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

621–630 of 741 posts

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

#621

Post by Lord_Baltimore »

drenvuk wrote: post #533
ff317 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite recommendation in this vein is The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ . They've got some great writers and editors and often deliver pretty unique insights. Their articles tend towards long-ish-form, but not nearly as long as e.g. the New Yorker. They're a little less world-focused and more US-centric, but not completely. There is some bias (isn't there always?), but I've seen them cover a si…

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?

I highly recommend The Dispatch. They make a point of not being click-baity and try to give thoughtful takes instead of reactionary ones.

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

#622

Post by inopinatus »

drenvuk wrote: post #533
ff317 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite recommendation in this vein is The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ . They've got some great writers and editors and often deliver pretty unique insights. Their articles tend towards long-ish-form, but not nearly as long as e.g. the New Yorker. They're a little less world-focused and more US-centric, but not completely. There is some bias (isn't there always?), but I've seen them cover a si…

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?

Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

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

#624

Post by viewfinderjs »

Situations that are vast in scale and yet out of our control naturally cause unease – it would be weird if they didn’t. It can seem as if our multitude of aspirations, intrigues, and interests are once again subject to random, fluctuating factors. It’s particularly stressful in the wake of Covid inc and many of us feel like we’ve already fried our adaptability mechanisms.

However, re Russia and Co, if you’re not living in the directly affected areas – and I hope you are not – or required to deploy there, remember this: Before this century, no population in history was ever instantaneously aware, in real-time, of hostilities happening around the world. If staying informed by the moment is important to you or you think it will help you muster an appropriate policy recommendation for your local government representative, go for it.

But if not, consider that you’re spiking your adrenals by basically live-streaming blow-by-blow intelligence on s**t happening, keeping your body + psyche in fight/flight/freeze mode. Be aware and of course, if you’re a student of history, yes the developments are fascinating but claim/retain your agency in all this. You control yourself, your outlook, and your immediate environment. Asserting your creativity, enterprising nature, and sensuality in such an atmosphere is not denying that it’s disturbing – it’s good for your morale and those around you.

> [Source] https://mysticmedusa.com/an-astrological-pep-talk/

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

#625

Post by ahthat »

drenvuk wrote: post #533
ff317 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite recommendation in this vein is The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ . They've got some great writers and editors and often deliver pretty unique insights. Their articles tend towards long-ish-form, but not nearly as long as e.g. the New Yorker. They're a little less world-focused and more US-centric, but not completely. There is some bias (isn't there always?), but I've seen them cover a si…

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?

Anything by The Hoover Institution

Really great, conservative, and academic stuff. Highly regarded by many.

Excellent publications, and whole video series on YouTube are free to watch

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

#626

Post by Auracle »

onethought wrote: post #599
dnissley wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not the OP but, Right: conservative. Policy designed to preserve corporate interests and wealthy elite. Often masquerading as “looking after the middle class” - when really at best they get some trickle down benefits. Selfishly You should be right leaning if you are a significant owner of capital or have a very high chance of that (they will convince you that everyone has this chance). Left: Progressive (in that it l…

That’s a pretty biased interpretation.

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

#627

Post by Lascaille »

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...

[flagged]

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

#628

Post by Swenrekcah »

axxl wrote: post #510
StevePerkins wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local library has a certain number of electronic subscriptions, so I am able to read The Economist on my iPad with the Libby app for "free" (i.e. paid for by by local taxes). I would GLADLY pay for a print subscription, because I greatly prefer physical magazines over digital. But whether it's magazines, satellite radio, or whatever... I'm just not subscribing to anything known for not letting people go.

The economist cancellation process is an email last time I did it (I subscribe in spurts). Not as ideal as a button but not as egregious as requiring a phone call or something.

I sent them three separate emails over the course of three weeks in addition to the failed online chat cancellation.

Never a response.

I’ve actually had this experience with them before but thought they had gotten better, but I guessed I’ve learned.

Their email responsiveness to anything other than a cancellation is pretty good though.

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

#629

Post by makeitdouble »

Syonyk wrote: post #21
mrweasel wrote: post #7

At someone point in the last two years I stopped watching the news, because it was just an endless stream of useless information about COVID. I’m not sure I felt better, but it certainly saves some time. Point 3 is spot on, most of the commentators have no idea about what going to happen. At best their guesses a marginally better than my own. Once you realise this, watching debates between journalist and political co…

But you can't fill 24 hours of "news cycle" without lots of nonsensical filler! Sometimes, the world just doesn't agree with that requirement, so they have to make material.

The sad truth is, you totally could fill 24h of news. The sun is always up somewhere. Even in a single country there’s no way nothing interesting isn’t happening somewhere somewhat.

But it’s hard, you need way more sources and accept to broadcast without footage, you can’t filter and spin the messages as much, you don’t have a “voice” and become more of a firehose, it’s less entertaining overall, and you can’t have that on tv.

Post reply on HN