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

601–610 of 741 posts

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

#601

Post by yojo »

ozgune wrote: post #580
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…

Quick curiosity question. Why do you find The Economist’s coverage of Africa and the Middle East leaps and bounds better than others? Here’s why I’m asking. I find The Economist’s coverage of the US a 7/10 and Turkey a 3/10. Having lived in both for roughly the same time, The Economist’s coverage of the US feels vastly superior to that of Turkey. Yet, when I talk to my friends here, they say they read it for the inte…

Honestly it is the difference between having any coverage and none at all.

If I just read stories from the front page of Google News I’d have no idea who Recep Erdogan was. I definitely wouldn’t have any idea of Turkeys current inflation woes or his constant firing of people who disagree with economic reality.

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

#602

Post by tmnvix »

dnissley wrote: post #565
andrepd wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They don't hide it. 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") My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into somethi…

Could you clarify what you mean without using the words right, left, or neoliberal? All of which are extremely vague.

Yes, left and right are used in many different senses. They're impossible to pin down as they mean different things to different people.

I sometimes think it's useful to consider political ideologies as existing somewhere along a spectrum of collectivist to individualist.

Communism would be far to the collectivist end of the spectrum. Socialism less so.

Most neoliberals wouldn't subscribe to an extreme form of libertarianism as they are predominantly concerned with free market capitalism. But neoliberalism is definitely on the individualist end of the spectrum. An example would be promoting privatisation and discouraging government (collective) ownership.

Personally, I think that a mix of individualism and collectivism is best, and this is indeed what you'll find in many places (including, to a large extent, the US).

From this perspective, you can't call yourself both the "extreme centre" and neoliberal. It would be like calling yourself "extreme centre" and socialist.

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

#603

Post by EtienneK »

mattlondon wrote: post #317

There are things that happen in the news that may affect your day to day life. Apart from the obvious things such as covid, there are a lot of things going on all the time that may influence your voting decisions (not just in the run up, but the entire time someone is in office), purchasing decisions, where you go on vacation, who you want to work for, how you get to work today etc. I guess if that is fine for you, t…

As someone who doesn’t really follow the news… what’s wrong with VW?

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

#604

Post by saberience »

andrepd wrote: post #546
mastazi wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>They don't hide it. 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") My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into somethi…

The Economist is absolutely not "right wing." In fact, it's anything but right wing. So that you say that is obectively true makes me wonder about your agenda here and whether you're making these statements in good faith.

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

#605

Post by nightgarden »

ROTMetro wrote: post #415
spywaregorilla wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure things were just as shitty in 2017

Maybe sites like Twitter were, but it wasn't EVERYTHING like it is now. There just wasn't so much hateful speaking. There wasn't so much tribalization, otherization. Sure Reddit sucked but it wasn't hateful. Now it seems everything is full of unnecessary snide comments about whomever is perceived as the out group or other tribe with no self awareness of the ugliness of the comments. Educated conservative university p…

I actually distinctly remember that the internet started to deteriorate rapidly the year Trump got elected because he completely took over social media and the news cycle. He was the topic in all comment sections, even when you watched a video on completely unrelated topics, or read a technical subreddits. It was crazy. At the end of his election, Trump was banned from social media, and I feel like there is some fresh air now in the internet. There's still some lingering stench for sure, but I think you were actually "lucky" to miss the worst of it all.

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

#606

Post by dustintrex »

andrepd wrote: post #548
drenvuk wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Atlantic. The New Yorker. The Economist. These are neutral to left facing. In a feeble effort to avoid being put in a different bubble, does anyone have something that an educated republican/conservative would read?

That someone can honestly say with a straight face that "the Economist is left-facing" speaks volumes to the sad state of the Overton window.

The Economist is old school liberal: let companies do what they want (US "right-wing"), let people do what they want (US "left-wing"), but unlike US libertarians, also have some regulation and support in place to prevent the worst abuses.

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

#608

Post by yojo »

andrepd wrote: post #544
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…

The Economist is extremely biased. It's only that their bias is so "natural" to you that you don't even question it or even recognise it, it just seems part of objective reality. There's the "globalised neoliberal capitalism" bias you mention, but also the "US foreign policy" bias for instance. It certainly prevents you from seeing many things in an accurate light. There is no escaping it: you have to consume plural…

Can you expand on the “US foreign policy bias”? For the last couple years I feel like most of the Economist’s opinion of US policy could be summed up as “bungling”.

E.g. they’re critical of the withdrawal from the TPP, the introduction of protectionist tariffs, the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the half-baked “Build Back Better World” counter to Belt and Road, pretty much all of recent immigration policy, etc.

I’m having a hard time thinking of a recent US foreign policy move they seemed in favor of. Maybe the tougher stance against China?

Or is the bias that they’re too critical of US foreign policy?

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

#609

Post by tsimionescu »

kelp wrote: post #553
andrepd wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They don't hide it. 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") My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into somethi…

I don't think there is objective agreement that the Economists views are right-wing neoliberal capitalist. AllSides rates them as "Leans left": https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist They've endorsed Democrats for US President since 2004. Ad Fontes also rates them slightly left leaning: https://adfontesmedia.com/the-economist-bias-and-reliability...

As in an old joke that rings true to anyone living outside the US, in US politics you have, on the one hand, an extreme right-wing party, far to the right of anything in other countries; and on the other hand, you have the Republican party.

It's absolutely true that on cultural issues (particularly rights of minorities), the Democratic party and even the Economist is actually left or even far left compared to many world countries.

But on economic matters, the Economist's positions, and indeed Democratic party positions, are indeed far right-wing of what you'll see virtually anywhere else (maybe other 5-eyes countries are getting closer?).

Also, on foreign policy, the media and political parties in the US almost speak with a single voice, which is often, again, far outside mainstream opinion in the rest of the world.

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

#610

Post by tapatio »

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…

Google News is the news. If you still read that then you haven’t actually quit.
Post reply on HN