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

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 741 posts

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#51

Post by mirceal »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #24

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…

yes but no.

you only have so much mental energy. i think it’s important to adopt a JIT attitude and be able to learn and filter things when you need them, not as a matter of day to day activities.

being informed most definitely does not make for more interesting conversations. everyone is biased + critical thinking is severely lacking. nowadays i feel like any conversation quickly devolves into a us-vs-them and “politics”

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#52

Post by [deleted] »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #24

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…

[deleted]

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#53

Post by giobox »

mhardcastle wrote: post #50
giobox wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a test of whether it was "news" at the time - it's a test of its relevance to you. 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.

This is demonstrably nonsense. People make investment decisions for one, based on events in the news. The news every day is not required to be relevant specifically to you alone, that's an absurd notion, but it will from time to time be relevant to you, as it will be for anyone who exists in a given polity.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#54

Post by yojo »

macksd wrote: post #4

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…

I'm a firm believer in quality over quantity when it comes to news. Google News has gotten increasingly annoying though, forcing me harder toward the "personalized" results, the kind of filter bubble I'm intentionally trying to avoid.

What worked well for me was getting a print subscription to the Economist. They definitely have a bias (particularly in their editorials), but it's mostly of the "free trade" variety, which is pretty easy to account for. On the other hand, their world coverage, particularly Africa and Middle East, is leaps and bounds better than anything you'll get online for free.

Plus the print medium is well suited for the wind-down time before bed, when I'm trying to disengage from screens. As a bonus, there's an exactly 0% chance you get click-baited into reading something inflammatory when you're consuming news on a piece of paper. Sadly they recently force-bundled print with digital, so you're stuck paying ~$80/year if you sign up during one of the frequent sales. $1.50/week is still well worth the cost of admission for me.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#55

Post by avgcorrection »

Following the news media (not just and not only the tellie news…) has been very useful for me the last couple of years because of Covid. Or rather Covid has made it useful. In any case: Covid has made the news something that I need to be “informed” about since it impacts my humble life.

Most of the time, at least up until now, the news has not impacted me in any way that I would act on—I’m just an apathetic citizen like many others.

Truly curse these interesting times that we are living through.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#56

Post by vorpalhex »

macksd wrote: post #4

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…

If being exposed to ads or super stimulating content is unavoidable, then how do you build a defense mechanism against it?

Avoidance is good to the extent that you can engage in avoidance but not everything is avoidable. How do you actually build resistance to the stimuli?

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#57

Post by ziroshima »

I think of 'the news' as a form of mind control. Whether or not is intentionally engineered as such isn't immediately relevant; ultimately, I think it's the effect on people that matters. There is no unbiased delivery of information anymore (was there ever?). It's an incredibly powerful system of information delivery that influences what people think about. I think it's interesting, with this in mind, to consider the origin of my own thoughts and opinions.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#59

Post by telchior »

cpach wrote: post #34
nautilius wrote: post #13

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 agree, it's a great magazine. But don't forget that even the Economist is only providing a shallow overview of any given topic (despite the apparent depth); has a specific partisan viewpoint / world philosophy; and is frequently wrong.

Most people know that at an intellectual level, of course. But it's all too easy to read something like an Economist article and come away thinking "oh, I learned a lot / have a decent understanding of this issue". A lot of that comes down to the editorial style and self-assured tone of the writing. It helps to remember that even something like the Economist is largely written by people in their mid-20s with no particular expertise, and edited by people who may be older and wiser but also cover many different topics.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#60

Post by throwaway09223 »

SpringDrive wrote: post #43
throwaway09223 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you have any suggestions for blogs that you like? Would be interested in adding some to my info diet.

I used to mostly read on my commute and it's been a few years, but the most approachable is probably https://abovethelaw.com/. It has quite a bit of fluff and humor mixed in.

Popehat is usually quite good, especially when there's some kind of nonsense narrative going around. Good debunking explainers https://www.popehat.com/

Volokh conspiracy has very good analysis of current events as well: https://reason.com/volokh/ (was at WaPo, was independent before that. I haven't read it in a while)

There's a lot of other really great stuff around as well, like the lw blog collection: https://www.lw.com/blogs

Post reply on HN