141–150 of 378 posts
I subscribed to Delayed Gratification quarterly for this purpose. https://www.slow-journalism.com/
This is the first I've heard of Delayed Gratification. That's a hefty subscription price -- is that their main source of revenue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Well, the good news is that you guys aren't losing out on it! You're on HN. Which means you get your daily dose of "outrage porn" like anyone else. I think many people don't think of HN as, basically, a "News" site. With a large percentage of the front page dedicated to "outrage porn". "Big Tech Helping China." "US Workers Highly Taxed." Etc etc etc. And those are just the more, kind of, moderate examples. I think ye…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech has never protected an individual from social consequences only government/state consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Jewish people being excluded from clubs is one example of "social consequences." Women being excluded from the clubs other executives attended was another.
Sure. I see how you are using "free speech". I was just objecting to your conceit that this is somehow a new thing which you clearly, with your examples, realize is not true. A misreading on my part I think.
Not sure what you mean here. If Jewish person were allowed into restricted clubs, and people could talk to them and evaluate them on their character, then the true spirit of Free Speech would have been served by this. If a woman would be allowed into the old boy circles, allowed to succeed on her own intelligence and merits, then the true spirit of Free Speech would have been served by this.
Free Speech is important on a purely Epistemological Basis. Sometimes, it's the unpopular ideas which turn out to be the important ones. So long as we can protect Free Speech and the Right to Hear, the unpopular ideas can have a chance to be heard.
Actually, what we need first is: 1) A common and agreed upon standard definition of news. Facts alone are not news. News also has importance and relevance. It's not news simply because a (major) "news" outlet publishes it. I ate eggs for breakfast. That's truth / fact. It's not news. 2) A common and agreed upon standard definition of journalism / journalist. Again, working for a "news" outlet does not make you a jour…
> A common and agreed upon standard definition of news. This is inherently political. > A common and agreed upon standard definition of journalism / journalist. This is also political. > Transparency and full disclosure about what is news (objective) and what is op-ed (subjective). This is also political. Ultimately, accepting that news is political and rejecting the idea of objective or unbiased reporting is the onl…
Nor is journalism.
Nor is transparency.
We can't make everything "political" simply because we lack the will and wherewithal to approach it otherwise. The willingness to give "political" that much importance is simply another symptom of the problem. We're lower expectations i instead of raising them. We're rasing to the bottom, for what? To look "political" in the face, eye to eye?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Can you add some context for those who don't want to / are not able to watch the youtube video?
However, it's his words as a commentator in this video which I find the most informative.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do agree that paying too much attention to the crazy that’s going on is not constructive or healthy. But you can definitely overcorrect. If you completely disconnect you have no data with which to make your decisions come election time. A lot of what’s happening in politics does affect you directly. Changes to tax code, the budget, deregulation of industries (e.g. net neutrality). And some of it may not affect you…
> And some of it may not affect you directly but affects people in the communities you live in. A Supreme Court nominee had allegations of sexual assault and gambling problems brought against him. Regardless of what you believe, it behooves you to be aware that this is happening. If the accusations were true don’t you want to know? It affects the women in your life to have someone like that be given a lifelong appoin…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the good news is that you guys aren't losing out on it! You're on HN. Which means you get your daily dose of "outrage porn" like anyone else. I think many people don't think of HN as, basically, a "News" site. With a large percentage of the front page dedicated to "outrage porn". "Big Tech Helping China." "US Workers Highly Taxed." Etc etc etc. And those are just the more, kind of, moderate examples. I think ye…
This is a good point. However, I think the major difference is the proportion of the content that is "outrage porn". I would argue that HN has a notably lower proportion.
It's difficult to tell, because the front page of BBC has so many more articles on it than the front page of HN, but the "outrage porn" proportion seems about equal to me. Right around 1/4 or 1/5 of the articles I would classify that way. Seems about the same as HN.
Just for context, at the moment on HN, I'd say these are the "news"-y and "outrage porn"-y posts on the front page.
"Amazon Workers Are Listening To What You Tell Alexa" - Obligatory "outrage porn" post for FAANG company. (Generally a minimum of one is always present on the front page.)
"Urgent Quest For Slower, Better News"
"Most Prestigious Journals Publishing Least Reliable Science"
"New Human Species Found In Philippines" - (Predictable descent into extreme views on evolution. No more "Out of Africa", all that "scientific evidence" stuff is nonsense.)
"Startup Stock Options - Good Deal Gone Bad"
"Logic of Political Survival"
And that doesn't even count the posts on the front page that are borderline.