment.

> Why one has to be an informed citizen? Why one has to vote?

It's in your own interest to do so. How much do you pay in tax? Do you think that's right? What about public services? How are the roads around you? Your trash pickup? These are all things managed by elected officials. If you care about any of them it's in your interests to vote.

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#165

Post by scoutt »

untog wrote: post #164
scoutt wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why one has to be an informed citizen? Why one has to vote? Why one has to always protest? Why one has to always support something? > We’re afraid to ask ourselves deep and meaningful questions. Noise and news are an incentive for people to play this left-right, right-wrong game you described in your comment.

> Why one has to be an informed citizen? Why one has to vote? It's in your own interest to do so. How much do you pay in tax? Do you think that's right? What about public services? How are the roads around you? Your trash pickup? These are all things managed by elected officials. If you care about any of them it's in your interests to vote.

The answer to all the above questions is: is in the interest of the elected officials.

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#166

Post by untog »

scoutt wrote: post #165
untog wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why one has to be an informed citizen? Why one has to vote? It's in your own interest to do so. How much do you pay in tax? Do you think that's right? What about public services? How are the roads around you? Your trash pickup? These are all things managed by elected officials. If you care about any of them it's in your interests to vote.

The answer to all the above questions is: is in the interest of the elected officials.

What does that mean?

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#167

Post by koonsolo »

untog wrote: post #149
koonsolo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But rejecting information from the media is a concession to power. Mainstream news is not information, it's entertainment. The sooner your realize it the better. Journalists have nor the time, nor the expertise or the means to write a purely accurate objective articles (that nobody wants to read because it's purely informational). I cannot count the times I read articles about my field of expertise, that are laugha…

> Mainstream news is not information, it's entertainment. The sooner your realize it the better. This is, and always has been, an utterly dumb argument that only persists because it sounds clever. Mainstream news informs people about what is going on in the world around them. What their elected representatives are doing. What the weather is doing (an underrated one, in terms of every day utility, especially in hurric…

> What the weather is doing

The weather is indeed informative, but if you look at video's where the reporter has a hard time standing against the wind of a hurricane, and people behind him just walk around like normal, you definitely get the "entertainment" value. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyZdDQY37Sg

> What their elected representatives are doing.

I'm not that familiar with US, but in Belgium, the politicians who do proper work, hardly make it to the news. Most of the time, it's politicians making bold or crazy statements, saying something controversial etc. Reporters are also known to lean towards the political left, so a lot comes through from a certain standpoint and not really objective, like it should be.

I'll leave you with video of a Belgian news photographer that shows how easy it is to let his picture depict anything he wants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmbsXussxUc. In his own words: "It's dangerous, the media"

I don't get my information from news outlets, and there is not much that can convince me otherwise.

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#168

Post by minikites »

weliketocode wrote: post #140

This article is right on. - Avoiding the daily news likely will NOT make you any less informed. - Avoiding constant media consumption will NOT give power to a central authority and reduce your rights. A lot of the counter arguments here are seemingly from individuals defending the amount of time they spend consuming content. To those who read the news religiously, what was the last news item that you, personally , to…

>Avoiding constant media consumption will NOT give power to a central authority and reduce your rights.

Are you part of a class of people who have rights that are in danger? Do you think everyone is safe from that?

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#169

Post by scoutt »

untog wrote: post #166
scoutt wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to all the above questions is: is in the interest of the elected officials.

What does that mean?

> Why one has to be an informed citizen? Why one has to vote? Why one has to always protest? Why one has to always support something?

Is not in your interest. Is in the interest of the elected officials. They get to you through the news and social media (by sharing). In simple words: they don't give a F about you, the taxes or the roads.

Re: Stop Reading News (2013)

#170

Post by skh »

zimpenfish wrote: post #161
skh wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An expert read articles in his area of expertise and found them to be rubbish. Thus his anecdotal evidence is that the reporters get it wrong and so he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise. If newspapers get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about?

> he shouldn't be so willing to accept as correct articles in areas outside of his expertise Let me refocus that to highlight the silliness: > If doctors get it wrong in areas you know about then why should one think they get it right in areas you don't know about? If my doctor knows not even the slightest tiniest thing about computers, the internet, etc., I'm still going to trust him on medicinal matters.

Reporters are not experts in the areas they report on. If reporters generally get it wrong on the areas that I know about then why would I assume they get right on the other areas they write about?

If your doctor wrote articles about computers and got it wrong would you be willing to trust him/her on articles about Syria? Tax policy? Politics? You would trust your doctor in the area of his/her expertise and not necessarily about other areas.

Post reply on HN