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

391–400 of 741 posts

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

#391

Post by panick21_ »

I very much avoid the news. Unfortunately twitter somehow forces it into my timeline but in a limited way.

What I really hate about news is how you jump on a topic without context. The perfect example of that is the Iraq war of course, Ukraine now is such an issue. 99.9% of people barley know where the Ukraine or the Crimea was. You can't just jump into a topic without context think its a great way to get information.

And that is even before you consider that a lot of the time a simple party line is adopted and endlessly repeated. Not even because of some conspiracy simply because its easier to report on what everybody is reporting.

If you for example understood the Syria conflict only based on typical news, and I include even 'reputable' news papers your overall understanding would still be problematic. Much better to spend your time reading a history book on Syria and AQ in Iraq.

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

#392

Post by ppeetteerr »

ok123456 wrote: post #89
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…

>Edit: I should be clear on what I mean by news. In the traditional sense, it's reporting on facts, checking sources, and providing two sides to every story. Opinions and partisan "news" are not that. Yeah, good luck with that. Even what appears to be purely factual reporting is subject to bias in the form of what gets factually reported and what is simply ignored. Several good examples of this were documented in "Ma…

You may be right that you could read the speech yourself to form an opinion, but you wouldn't know there was a speech to begin with without someone reporting it.

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

#393

Post by dropofwill »

jknoepfler wrote: post #326
temp8964 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you are talking about. There is not a definitive / clear line between classical liberal and libertarian. The comment seems to be unnecessarily divisive and seeking for flame war.

I'm puzzled by that reaction. In my head at least, the distinction is pretty deep, and describing The Economist as "libertarian" in any sense would be clearly misplaced, other than to say it sometimes supports positions libertarians also agree with. Historically, when The Economist was founded, libertarianism would have been associated with French anarchism. The core, consistent theme of libertarianism is that indivi…

This is all true, but in 20th century America the term libertarian got re-applied to a right-wing, small or no government, free-market approach. Now days most Americans are completely unaware of the French anarchist usage of the word. The origins of this are mixed, but I think it's safe to say the Hayek/Friedman wing has roots in classical liberalism, for example Locke's theory of private property.

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

#394

Post by alxndr »

> You’ll find that your abstinence did not result in any worse cabinet appointments than were already being made, and that disaster relief efforts carried on without your involvement, just as they always do. As it turns out, your hobby of monitoring the “state of the world” did not actually affect the world.

Obvious counterpoint: Trump, who appointed awful judges and secretaries, and denied disaster relief aid, was sworn in to office a month after this was published

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

#395

Post by apricot »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #261
yojo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can fully attest to the quality of the Economist but I caution anyone to subscribe because they don’t provide any way to easily unsubscribe. It’s either to call some phone number or attempt it via live chat. I tried the second option and the representative just went on with the script trying to fatigue me out of it, no matter what I said.

I subscribe to the Economist. My subscription lasts one year, and doesn't automatically renew. I get renewal reminders and renew at my leisure. None of that arguing with people on the phone.

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

#396

Post by DSMan195276 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #364
JKCalhoun wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We dropped cable when our first daughter was born. No regrets at all. It was only when in the hotel lobby having breakfast did we see the CNN/FOX alarmist news coverage blaring about a world spiraling out of control. I thought, why is it always when we're on vacation that the world begins to teeter on the brink of destruction? And then I remembered what cable news was like before we cut the cord.

I find reading more history (preferably: dead person-ago history) to be a healthy tonic. When my more liberal friends were ringing in the end of days at Trump's election, my take was "Do you know how many terrible Presidents the United States has had? And how openly corrupt politics was for the first century of our country? And yet, we're still here." This too shall pass, indeed.

I'll be honest, that's kind of an odd take to me considering that the "first century of our country" was followed by a pretty bloody civil war. Yes the United States is still here, but I'm not sure I would be so casual about all the terrible stuff that has happened in our history as though it's no big deal if it happens again.

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

#397

Post by Spooky23 »

duped wrote: post #256
dionian wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist, like NPR, are good at sounding informed and unbiased, but wind up to be egregiously ideologically compromised

Can you give some examples? Particularly with NPR, you have to focus on particular shows and stations. There's no central editorial staff for the content that comes from their member stations. For example the Takeaway has quite different editorial standards than All Things Considered or Morning Edition.

For the “network” content, NPR has good reporting but hammers topics again and again and again and again.

The selection of stories tells the tale. Whenever the topic de jour hits, you’ll get a good 7-10 minutes of patter about it every hour for a month.

I’m all for it, and don’t consider them “compromised”, but there’s typically not enough content to support that level of coverage.

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

#399

Post by apricot »

mixedbit wrote: post #301
yojo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used to feel vaguely guilty (in a "there-are-starving-children-in-Africa" kind of way) when I didn't read the entirety of the issue I had paid for, but eventually I realized it didn't make any sense.

Sometimes I read almost the whole thing, but there are weeks when I skip more than 80% of the contents because of no time. One issue I'll always read cover to cover, though, is the Christmas special.

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

#400

Post by pydry »

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…

>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 political issues they're also pretty firmly middle-of-the-road beltway, which is its own little bubble.

I like this youtube channel a lot (Caspian Report): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnKziETDbHJtx78nIkfYug

It's partly because it delivers fairly objective analysis, but also because it puts heavy emphasis on how geography shapes how countries behave which is a blind spot of the economist/atlantic and the like.

Post reply on HN