The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News • Hacker News Board

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#271

Post by jiggunjer » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 4:47 AM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #136

GordonS wrote: post #89

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…

I don't read the articles on HN. Just here because I often learn about new things (not news) from the discussion.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#272

Post by prostoalex » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 4:48 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #161

netfl0 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is ignoring media tacit support of the status quo?

Because being politically active at any thing but the most basic level requires knowledge of the issues and knowledge of the issues requires following the news. If you are not politically active you are supporting the status quo because you are not putting in any effort to change the status quo.

But most people are politically active once a year (if that), not every 15 minutes.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#273

Post by sofal » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 4:51 AM UTC

eaurouge wrote: post #98

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've seen this sentiment on HN several times before. Just about any time there is an article discussing problems with the state of news, the most prevalent conversations on HN are always about how much better life is when you don't know what is going on. They argue that being informed isn't going to change anything, and yet they're perfectly happy to opine at length about whatever slice of current events happens to make it to the front page of HN as if they have all the context they need.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#274

Post by durability » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 4:55 AM UTC

old-gregg wrote: post #191

slg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. News != politics. In fact, if I replace the "status quo" in your statement with "reality", the meaning will change significantly. I don't need a journalist to tell me that the healthcare situation (to pick an example) is absurd, or that taxation (fed+state) in some states is already at European levels, yet without any healthcare or education benefits. It's easy to be aware of these facts, you just have to…

You are an awful human being.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#275

Post by burlesona » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 4:58 AM UTC

sofal wrote: post #273

eaurouge wrote: post #98

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've seen this sentiment on HN several times before. Just about any time there is an article discussing problems with the state of news, the most prevalent conversations on HN are always about how much better life is when you don't know what is going on. They argue that being informed isn't going to change anything, and yet they're perfectly happy to opine at length about whatever slice of current events happens to m…

I would actually argue that it's more meta than you're saying. The people who are unplugging are largely arguing that the majority of todays "fast media" is unverified, poorly sourced, and otherwise low quality. By consuming it ravenously you may feel informed (and angry, because anger is mostly what sells), but you still don't actually know what's going on. So it's easier to be happy by just accepting that you can't learn what's really going on from the media and quit listening to it.

Although to be fair this belief is nothing new. Per Mark Twain, "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#276

Post by manfredo » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 5:04 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #161

netfl0 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is ignoring media tacit support of the status quo?

Because being politically active at any thing but the most basic level requires knowledge of the issues and knowledge of the issues requires following the news. If you are not politically active you are supporting the status quo because you are not putting in any effort to change the status quo.

Or they could do actual research instead of reading the "news" - which largely amounts to professional blogging these days. Following the news does not make one more knowledgeable about politics or current events necessarily. Some of the most ill-informed people I know watch news regularly. There's no guarantee that news is accurate or balanced in it's reporting.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#277

Post by jiggunjer » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 5:06 AM UTC

enumjorge wrote: post #131

GordonS wrote: post #89

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?

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…

The Supreme Court example isn't very good, because you can't act on the outcome in a sensible democratic way.

A better example would be news that brings X to attention, so you can voice concern to the government. Or in the case where politicians are the focus of attention, it can affect your voting choice.

E.g. the internet filter law proposal in Europe. It's not practical for me to review every individual piece of legislation, so I rely on journalists/news platforms to highlight the important bits. As a consequence of the MEP vote I have now blacklisted one political party I considered moderate before. They will never get a vote or a good word from me again, ever.

Other examples you could have mentioned are stuff like the Panama papers and Wikileaks. If I heard a local construction company was funneling money to tax havens, I'd email my municipality and/or IRS.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#278

Post by peterlk » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 5:07 AM UTC

I have started reading the news differently in recent months. If the story seems to incite outrage, I paint all actors in the story as acting in good faith. This is obviously not true, but it helps break the cycle of feeling like the world is going off the rails, and I think it is a good method for figuring out what's actually going on.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#279

Post by manfredo » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 5:11 AM UTC

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…

> 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).

I highly doubt that the average article even in prestigious news organizations (e.g. NYT, NPR, The Atlantic) goes through that level or rigor, given how frequently they cite provably false information. The overwhelming majority of the news articles I read, even from preeminent news outlets, amounts to summarizing a story that a different outlet broke. Often with several layers of indirection. I've seen plenty of stories about things posted on social media, and the author of the news articles doesn't even bother to link to the primary source. The latter is especially pernicious, it signals to me that the authors wants me to take their words at face value and not facilitate me viewing the relevant information and forming my own opinion.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#280

Post by jiggunjer » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 5:13 AM UTC

timrice wrote: post #263

Faark wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know whom to vote for? I understand the US doesn't have a lot of choice on the ballot, political news is highly polarized and latest/developing news is probably not worth following. But somewhat keeping up with what your government does so you can hold it accountable seems like a civic duty to me. And what better way to do this than news?

When it comes time to vote I research each candidate and ballot measure and make an informed decision with the information that I find. I don't need to be plugged into to every daily scandal to know that I fundamentally disagree with Trump's policies, a few minutes of research will tell me that just fine.

You'd be surprised how even fascists can portray themselves as reasonable on their own websites, or how lacking wikipedia is on some parties.

Ballot measures only address a small subset of policies, and they don't exist in many places. From what I understand making a 360 turn on them after being elected isn't uncommon either.

So your 'informed' decision is probably just as biased as someone who bases their decision on news.