How the News Took over Reality • Hacker News Board

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#11

Post by coldtea » Sat, May 04, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #6

high_derivative wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I enjoy reading some of the political reporting on Brexit on the guardian, they are amongst the least balanced newspapers on general societal and cultural issues.

what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? that seems to be a crazy thing to expect since soke viewpoints are totally bonkers (example: flat earthers). perhaps a better way to critique would be to specify exactly what viewpoint you feel is being ignored or treated unfairly and justify that claim. otherwise “not balanced” comes acro…

>what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints?

Covering all _major_ viewpoints with decency, and not demonizing the ones they disagree with.

Here's a trick impartial outlets use all the time, for example:

a favorite politician is presented in nice flattering photographs,

a politician they don't like is presented in unflattering photographs, selected to make them look evil, etc.

(Now extend this to coverage of their actions inside the articles).

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#12

Post by furgooswft13 » Sat, May 04, 2019, 1:43 PM UTC

mnd999 wrote: post #8

high_derivative wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I enjoy reading some of the political reporting on Brexit on the guardian, they are amongst the least balanced newspapers on general societal and cultural issues.

Why would you expect balance? With the possible exception of the Independent which tries, no British newspaper is attempting balance - they’re all opinionated.

I would settle for a little self-awareness.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#13

Post by Jonnax » Sat, May 04, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #10

growlist wrote: post #3

Without even reading it I think I can predict the unspoken intent of the article: anything that undermines our suppression of opposing viewpoints must itself be suppressed. Off to check.. Yep that's pretty much the gist of it.

Well, it's the Guardian after all, what did you expect? Establishment press was bad in the 60s already, which was why there was a flourishing counter-movement, from the early Rolling Stone to underground press. In due time, the Rolling Stone turned to the content-less rag that it is today, and e.g. the once revolutionary Liberation turned into a centre-left more of the same, similar fate awaited most of the once alte…

Yes. A significant percentage of people are any combination of racist, sexist or homophobic.

Their views are well represented in other newspapers, media and in politics. In fact in the UK it can be argued to be the majority view.

Why is it that these people always want to say that they're the real victims whilst sugarcoating their views with the phrase "opposing viewpoints". It's like there's a playbook to follow for disingenuous argument.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#14

Post by dominotw » Sat, May 04, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #6

high_derivative wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I enjoy reading some of the political reporting on Brexit on the guardian, they are amongst the least balanced newspapers on general societal and cultural issues.

what does balanced mean to people who comment on the lack of balance in the news? giving equal weight and time to all viewpoints? that seems to be a crazy thing to expect since soke viewpoints are totally bonkers (example: flat earthers). perhaps a better way to critique would be to specify exactly what viewpoint you feel is being ignored or treated unfairly and justify that claim. otherwise “not balanced” comes acro…

> example: flat earthers

why did you do this.

Saying earth is flat is not an "example" equivalent to saying immigration hurts me and my family.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#15

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 04, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

katzgrau wrote: post #2

> We marinate in the news. We may be familiar with the headlines before we have exchanged a word with another human in the morning; we kill time on the bus or in queues by checking Twitter, only to find ourselves plunged into the dramas of presidential politics or humanitarian emergencies. By one estimate, 70% of us take our news-delivery devices to bed with us at night. Some people do this. And I'm guilty of having…

[deleted]

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#16

Post by netsharc » Sat, May 04, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #3

Without even reading it I think I can predict the unspoken intent of the article: anything that undermines our suppression of opposing viewpoints must itself be suppressed. Off to check.. Yep that's pretty much the gist of it.

I wonder how you came up with your conclusion, it smells to me of confirmation bias.

In other words: show your work.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#17

Post by gdubs » Sat, May 04, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #3

Without even reading it I think I can predict the unspoken intent of the article: anything that undermines our suppression of opposing viewpoints must itself be suppressed. Off to check.. Yep that's pretty much the gist of it.

To me it wasn’t about that at all. I read it in the context of the movie “Network” — the evolution of news from a public service towards one of profit generation. The point seems to be that as a culture we take “news” as reality. But ultimately it’s its own construct; having more to do with pulling emotional strings for attention than pushing a particular agenda. [Bias and propaganda certainly exist; but the argument here is about a different, overriding bias that serves the aims of “news” itself.]

James Fallows of the Atlantic has a great book from a long time ago called “Breaking the News” which offers a compelling take on how we ended up in this state, and what the news is really about.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#18

Post by arel » Sat, May 04, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #3

Without even reading it I think I can predict the unspoken intent of the article: anything that undermines our suppression of opposing viewpoints must itself be suppressed. Off to check.. Yep that's pretty much the gist of it.

It's very hard to see how you reached this conclusion, which seems to show more knee-jerk bias on your part.

The article is (in the main) about our relationship to news. The ever increasing saturation of 'news' into our everyday lives with constant demands for our attention and the impact on individuals and society.

It actually advocates rising above news and connecting on a human level with each other rather than political in order to push the news cycle out of our lives.

Here are some quotes from the article:

"The belief that we’re morally obliged to stay plugged in – that this level of time commitment and emotional investment is the only way to stay informed about the state of the world – begins to look more and more like an alibi for our addiction to our devices."

"At Thanksgiving with your Trumpist uncle, the point is not to seek agreement or compromise, but to grasp that we are not fully defined by our political allegiances – and that, as Talisse puts it, “in order to treat each other as political equals, we must see each other as something more than citizens”. "

And the last paragraph:

"But it may be the only practical way for us to begin to foster a change. If the colonisation of everyday life by the news is damaging both to ourselves and to democratic politics, we ought not to collaborate unthinkingly with that process. Far from it being our moral duty to care so much about the news, it may in fact be our duty to start caring somewhat less."

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#19

Post by novarek » Sat, May 04, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

How do you solve that dilemma between disconnecting from news because it can make you happier and less stressed and disconnecting from news because you're privileged to do so? the parts of the article about the "need" to stay aware of what's happening at the very least certainly ring true for me.

Re: How the News Took over Reality

#20

Post by Veen » Sat, May 04, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

novarek wrote: post #19

How do you solve that dilemma between disconnecting from news because it can make you happier and less stressed and disconnecting from news because you're privileged to do so? the parts of the article about the "need" to stay aware of what's happening at the very least certainly ring true for me.

There is no dilemma. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with exercising a privilege if it doesn’t harm other people.