41–50 of 741 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that the "current situation in Europe" actually is being motivated primarily by irrationality. (That's what extreme nationalism amounts to.) And I don't know what kind of ideological contortions you'd need to undergo to conclude that the man who has brought about this situation is not your enemy.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
So much to unpack here. For starters, being informed makes for more interesting conversations with others. It means that you get to reflect on what you stand for, and grow as an individual with an opinion. News is also the gateway for deeper information. If you stick to just the news, that's one thing, but if you then go deeper into the topic (what is the relationship between Ukraine and Russia?) then you get invalua…
Your conversations with others are only more interesting because you're engaging with people who are themselves very interested in discussing the opinions of others.
My friends are not like this. And the ones that are, I try to avoid endlessly musing about some complex foreign policy which no one has enough accurate information to have an opinion about.
It's all good, but it's a hobby when it doesn't affect your community.
I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…
About a decade ago I started reading law blogs instead of the news. They're written for other lawyers, so they're well composed, often without excessive hyperbole. The writing is far higher quality than typical journalism. They're actually informational in terms of describing the mechanisms behind power in our society. In terms of focus, if something is truly important there will always be a legal analysis. Celebrity…
My favorite way to demonstrate the news's general irrelevance is to go to archive.org and look up the front page of your favorite news source from, say, 10 years ago. In hindsight, paying attention to nearly anything on the news a decade ago gave you no useful information to date. Why would today's news be any different?
The Miriam-Webster definition of "News" is literally "A report of recent events". A report of events a decade prior is not "News" anymore and of course likely to be irrelevant. To visit a decade old front page of any paper expecting it to be directly applicable somehow to your life today is bizarre logic to me.
1. I never had a TV
2. I've read print newspapers (local, international) every day for a decade
3. I've read online news (local, intl) every day for more than a decade
4. I've never was active (neither reading the feed nor posting something) on any social network except Tumblr for visual inspiration
5. Today I read just one single online hyperlocal news portal, beside tech news (Hacker News + newsletters)
The takeaways:
a. Less anxiety.
News are, well, inaccurate since Pulitzer / yellow journalism. Their major function is to keep you on a constant stress level. Which is good on tech news, hyperlocal news -- where you can act, but not good on national and international level -- where you are just a simple spectator.
b. Less biased. I know that I know nothing, so I'm listening everybody and trying to make sense what's happening around.
I've uninstalled Facebook and stopped reading / watching the news. I read HN and a few local subreddits via RSS. I do feel much better mentally. I would, however, like a way to be informed of breaking news. I tried a few apps but their idea of "breaking" news often involved celebrity gossip. I really only want to know if its MAJOR: war breaks out, aliens land and make contact, fusion is finally perfected and we're al…
Here's what I suggest: subscribe to The Washington Post. Once a day, scan through the homepage and read through any articles that catch your interest. When you hit the bottom of the home page, you are done. Depending on how much you are interested in, this could take five minutes or twenty. You will get a reasonable overview of the most important topics primarily focused on the US.
Spoiler: He did not actually quit the news, just watching news on TV as opposed to reading articles. > I’m mostly talking about following TV and internet newscasts here. This post isn’t an indictment of journalism as a whole. There’s a big difference between watching a half hour of CNN’s refugee crisis coverage (not that they cover it anymore) versus spending that time reading a 5,000-word article on the same topic.
Yeah enormous difference. It is indeed a good idea to avoid TV news. My suggestion: Go to a news stand instead and grab a copy of The Economist. One who does that will learn much about the world. About countries one rarely hear about in other media outlets. About advances in science and technology. In my opinion, time spent reading The Economist is not wasted. Well that’s my 2¢ anyway ¯\＿(ツ)＿/¯
I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…
The incessant talking heads are such obvious brainwashers, whenever I get tricked into watching some in a clip or at a bar/taqueria it's utterly offensive and patronizing manipulative trash. I can't imagine how broken people are who constantly consume the stuff.
[0] youtube-dl is a godsend for maintaining this without totally disconnecting from contemporary culture
My favorite way to demonstrate the news's general irrelevance is to go to archive.org and look up the front page of your favorite news source from, say, 10 years ago. In hindsight, paying attention to nearly anything on the news a decade ago gave you no useful information to date. Why would today's news be any different?
Because "news" by definition is only really useful or interesting at the time it occurs? The Miriam-Webster definition of "News" is literally "A report of recent events". A report of events a decade prior is not "News" anymore and of course likely to be irrelevant. To visit a decade old front page of any paper expecting it to be directly applicable somehow to your life today is bizarre logic to me.
If you look back at the news from a particular day and see now that reading it didn't convey information you've used since, then that is a good indication that the news you're reading now probably won't convey anything you find useful going forward.