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

161–170 of 741 posts

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

#161

Post by 0_____0 »

einpoklum wrote: post #105
0_____0 wrote: post #79

Life hack: if you do want to keep up on global current events but can't stand the breathless media circus, get your news from Wikipedia.[1] If you actually want to make a difference consider putting more into getting engaged locally, whatever that means for you. National and global scale issues are really easy to fall into a despair/paralysis cycle with. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

Wikipedia will be a short and less inflammatory summary of the "breathless media circus", which is still really not good enough.

I mean... I'm looking at the current events page and there's a conspicuous lack of exhausting USA focused culture war BS. It's dry and to be honest a bit boring. If you look at the Ongoing Events pane on the right, there's a list of present issues that don't necessarily get reported on because they don't have the flash to drive ad revenue.

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

#162

Post by basscomm »

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…

A lot of this is addressed in Amusing Ourselves to Death (which I can highly recommend), but to address some specific points

> it's reporting on facts, checking sources

Right, but which facts? Local restaurant inspections is probably useful since it has the potential to impact my daily life. Reporting on some kid who fell down a well in some country on the other side of the planet probably isn't, since the situation will not affect me in any tangible way. Not to downplay the event, of course. To those involved it's very important, but telling me does nothing except make me feel bad.

> and providing two sides to every story. Opinions and partisan "news" are not that.

The thing is, though, not every news story or societal issue has two sides. Some have more, some have fewer. Trying to find someone to provide an opposing viewpoint on an issue that reasonably shouldn't have one means that every time the news does that in the name of giving equal time it has to go further into the fringe to find some wingnut who will provide it, legitimizing and amplifying their viewpoint instead of dismissing it. Repeat that a few times over a couple of decades and you start to see the televised discourse we 'enjoy' today.

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

#163

Post by inanutshellus »

tazjin wrote: post #15

In light of the current situation in Europe I've thought of a rule of thumb I give people about media they consume. If someone is painted as an enemy, and the information you're given makes their actions or motivations seem irrational, you're likely not being given all relevant information. In the same vein as this article, I've also quit Twitter a year ago and it's been great. Pretty much the same effects also.

A few years ago, seemingly out of nowhere, were a bunch of articles about how Oman was the center of terrorism in the middle east.

I had had family stationed there years before so the name popped out at me, as they'd described it previously as "open and accepting of westerners" (relatively speaking, I guess).

Anyway, this "center of terrorism" thing was front page news across the board for a solid week, maybe two, then poof, it went away. Nobody even remembers it now.

I don't really know what to make of it. What would I, Normy McYaBasic, do with the above information in any case?

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

#164

Post by Legion »

I like weekly publications.

24-hour news is all about reacting first, thinking never.

Daily publications are better, but there's still not a lot of time to formulate thought.

Weekly publications allow things to breathe a bit more. Allows some context to be established, some thought to be had before taking fingers to keyboard.

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

#165

Post by 0_____0 »

james-redwood wrote: post #151
einpoklum wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia will be a short and less inflammatory summary of the "breathless media circus", which is still really not good enough.

Exactly Wikipedia’s flaw: it only holds a mirror to the sources, and even then, a distorted one at that to the whims of an anonymous editor who very well could have an inflammatory agenda and in cohort with other similar actors.

I got some utility out of the Wikipedia current events page, but I don't assume that it'll be universally useful. I have to ask you though -- putting aside the general issues with writer bias on Wikipedia, what issues do you have with the presentation of info in the Current Events portal?

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

#166

Post by rovek »

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.

It feels like some of the more agile publishers reacted to this sentiment some years ago, in that they started publishing 5,000 word articles about EVERYTHING and subsequently even long reads are self-indulgent garbage.

I personally would extend this article in today's world to be more like "scan the headlines every 2-3 days and go read books instead". That way you know "what" is largely happening, e.g. geopolitics, floods, murder trial, but you don't waste time consuming a few thousand words of garbage from somebody who knows no more than you do.

A friend of mine started doing this way before me and a take of his was that any sufficiently big news will make its way through to you via social circles anyway, use people who don't value their time as your filter.

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

#167

Post by freedomben »

wonderwonder wrote: post #132
freedomben wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your dad's broader point is a really good one, but the example of Andrew Cuomo doesn't seem like the best to me depending on when it was said. For a while there Cuomo was being talked about very seriously as the heir apparent to the Democrat presidential nomination. I agree with OP that "civic duty" is a silly reason for watching the news, but when it comes to voting to give people massive amount of power, that reall…

maybe but in the end it turned out Cuomo was not going to be a presidential candidate and what happened to him never really mattered at all. I think this can apply to most news. You think a topic is important because it could be important months down the road. I would bet that 95/100 times what we think is going to be important ends up having no real impact on us at all and we would have been better served paying att…

Great point. That seems to happen far more often that not.

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

#168

Post by ROTMetro »

As someone who just stepped back into pop culture after being in prison for years (so might as well been on the moon) my first shock was just how horrible it all is now. There is no news worth watching. Cable news is just a pile of filth excremented by a Labrador Retriever that solely eats baby diapers. I thought I will watch Bloomberg since if real money is involved it can't be too manipulative. Nope, wrong. The internet is just a fireheap. Let's check Reddit. Oh god close the browser window immediately. WTF? Slashdot? Um, what is this, someone wearing a Slashdot skin suit? How about the sites by supposedly rational academics on each side of the political persuasion to get some balance. WTF? Just hate and anger and toxicity on a crazy level otherizing any opinion not their own. People are once thought great intellectual insides making incredibly uncharitable frankly hate filled comments and self isolating in echo chambers. Google Discovery app... "here's some blog posts summarizing relationship posts made on Reddit". Huh? Why would anyone want to read this let alone have it further aggregated for them? Seriously, modern American discourse has less humanity, compassion, depth, and recognition of nuance THAN PRISON. Or maybe prison just made me less patient of bull crap and able to immediate horrible people by their mannerisms. Seriously this site is the only place I have found still sane and enlightening.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by ren_engineer »

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…

Mainstream news is worthless if you want to be ahead of the curve at all. Covid is a great example, I was stockpiled by mid January because plenty of places were talking about issues with suppliers in China in December 2019. Mainstream news was downplaying it until the first week of March

15 minutes per day in the right places and you'll be weeks to months ahead of the general population on major trends that actually matter

Post reply on HN