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

The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 378 posts

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#241

Post by nicklaf »

steelframe wrote: post #14

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 would be inclined to read past the headlines if I received it as plain text, via email. I might even pay for it if that's all it was, and contained absolutely no ads or even links.

That said, I don't know that I'd actually read it, since most news strikes me as obscenely polemical, even when it feigns objectivity. Even the New York Times rubs me the wrong way in this regard.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#242

Post by kristianc »

The FT works well for me.

I subscribe to both the FT and the Economist precisely because slow news is what they do.

The FT tends to studiously avoid clickbait, avoid reporting every detail of 'this politician said that' and goes straight for the hard analysis of what it means.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#243

Post by [deleted] »

matt4077 wrote: post #126
jjulius wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I understand what you're getting at with that data as it pertains to "interest in politics" at a general level, but I'm not sure how you intend to use that data in this specific conversation. OP and I are wondering how we get the general populous to invest quality time in educating themselves about the news/politics, subjects many people don't care about. How does the data you provided correlate with that…

I don't know how much more data I should offer, while your and OP's position is basically "everything was better in the past". The New York Times has seen subscriptions quadruple from 1988 to today. (two charts needed for this timespan: https://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/oimg.png and https://secondmeasure.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/NYT-Cha... )

[deleted]

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#244

Post by balasan »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #237
balasan wrote: post #234

We are experience trust scarcity in online media because trust hasn't been part of social media's business model. By extension it stopped being part of the news publication's business model (everyone is forced to compete for clicks). That and because on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Ironically we are increasingly willing to get into stranger's cars and allow strangers stay at our homes because a few corpor…

I think the issue is too much trust. Too many people believe that because a Network, Publication, Author, or Anchor published quality work in the past, therefore, they can be trusted to reliably deliver news in the future. People's sources, access, knowledge, agenda, and effort vary wildly and each story needs to be judged on its own merit.

Right, so maybe scarcity of trustworthiness, or trust metrics/signals is more accurate. Plenty of popularity/click metrics, but how often do we really want to know what the masses think about complex nuanced topics?

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#245

Post by XorNot »

AWildC182 wrote: post #187
mixmastamyk wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"News" in its most common form has little to do with being an informed citizen. The library would be a better bet.

So we should just never read any news again because someone wrote a click-bait article? I don't know if you've been to a library...but they usually have newspapers .

No it means you should analyse your motivations for doing so carefully. If all you do is read it to get angry at something, or dismiss the opinion of whoever is speaking, then why read/watch it at all?

I'd go further and say if you're doing it just so you can give a hot take on politics to someone nearby, or have your opinions validated by them then also stop doing that (it's hard) and be mindful that whoever they are may actually disagree with you but isn't interested in having their views criticised as a part of someone's entertainment schedule or to be lectured too.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#246

Post by imgabe »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #25

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…

I think we have a good definition of news. It's been called "the first draft of history" which makes sense since like most first drafts, most of it is garbage and needs to be thrown out.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#247

Post by specialist »

slg wrote: post #157
steelframe wrote: post #14

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…

It needs to be pointed out that this is an option that originates from privilege. Ignoring the news means ignoring politics. Ignoring politics is tacit support of the status quo. The status quo does not put everyone on equal footing. Disadvantaged people would therefore suffer more from disengaging with the news than people of privilege.

Current me disagrees with you.

I am hyper political and have done some policy work. The people I know who get things done ignore the outrage factory.

Corporate media is a distraction. Like sports talk shows, today's political coverage is just entertainment.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#248

Post by specialist »

Accacin wrote: post #93

I try and avoid the news whenever possible. Nothing good can come from it. I do however subscribe to a newspaper/magazine called 'Private Eye' that comes out fortnightly. Let's me catch up on the important news :)

I would like a "fortnightly" version of HN, reddit, etc:

Show me the popular stories from two weeks ago, after things have settled down.

I really only want the conclusions vs the real time updates.

It'd also help mitigate my compulsion to participate.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#249

Post by enraged_camel »

rayiner wrote: post #239
enraged_camel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically, if you bought a MacBook instead is spending that money to help a kid in Bangladesh, you are a hypocrite and shouldn’t criticize others for being privileged? I think this is sufficient to demonstrate the sheer ridiculousness of your stance: https://imgur.com/gallery/ORdcf0R

The point is that you have no moral obligation to read the news and learn about the suffering of distant people in some ill conceived attempt to try and empathize with them. Humans aren’t built that way. You don’t have a generalized obligation to inform yourself about the abstract struggles of others and give up your own priorities in some token gesture of support for those people. Take two people who both go to Burn…

>>The point is that you have no moral obligation to read the news and learn about the suffering of distant people in some ill conceived attempt to try and empathize with them. Humans aren’t built that way. You don’t have a generalized obligation to inform yourself about the abstract struggles of others and give up your own priorities in some token gesture of support for those people.

Wow! Forget about the grandparent's post. This, right here, is the actual position of privilege.

You're right, Rayiner, if you're privileged enough, you don't have to care about people with whom you share the same city, state, or country. After all, why would you? You have a pretty sweet life to live, and your own hobbies, your own goals, aspirations, and things you derive pleasure and satisfaction from. Why bother learning about the suffering of others, especially those with whom you will, thanks to your privileged position, never interact? You can just adopt a completely self-serving set of morals and ethics, and tell yourself that you don't have any obligation to care about those people, because, after all, you bought a Macbook instead of spending that money to help them, right? Your actions have already demonstrated your true loyalties, and if you go around pretending that you care about something other than yourself, then you're just being a hypocrite!

Suffice it to say, one does not need to be an HN-famous appellate lawyer to spot the severe flaws in this logic.

Here's where I stand: people have both a moral obligation and a civic duty to be informed about what is going on around them, because it is a prerequisite of having a successful, effective and cohesive society. This doesn't mean everyone has to sit in front of their computer spamming F5 on their favorite news outlets every 10 minutes for the latest breaking news or whatever. But if one disconnects from all news, and remains willfully ignorant and uninformed about major events and the important issues of our time, and the experiences (both positive and negative) of those they share communities and societies and nations with, then what the hell is the point of having those things?

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#250

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #226
rayiner wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most articles are little better than click bait. Journalists writing about X usually aren’t trained in X and usually have little time to build expertise in X. They are by training writers, so for the most part they’re reduced to parroting the narratives peddled by this or that group or political party. It’s very rare I read a general news article within my areas of subject matter knowledge and think “oh, this writer…

This is a reductive and misleading summary of what journalists do. Every blogger on the Internet also writes, with varying degrees of training and success. What reporters do that bloggers don't is reporting --- surveying and cultivating sources, visiting places, making a zillion phone calls, working with fact checkers (itself a tedious job that has little to do with the craft of writing). That's the job of a reporter…

I don’t disagree with your first paragraph. As to your second, I think that’s part of the problem: those people with first hand knowledge are often relaying a sound bite, a piece of packaged narrative. And the journalist doesn’t know enough to really add anything to that narrative. That may be a limitation of journalism, but I question whether given that limitation, journalism is a useful vehicle for educating the public about the highly complex issues that underpin our society.

(Someone on HN changed my mind recently by pointing out that, while judges sometimes invoke history, they are generally bad historians. It was a thought provoking assertion, because it’s not uncommon for judges to justify opinions by reference to economics or social science. But they have neither the training nor time and procedural flexibility to do a good job of such analysis. My conclusion was, therefore, that such analysis simply isn’t useful. I think journalism might suffer from the same problem.)

Post reply on HN