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

301–310 of 741 posts

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

#301

Post by mixedbit »

yojo wrote: post #54
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, w…

After one year of subscribing to the Economist I like it, but would prefer if it was a monthly newspaper with 1/4 of the content. Reading it throughout each week takes quite a lot of my reading time and I have a feeling that dedicating this time to books would be better. Monthly with well selected topics would be enough to stay informed of important current issues.

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

#302

Post by [deleted] »

munchler wrote: post #268
dpcan wrote: post #251

This article hits the nail on the head. I stopped consuming all political, health, and global news the day after January 6th 2021. Pretty much anything that was on CNN/Fox or that half hour after the local news. I never watched local news really anyway, so I couldn’t quit something I didn’t already do in that regard. I just assumed that if there were news outlets fooling humans into doing something like THAT on Janua…

Why would you hold CNN responsible for "fooling humans" regarding Jan. 6?

[deleted]

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

#303

Post by kenjackson »

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…

The manipulation part is what I find fascinating. And not just the way people use the term now about "fake news". But more about how the news cycle needs to keep you constantly engaged. If you follow the news, especially political news, it seems like the sky is falling constantly. I was always up in arms about something.

As the author notes, when I do pay attention to the news I feel better. Again, political news in particular. I still will watch sports news. I actually feel better when I watch that -- I love seeing sports highlights, and great comebacks -- even when I don't know a single player or team involved. The stakes are so low, but the enjoyment so high.

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

#304

Post by ufmace »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #157
rootusrootus wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Now the major team sport is who you want for President, even though he arguably has the lowest impact on your life. As long as he doesn't hit The Button. IMO people ought to put down social media, put down the national news, and pick up their local newspaper. Read about their own mayor, city council, whatever. And maybe even get involved -- depending on the size of your city, an ordinary individual can actua…

The president has a very significant impact on many people’s lives via judicial nominees. The biggest this year is expected to be the effects of the 3 Republican Supreme Court judges installed by Trump on many women’s access to abortions, but many other judges in the system are appointed by presidents as well that make decisions that affect many people’s lives.

To further clarify the sibling's point, the reason for this is that the Progressive wing of the Democrats couldn't convince people to approve abortion access through democratic means as soon as they would have liked, so they decided to get a rather dubious Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that declared it to be a Constitutional Right. Now they are totally dependent on keeping agreeable Supreme Court justices in order to preserve that interpretation.

It didn't have to be this way. They could have left it to the states or local jurisdictions, and moved to a state with policies they agreed with. They could have (tried to) pass a Constitutional Amendment making it a clear and obvious Constitutional Right instead of a weird interpretation. Instead, they did this.

Living in a Democracy requires us to consider the opinions of our fellow citizens and try our best to accommodate them, rather than steamrolling them.

Consider the position of a Pro-Life activist. They will think that all abortion is murder, that the ruling is a grotesque twisting of the Constitution, and fight every inch of the way on every nominee. Does this sound like the way we were meant to resolve contentious issues? You may disagree with them, but they are also our fellow citizens, and will not be happy about steamrolling their positions.

Consider also the position of a Gun Rights activist. They will be outraged at how the courts have ignored attacks on an actual enumerated Constitutional Right, and fight every nominee on those terms, not particularly caring whether they are also likely to be anti-Abortion.

Maybe it's best if we resist using the Supreme Court to decide everything and try to pass clear Amendments for what's really important and broadly agreed upon. Though this goes back to how dysfunctional and useless Congress has become in their prescribed role.

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

#306

Post by Domenic_S »

sushisource wrote: post #111
flats wrote: post #83

I strongly agree with this. I would, however, like to call out one TV program here in the U.S. that I think comes much closer to approximating the experience of “reading a 5,000-word article”: PBS NewsHour. It’s great, completely free and available to watch online, and you can even get most of what you need from their podcast alone ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/segments ). It consists of fairly in…

The NewsHour is fantastic. Occasionally they fall into the same traps that any news source can, but it's a great way to learn about what's going on with a minimal amount of sensationalism. I disagree with the post article that "staying up to date" is some fundamentally bullshit concept. It can help you prioritize what you care about influencing in the world, even if that influence is relatively small.

"Staying up to date" could mean hourly updates or weekly (or monthly) newspapers.

How often are those priorities changing? Surely nobody needs hourly pings from a news app on their phone to inform what they care about influencing in the world.

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

#307

Post by baybal2 »

earthboundkid wrote: post #289

Today the supposedly liberal NYT has a news article about Jews in Ukraine in order to whip up pro-war hysteria. (The implied premise that Putin is Hitler is too absurd to rebut. This is “Iraqi nurses kill Kuwaiti babies” for 2022.) And they’re the best mainstream news source. :-( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/world/europe/ukraine-jews...

FYI, Neonazis in Russia are fully in control of KGB

https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-1500/7301783...

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

#308

Post by paulpauper »

You're not doing anything either when you are reading a book. It is just another form of information consumption.

The news can be useful for finding out about new trends, specially in technology. Bitcoin was in the news, like Business Insider, as early as 2012. Simeone who reads the news could have acted on that and made a fortune. Many other examples. Imagine reading the news in 2017 about the iPhone and buying Apple stock. Or about the Google IPO in 2004 and buying Google stock. The news cannot tell you what to do, but it can make you at lest aware of something.

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

#309

Post by JacobThreeThree »

q_andrew wrote: post #241
JacobThreeThree wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer an RSS reader with a personally curated list of news outlets.

What are some good sites with RSS feeds? I was sad to see that Reuters doesn't have it.

I use this for Reuters: https://news.google.com/rss/search?q=when:12h+allinurl:reute...

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

#310

Post by asdff »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #188
wnolens wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit of a pessimist here. Finding open minded people has been very difficult. I've got a set, they are my oldest and best friends, spread across the continent now. What is your reading list and hours per week spent? If you are regularly reading several publications like the economist and keeping tabs on diverse set of news outlets, then you might be able to see the forest. But that takes significant time, and I…

I agree that it's difficult. I am very selective with friends and it takes months if not years to find a new friend. However, when one is found, they are a friend for life. > What is your reading list and hours per week spent? It's a combination of local (municipal, state) and national/international news. Local is easy and tends to be very factual. If you're in the US, there are a lot of smaller publication that repo…

Do you have advice on finding more resources for local news? It seems my local sources are just as biased as the national ones, and most pieces read like puff pieces to prop up political careers, hit pieces (my local news transportation writer loves to bash cal hsr), or downright advertisements just like the junk from the national outlets. A lot of local stuff that does sometimes directly impact me doesn't even seem to get written about unless there is some financial or electoral incentive to print. I feel like you almost have to work at city hall to get an understanding of the politicking between the city departments and city/county government interactions with what little drips its way out, heavily diluted into a handful of paragraphs, into local news outlets. What little does get out even from seemingly benign departments like sanitation could make for a long winded docuseries easily, so there is plenty there but no one wants to step up and shine a light on it these days at least. Maybe the environment for journalists is too litigious? I've never seen an LA times journalist accuse a blatantly corrupt politician of anything remotely improper before the FBI perp walks them out of city hall, for example (perhaps they do but these pieces don't seem very common), whereas I would expect to see these articles connecting obvious dots well before FBI indictments if the fourth estate were doing its job.
Post reply on HN