Live data from Hacker News

Stop Watching the News (2019)

josephcwells.com

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#91

A democracy only works if people know what's going on. Otherwise, the collective decision-making process is no longer connected to politician's actions and the whole process breaks down. That's the most basic theory of any regulated system: air conditioning needs a thermometer. A driver needs to keep their eyes open to stay on the road. Any such system is a feedback loop of actuators (wheels / politicians), sensors,…

News doesn't connect the collective decision-making process to politicians' actions - it connects it to what the news tells us politicians are doing and why. Effectively, it makes democracy less about rule by the people and more about rule by the press. That system is starting to break down in some countries and journalists are not happy about it.

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing a Google search 'site:reuters.com "far right"' I couldn't find any hit where the "far-right" would be inappropriate. Could you give an example where Reuters is left-leaning in your opinion.

That seems to be true. But partly so because there don't seem to be any hits for "far right" in their coverage of US politics. Good for them. I doubt this would be true for NYT, WaPo, etc., but I am indeed too lazy to look. For those too young to remember what reasonable journalism used to look like, Reuters and AP are probably the closest, in the MSM.

> That seems to be true. But partly so because there don't seem to be any hits for "far right" in their coverage of US politics. Good for them.

How is that a good thing? "Far right" and "far left" are both perfectly fine terms to describe certain political ideologies and movements.

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#94

> If that’s the case, what’re you actually getting from the news? Aggravated? Wound up? Certainly not informed about anything important. This seems like the author is explicitly arguing for the tragedy of the commons. Yes, any one individual getting 'wound up' doesn't accomplish much, but the public 'at large' getting wound up can and does effect real change sometimes. Like, it's very easy to point to a variety of to…

It takes mental energy to suppress and control emotional outrage, which is bad for your overall mental health and personal productivity.

>Baumeister’s group has repeatedly found that an effort of will or self-control is tiring; if you have had to force yourself to do something, you are less willing or less able to exert self-control when the next challenge comes around. The phenomenon has been named ego depletion. In a typical demonstration, participants who are instructed to stifle their emotional reaction to an emotionally charged film will later perform poorly on a test of physical stamina—how long they can maintain a strong grip on a dynamometer in spite of increasing discomfort. The emotional effort in the first phase of the experiment reduces the ability to withstand the pain of sustained muscle contraction, and ego-depleted people therefore succumb more quickly to the urge to quit.

-- Daniel Kahneman

I don't think the author is arguing you should NEVER be outraged, just that you should be more selective about your attention.

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#95

> If that’s the case, what’re you actually getting from the news? Aggravated? Wound up? Certainly not informed about anything important. This seems like the author is explicitly arguing for the tragedy of the commons. Yes, any one individual getting 'wound up' doesn't accomplish much, but the public 'at large' getting wound up can and does effect real change sometimes. Like, it's very easy to point to a variety of to…

> This seems like the author is explicitly arguing for the tragedy of the commons. Yes, any one individual getting 'wound up' doesn't accomplish much, but the public 'at large' getting wound up can and does effect real change sometimes. There's an easy compromise: it's likely that some people are better off not watching the news. This group might be more sensitive to disruptive news and opinion pieces. It'd do them g…

> Peanuts are good stuff, but some people have negative reactions to it. They are better off without peanuts.

In the book The Coddling of the American Mind, Jonathan Haidt talks about how schools were so concerned about Peanut allergies, a lot of places removed peanuts from school lunches and banned them from lunches people brought in. The result? Peanut allergies went up. Kids weren't being exposed to peanuts and it made the situation worse.

He uses it as an analogy to our ability to deal with things psychologically and how any attempt to remove bad/dangerous ideas (he calls this the "What ever doesn't kill you makes you weaker" fallacy) has made it more difficult to deal with controversial ideas and leads to a cultural of "safetyism" (e.g. safe spaces) in University/Academic environments.

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the news that causes widespread public outrage is substantially inaccurate 25-50% of the time? I'd be shocked if it was even 5%.

Yes. About a quarter of the time I hear about some public outrage, I've definitively concluded that it's misinformed. It's possible there's selection bias in which outrages I hear about, but I don't have a strong reason to expect that.

I think we're applying different standards here. Judging from your comments on the recent outrage over delivery apps, I'm guessing you'd use that as an example of substantially misreported/inaccurate outrage news?

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think the news that causes widespread public outrage is substantially inaccurate 25-50% of the time? I'd be shocked if it was even 5%.

I'd be shocked if it were less than 50% Commercial news by definition is looking to shock/sensationalize/rile up. It may not be on a conscious level but it's a race to gather & keep attention - boring stuff won't cut it. I'm not supporting author's point mind you, I believe education/informedness is the only thing we have approaching a silver bullet. But the amount of internet justice and vigilanteism we have today,…

There's a certain amount of sensationalization to get eyeballs with things like headlines, obviously, but I'd be surprised if you looked at the various news stories that caused public outrage over the course of a year, if more than a small percentage were actually mis-reported/factually incorrect when it came to mainstream news coverage by reputable organizations.

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. About a quarter of the time I hear about some public outrage, I've definitively concluded that it's misinformed. It's possible there's selection bias in which outrages I hear about, but I don't have a strong reason to expect that.

I think we're applying different standards here. Judging from your comments on the recent outrage over delivery apps, I'm guessing you'd use that as an example of substantially misreported/inaccurate outrage news?

I guess I was implicitly focusing on outrages targeting specific named people. I wouldn't say the stories about delivery apps are misreported, and agree that news on that kind of thing is much less likely to be just completely false.

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#99

> If that’s the case, what’re you actually getting from the news? Aggravated? Wound up? Certainly not informed about anything important. This seems like the author is explicitly arguing for the tragedy of the commons. Yes, any one individual getting 'wound up' doesn't accomplish much, but the public 'at large' getting wound up can and does effect real change sometimes. Like, it's very easy to point to a variety of to…

It takes mental energy to suppress and control emotional outrage, which is bad for your overall mental health and personal productivity. >Baumeister’s group has repeatedly found that an effort of will or self-control is tiring; if you have had to force yourself to do something, you are less willing or less able to exert self-control when the next challenge comes around. The phenomenon has been named ego depletion. In…

It's actually up for debate whether ego depletion is a real thing.

> Some meta analyses and studies have questioned the size and existence of the ego depletion effect.[3] The ultimate validity of those later studies is not universally agreed.[5] Martin Hagger and Nikos Chatzisrantis, whose 2010 meta-analysis seemed to support the existence of the ego depletion effect,[5] subsequently performed a pre-registered 23 lab replication study which found no ego-depletion effect.[6]

> ...

> In 2016, a major study (2141 participants) carried out at two dozen labs across the world using a single protocol failed to find any evidence for ego depletion.[3][31] In response, Baumeister argued that his original protocol was rejected by the project coordinators, and after discussion was stalled, he only reluctantly agreed to a task that differed to some degree from the original 1998 studies.[32] Replication difficulties have also emerged for 5 additional protocols (operationalizations) of the basic ego depletion effect.[33]

> A 2010 meta analysis of 198 independent tests found the effect significant with a moderate effect size (d = .6). Even after accounting for possible unpublished failed studies, the analysis concluded that it is extremely unlikely that the effect doesn't exist.[34]

> In 2015, a meta analysis of over 100 studies by Carter and McCullough argued that the 2010 meta-analysis failed to take publication bias into account. They showed statistical evidence for publication bias. When they statistically controlled for publication bias, the effect size estimate was small (d = .2) and not significantly different from zero.[35][36] Michael Inzlicht and colleagues praised Carter's meta analysis, but argued that bias-correction techniques are not precise enough to give a precise control size estimate.[5][37] In response, Cunningham and Baumeister argued that Carter and McCullough analysis contained errors in its data collection and in the various analyses used.[5]

> Ulrich Schimmack (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of published studies and found that most studies could produce significant results only with the help of random sampling error. Based on the low power of studies, one would expect a large number of non-significant results, but these results are missing from published articles. This finding confirms Carter and McCullough's meta-analysis that showed publication bias with a different statistical method. Schimmack's replicability report also identified a small set of studies with adequate power that provided evidence for ego-depletion. These studies are the most promising studies for a replication project to examine whether ego-depletion effects can be replicated consistently across several independent laboratories.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion

Beyond that, how would you be more selective about your outrage if you're skipping the news to begin with?

Re: Stop Watching the News (2019)

#100
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author's argument is one in favor of selfishness: being a well-informed citizen of your state or country does not benefit you personally, so why bother? I don't think that the author point at all. He is arguing that the news in their modern form have mostly become a form of entertainment. I will hasard that someone who would forever stop following the news but actually engaged in any form of local actions conne…

Hard disagree. Look at his own reasoning: > But to what end? > Aside from feeling bad for the victims –and worrying the same thing might happen to you – you’re powerless to make a positive impact. Hearing the news is merely a distraction. > “But,” you might argue, “everything on the news doesn’t revolve around tragedies. I need to know what’s going on in the world!” > Do you really? > When was the last time you watch…

> But that's only true if you look at it in an individual sense, of being productive in your own life. If you look at it being productive in aggregate, in society as a whole, the reasoning doesn't work anymore.

That's where we disagree and I think I see the root of our disagreement. Reading your last paragraph, you seem to link news consumption and actual actions like protests, riots and revolution. I don't think this link exists. Most of those are actually started by activists and stem from local engagement (unionism, political organizations). It is very removed from news consumption which is not the only way of being informed.

Post reply on HN