Live data from Hacker News

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

481–490 of 741 posts

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

#481
post #364

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 think reading history gives us a much better understanding of the mindset of a person trying to overthrow an election.

We're lucky but naive to have grown up in a few generations wherein this sort of thing seems totally foreign, uncivilised.

But the 'transition of power' is by far the most destabilising and tricky point in history.

Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Romans, Chinese etc. etc..

And that's just antiquity.

Over and over again, it's the 'power struggle at the top' that drives most of the big events.

If everyone were to get into the headspace of those events, we'd understand how alluring and corrupting power is and we'd be much more cynical about power grabs.

Any student of history would see the attempts to overthrow the election plainly for what it was.

And FYI that is not a political statement. I don't care for domestic or foreign policy agendas, that's just what it is.

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

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you have found out about the Texas power outages last year or the rising Opioid epidemic if it were not for news (unless you lived in Texas or knew someone addicted to Oxy)? Or any other event from your city all the way to your federal government? You can dismiss all news as being misinformation, but even the shadiest outlets report some semblance of facts. It's the cause of the news that's often up for deb…

>How would you have found out about the Texas power outages last year I think this is a great example. Why should anyone outside of Texas even care about the power outages and waste time "informing themselves" about it.

People outside of Texas may be considering moving to (or immediately traveling to) Texas.

Or they may the citizens of a democratic polity being called upon to evaluate competing energy policy alternatives where the facts of the Texas case have potential bearing.

Or, well, lots of other possibilities.

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

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have reached a point where I feel Libertarianism just isn't compatible with the realities of the modern world as much as this child of hippies wishes it was You may have interest in the writings of the Niskanen Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/ They work from a similar position. For example, I was hugely impressed by this essay https://www.niskanencenter.org/what-the-pandemic-revealed/ I don't know a regular…

How did you find them? Do you know who reads them or where they are popular? I came across them recently and was both impressed and puzzled that I'd never heard of them and never head anyone discuss them. I haven't read that particular essay, but maybe submit it?

I can't remember, unfortunately. Possibly it was forwarded by a friend? Or it showed up in some feed or another.

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

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I friggin love the Atlantic even though most of the time they have a way different political view than me. They don't hide their view but instead of assuming it's universal they give details and context for their views, where as the Economist seems to hide their agenda and present the underlying story to lead you to their point of view based on the facts and details they choose to report. The Atlantic has discourse a…

> the Economist seems to hide their agenda I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc. I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them…

Yeah the Economist is pretty well known to be neoliberal. Which is fine… I subscribe and it’s a pretty good source if you understand that.

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

#486
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a question for the folks who have been reading the Economist regularly for a while. What do you guys feel like you get out of reading the Economist over time? This is meant as a genuine question. So for example, I consume my news only via my Google News feed, so basically just a fast scan of the headlines and maybe a few news articles in depth. Does the Economist provide more details, more nuance, more depth?…

A couple things, a lot of which boils down to them actually having journalists on staff who go out and research stories in person. A lot of digital outlets are just regurgitating Associated Press articles with little/no value add.

1) Breadth of coverage. The Economist is much more of a world magazine. When I scan Google News I get basically no Africa coverage. The economist has a section for it.

2) Depth of coverage. The Economist will have journalists reporting on location in places like China and India. They get direct interviews with people who are experiencing the phenomenon being reported on. I rarely if ever see that kind of reporting on Google News, especially not behind a paywall.

3) Better coverage of "slow burn" stories. e.g. There's a lot of interesting stuff happening in Africa right now with infrastructure development. China has its big Belt and Road initiative that's more or less forced western governments to present a viable alternative or get boxed out. The west has bungled the response, and China is now dominant in financing new infrastructure projects throughout Africa. It will likely reap benefits for decades, both in economic and military positioning. There's no one "story" here to make a headline that would bubble up in Google News, but it's a really fascinating ongoing geopolitical saga.

4) Hitting interesting angles on stories. Last week there was an article about Russian troop buildup around Ukraine, but they wrote it from the angle of civilian surveillance technology. By stitching together private satellite imagery, TikTok and YouTube footage they were able to tell that troops that were ostensibly "withdrawn" had just been redeployed to other positions closer to the front. Using dash-cam footage posted to TikTok they were able to even identify specific armored divisions being moved up to the border. So I got a piece of current news (Russia is lying about its troop deployment), plus a piece of insight (in modern warfare citizens can learn about military movements without it being filtered through government entities).

5) This is not specific to the Economist, but the print format is so much nicer for me than digital. There's no temptation to check my email, or see what's on Hacker News (hah), or get drawn down some random digital rabbit hole.

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

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure things were just as shitty in 2017

Seems like OP would disagree with you strongly and had a rather intense reaction to the state of media in 2022. Do you have anything to offer a counter opinion?

Not the poster, but I concur that things weren't all that different in 2017. I would say that OP's reaction is caused by selectively remembering the state of the world. Living in the environment where mass media is ubiquitous, you don't quite realize just how bad things are or the negative effects it has on people. You only become aware of that after being removed from it for a period of time (e.g. being in prison) and then getting reintroduced to it.

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

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How would you have found out about the Texas power outages last year I think this is a great example. Why should anyone outside of Texas even care about the power outages and waste time "informing themselves" about it.

People outside of Texas may be considering moving to (or immediately traveling to) Texas. Or they may the citizens of a democratic polity being called upon to evaluate competing energy policy alternatives where the facts of the Texas case have potential bearing. Or, well, lots of other possibilities.

Those are some pretty narrow examples.

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

#489
post #54
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…

>Google News has gotten increasingly annoying though, forcing me harder toward the "personalized" results,

I noticed same. While there is some relevance to personalized news they may or may not reflect what I am looking for at this point in time. Hence, I found that showing both (most noteworthy and most personal) actually helps me read the news better.

https://imgur.com/a/pl7qf3M

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

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to find the Economist great, but with the corrosiveness of everything this last bit, they seem to sneak agenda into articles now days in a way I feel like this whole post is trying to move away from. Maybe as a lost Libertarian who can't stand the control everyone's lives progressives I feel that has crept quite a bit into the Economist. It's funny it bothers me as I have reached a point where I feel Libertari…

The Economist is clearly not a Libertarian newspaper. They represent the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been.

"the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been."

? The 'classical liberal' position is literally the foundation of 'Libertarianism', which is a specifically modern American concept.

Post reply on HN