Live data from Hacker News

The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

newyorker.com

101–110 of 378 posts

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#101

I see a number of comments celebrating the choice to live in a bubble uninformed and blissfully unaware of local and global events. Admittedly, a number of news sources are quite bad at actually reporting the news. But there still are quite a number of news organizations and news reporters that take their roles seriously. You can find them, that is if you are actually interested in being informed. I'm sure there's so…

Why don't you suggest some accurate news sources that have a net-positive effect on the reader's life and mood, rather than shaming?

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#102
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the same thing about 4 years ago and haven’t looked back. I find though that a lot of people are actually offended by it since I have no clue what thing they and everyone else is outraged about. I get accused of not caring, being disengaged, blah blah blah. It’s difficult to explain to people who are still deep in outrage mode, so I mostly avoid taking about it. My life is so much better since cutting out the new…

I prefer to think about how I can positively impact people around me and my local community Given that, isn't (local) news still relevant?

Sometimes, sort of. If you think about the things you read on the news, you'll notice that 99%+ ends up being of no consequence for anything. A lot of what people get outraged about daily is total bullshit, and it gets forgotten the very next day, but even the more important-seeming issues really average out to zero impact on the community. In terms of information, the news is a channel with absurdly low signal/noise ratio. If you want to positively impact people, your first job should be finding a channel with higher SNR.

There's a secondary value to news (or rather primary, in terms of value delivered) - social objects. Most people know what's currently on the news, so even though the raw information value is near-zero, it becomes a great conversation starter.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#103

I see a number of comments celebrating the choice to live in a bubble uninformed and blissfully unaware of local and global events. Admittedly, a number of news sources are quite bad at actually reporting the news. But there still are quite a number of news organizations and news reporters that take their roles seriously. You can find them, that is if you are actually interested in being informed. I'm sure there's so…

I think if you mentioned which organizations you actually thought were credible people would disagree. Personally I’m constantly looking for a decent news source but haven’t found any. I settle for multiple bad ones on different sides of the issues.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#104
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the same thing about 4 years ago and haven’t looked back. I find though that a lot of people are actually offended by it since I have no clue what thing they and everyone else is outraged about. I get accused of not caring, being disengaged, blah blah blah. It’s difficult to explain to people who are still deep in outrage mode, so I mostly avoid taking about it. My life is so much better since cutting out the new…

I did the same 1-2 years ago, and haven't regretted it. Interestingly, I've experienced the same thing where others seem offended by decision, and I also get accused of being insular and "living in my own little bubble". I just don't get this though - what exactly am I losing out on?

Being stressed out and dying early is what you're losing out on. Also being in pain and unhappy.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#105
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take a stab: 1) News is an account (story) of an event. The degree with which it is "true" is the degree with which it holds the events to account, and the degree with which the news organization/publisher holds itself accountable for that account/story. Good news is accountable and provides accounts of events. "Truth" is the wrong focus; "fact" is far too malleable (hence the status-quo legitimacy of "alternati…

1) Being an account of X isn't a high enough bar. 100% of what I see on "the news" is an account of something. The problem is, the line between TMZ and Fox or CNN is less defined. 2) " but few are willing to hold themselves to the standards of accountability good journalism demands." Well yeah. But it's because the dentition of journalism has become "anything done by self-proclaimed journalists." It's entirely self-s…

You have wedded your opinion of US news organizations to your definition of the news. Those two can and should be kept seperate.

1) Being an account is all the news is. It's a story. The division between TMZ and Fox and CNN is defined. They are all news organizations. They differ in the nature of their accountability and the degree with which they hold themselves accountable for their stories. They show this in their willingness to retract, correct, or stand by stories. And they have a history that we can judge. You already show that in your opinion of them.

2) Anyone can be a journalist. Just as anyone can be a scientist or a programmer. But to do those things, to be considered a professional in those things, is to hold yourself to a certain set of standards, that is, to hold yourself accountable. I have read excellent and insightful journalism in a newspaper just as I have read it on a local blog. In both cases they have acted with professionalism. I have also seen the inverse, in which case I don't consider them credible journalists or their news to be credible.

3) That's a completely credible criticism of many news organizations. That however, does not target my definition of news, that targets the use of op-eds by news organizations to evade accountability. In which case, they are bad news organizations and you would be justified in considering them as such.

However to insist on 100% "truthfulness" or "objectivity" leads to a metaphysical paralysis where news or journalism is impossible. Show me an 100% true and objective news story? You can't (or you could show your fact from your parent comment, but, as you admit, that is not news). Because it has never been like that, nor need it. Instead we can be pragmatic and demand that the news be useful. what the news is is its use. That use is accountability. Because neither I nor you can be everywhere at once. To overcome that, we rely on news, on accounts of events. But, in turn, we can also, as you have, insist that we have good news and criticise those that are not useful (a Fox News, for instance, that insists on only holding one party accountable).

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#106
post #30

I remember when Jon Stewart said years ago that the 24-hour news cycle is really designed for 9/11; for anything less than a catastrophic event like that, they have to manufacture problems. I think the worst offenders of this are Fox News, but it's not like CNN or MSNBC are blameless. Spending days talking about the latest typo on in the president's tweet ends up with a bizarre view of reality; even if you're not wat…

Matt Taibbi pointed out how the "us-vs-them" angle drove a lot of the mistakes made in the coverage of the Mueller investigation: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...

"mistakes"

LOL

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#107

I stopped reading the news about a year ago. I felt like my emotions were being manipulated by a sharply-honed system built precisely to invoke outrage and draw you in to read more and more of it. I've been able to direct my focus and energy to much more productive tasks since I disconnected. Of course I entirely missed that whole Supreme Court thing until after it was over, and I have no idea what people around me a…

I pay a news site and I get high quality news from them that is curated. And since they make money from subscriptions, the need for eyeballs and page views is not a factor. Something to consider.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#108
I don't think it's that urgent because most people do not need to read most news. For people with particular responsibilities, it can be helpful to be up-to-date on the narrow field of news related to your responsibilities. For most people, there may only be a 5-10 relevant news events per year. The fact that you can access news from everywhere in the world instantaneously and at low monetary cost does not make it inherently useful, and if anything, it's likely to mislead you profoundly about your level of knowledge about the world and the stories that you are reading.

Stories about plane crashes and mass earthquake deaths and things like that are mostly about titillation and encouraging a morbid fascination with death. It also discourages people from focusing on the things that they can control in their life. The press doesn't like to admit it, but a lot of the 'hard news' is just /r/watchpeopledie in a necktie.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#109
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sunlight is the best disinfectant, after all. So, I had never heard this phrase until maybe a year or so ago. Now it seems like (on this site particularly) someone parrots this exact sentence in any thread at all related to news and/or social media. Where is this coming from? Especially since it is... Emphatically untrue. It's just another one of those turns of phrase that asks you to believe it purely because it's…

Especially since it is... Emphatically untrue. Citation? As far as I can see, people like the KKK and other White Supremacists have been and still are thoroughly discredited. The only countervailing force to that in 2019 is outrage driven media, produced by other extremist counterparts. If one's business is based on outrage, then you want an enemy to play off of, to generate a vicious circle of outrage and reaction a…

>Citation?

'Sunlight' from the press doesn't necessarily do anything in a court of law, which is the actual thing that is supposed to disinfect society.

A bomb-shell story which drags a corporation or white collar criminal through the mud won't necessarily lead to successful prosecution.

And using sunlight to simply damage a reputation has been used as well. It depends if you believe it's sunlight or not, so we just go back to old-hat media problems.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#110
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of smartphones has demonstrated, I believe, that people will blindly chase their dopamine hits coming from a variety of formats because it is ingrained in human nature. The dopamine reward pathway gives a good feeling and people are naturally inclined to follow the path of least resistance to more hits. If an organization or app tries to fight this, then people will simply use it less. The way this has been r…

> Sunlight is the best disinfectant, after all. So, I had never heard this phrase until maybe a year or so ago. Now it seems like (on this site particularly) someone parrots this exact sentence in any thread at all related to news and/or social media. Where is this coming from? Especially since it is... Emphatically untrue. It's just another one of those turns of phrase that asks you to believe it purely because it's…

You mean literally, sunlight is not a disinfectant? (false, https://www.cdc.gov/safewater/solardisinfection.html) Or it's not the best? (true, but the phrase is not meant literally).

Or that the figurative meaning is wrong - that "shining a light" on shady or immoral acts and behaviors is not "the best" for some sense of that word, and there are better options?

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2009/05/26/brandeis-and-the-h... is an interesting blog post on the author of the phrase.

Post reply on HN