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

491–500 of 741 posts

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

#491

Post by afterburner »

redisman wrote: post #234
afterburner wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, TV News is the real issue, it only gives a completely surface level understanding of anything, such that you will be forming political opinions based on emotional impact and nothing else. And that, btw, is the reason to stay informed: to come to accurate conclusions that inform your political opinions. Because at some point, decisions need to be made about things, and your vote is part of that process. Not just…

Most web based news is not any better. Just because someone wrote it down doesn’t make the analysis any deeper

I agree, there's plenty of terrible news. TV news is just the most common that also has an outsized effect on voters.

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

#492

Post by phatfish »

ROTMetro wrote: post #464
nervousvarun wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed...The Joe Rogan thing is crazy (assuming this is what you're talking about). He gets lumped in with Conservatives because EVERYONE must be lumped in to the left or the right these days. You can't be in the middle anymore.

Yeah that one I really really confuses me.

Joe has not stood still since 2017 either, he profits off the outrage just a much as any other media company that makes money from viewers or listeners.

His podcasts used (going back a bit before 2017) to be chill conversations ranging from interesting to bonkers depending on the guest. He is consumed by politics now unfortunately, and it just gets tiresome.

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

#493

Post by thrashh »

marai2 wrote: post #446
mixedbit wrote: post #301

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?…

More depth and nuance I say.

I find just skimming headlines gives me facts but facts are kind of useless. For example you could tell an alien that the average human drinks 1 cup of milk a day and the alien would have a fact but be completely unable to contextualize it.

Longer form articles help you contextualize it.

Of course, you still have to be careful that take into the account the unintentional bias of the source (i.e. a 3/day milk drinker would tell the alien that people don’t drink enough milk, and they’re not lying… they just see life through their own experiences).

So you really need a combo of regular news media for facts and a variety of longer form sources for contextualization.

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

#494

Post by jamiek88 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #343
Swenrekcah wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tell them you're moving to an unspecified international location. Usually that's a script flowchart path that actually allows them to cancel you.

Having a British accent is great for this. I just say ‘I’m moving back to England’ and it’s like a magic spell.

Makes up for being complemented on my English ‘for an immigrant’.

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

#495

Post by jsemrau »

pengaru wrote: post #49
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…

Same here, just scan news.google.com periodically, never watch anything unintentionally [0]. The incessant talking heads are such obvious brainwashers, whenever I get tricked into watching some in a clip or at a bar/taqueria it's utterly offensive and patronizing manipulative trash. I can't imagine how broken people are who constantly consume the stuff. [0] youtube-dl is a godsend for maintaining this without totally…

I noticed this problem is especially prevalent in US American news. There is more opinion, opinions of opinions, and breaking news of opinions than news in the news. Who cares if AOC slams Ted Cruz or Tucker Carlson reacts to Rachel Maddow. And that I know all of these names is already a crime in itself ;=)

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

#496

Post by jollybean »

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…

'Libertarianism' in the USA,2021 means something quite different than the term as it applies in a historical, academic context.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_S...

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

#497

Post by snth »

afterburner wrote: post #128
mahogany wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. To play Devil's advocate, why is it useful to spend time learning about these types of things -- world politics, economics, even current scientific developments? Is it mainly because it's…

If you like to understand things, understanding things is its own reward. However, there is also voting.

Understand things like, "what is in shampoo", to take an example from the article? I like to understand things too, but there there's plenty of things to learn, and I think one can benefit from being choosy.

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

#498

Post by mirceal »

themacguffinman wrote: post #469
mirceal wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a false dichotomy. I'm the textbook "i do not watch the news person" and when things like Covid happen you cannot just ignore them. Not only that, but there are many things where paradoxically I'm better informed than people "watching the news". You see, there is being informed and there is actually spending your mental resources on problems you don't have or you have 0 say in them. to debunk some of the thin…

> The odds of you landing in Ukraine are 0 unless you really want to go there. Oh yeah, you'll definitely find out eventually, but timing matters. This whole debacle started a fair amount of time before Putin gave the order to invade and most travelers book holidays further in advance. In that time, you could have cancelled and rescheduled your commitments around this news, but instead you'll spend most of that time…

so, at one point I planned a trip to New York and a hurricane made an appearance in the area. Had to cancel everything (you could not fly in there) and we actually got automatic refunds on anything. If this can happen with New York and a hurricane it can definitely happen with Ukraine and a war. What does spending all that time clueless mean? I'm sorry but I just don't buy it.

>Uh, are you saying that if I live in a nice little house or apartment unit in a Californian city

My point was that if there is a drought and we need to save water this will be highly visible. The water company will tell you, the bill you pay should be higher, etc

> By the time there are legal consequences, isn't it too late? nope. breaking the law always involves a reward and a risk. The risk/punishment is not properly calibrated for the consequences but there is no reason why it shouldn't be.

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

#499

Post by jollybean »

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.

NPR has a subtle, but fairly clear centre left bias.

"There's no central editorial staff" - there's no need to have a central staff if you hire the same types of people.

Hear it from former senior NPR Exec. himself [1]

I'm not supporting this man's views at all, other than to point out he gives a fairly clear articulation into how 'bias' doesn't remotely need to have some kind of central authority and that it absolutely exists at NPR.

In fact, for someone who doesn't see the bias in something like NPR, learning to see the bias in an otherwise fairly respectable institution which does have fairly high standards and isn't so interest in flame-bait such as NPR - would be a worthy exercise.

'Culture' is probably the root of all bias in most places, not some 'central committee'. People who don't fit the mood are pushed said, those who have 'the correct opinions' are promoted. It's a perennial feature of human organisations you can see this in corporate culture as well.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRu...

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

#500

Post by ravel-bar-foo »

salty_biscuits wrote: post #338
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…

That was really shocking for me the first time I went to China and watched their version on state sponsored television, around 2005. The contrast between the doom version of the news back home, to china's overly positive "15 people are missing in a coal mine but we are trying our darnedest to get them out" was really confronting. Made me realise that it has entertainment/manipulation as a goal, not providing informat…

I didn't watch TV in China, but was struck by how all the subway ads were "public service", like "here's a picture of our traditional culture." It felt calm and reflective in comparison to those of Korea or Europe, but of course the goal of the ads was to build a sense of collective consciousness.
Post reply on HN