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

631–640 of 741 posts

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

#631

Post by bncy »

It's one of the things I've learned after reading "4 Hour Work Week" by Tim Ferris. If you want to focus, you need to quit caring about what's happening in the world. It's a great conversation starter by the way. You can always just ask people what's going on and they can share any major events with you, now you're a great listener, because you genuinely don't know what's going on in the world. And should you care? No.

When I stopped watching TV/reading any news at all I noticed one thing: I'm less distracted.

Once you realize that media outlets make tremendous amounts of money by selling you their narrative and like any business they're just trying to be as profitable as possible, everything changes.

Nowadays I might read an article or two from people I subscribe to on substack or something more independent, but still I don't feel like it's something that I need at all.

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

#632

Post by harry8 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #566
harry8 wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using the word "Objectivity" with a very different meaning to me. "Truth and clarity" - this as an ideal IS objectivity. Not some half-baked, half-way position between competing lies which is anything but objectivity.

Ah yes. “Objectivity” is often used as lacking bias. Truth and clarity require taking a position and advocating it. The only way that’s unbiased is if there isn’t anything at stake in the truth or clarity thereof.

Objectively the acceleration due to gravity on earth is 9.8 meters per second squared. The above statement is both true and clear within certain bounds on precision to anyone not playing sillies and who isn't very stupid. That example is a really easy one. It obviously gets harder the more complex the subject matter becomes.

This post-modern, "there's no such thing as objective reality" and one must take "a position" rather than striving to achieve objectivity is just nonsense and should always have been treated as such and should always be treated as such.

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

#633

Post by teddyh »

brimble wrote: post #76
floren wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The timestamp on that comic was about 20 years earlier than I expected :)

Timing's about right for the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, since that news broke at the beginning of '98. And we already had multiple 24/7 cable news stations by then. :-(

https://ozyandmillie.org/archives/comic/ozy-and-millie-2177

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

#634

Post by QuercusMax »

Auracle wrote: post #626
onethought wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Care to elaborate? Seems pretty accurate to me.

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

#635

Post by chinchilla2020 »

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…

Is hackernews turning into twitter? This seems like a comment from reddit or twitter.

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

#636

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

I think it is a good choice, but you should also read other journals. Even the wrong ones or especially the wrong ones. Only if you can detach yourself from the message of course, but it is valuable to see another angle. At least from time to time.

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

#637

Post by robryan »

b112 wrote: post #20
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…

This is mostly what 6pm news was like, before the rise of 24 news channels. Out of an hour of news, there was sports coverage in one quarter, local news in another with weather, national and then international news. Each segment had, after commercials, 12 to 13 minutes max. There wasn't time for all the speculation, and endless drone on about what if, and blah blah. 24 hours news half destroyed news first, then the i…

I don't think the news has changed all that much, there still used to be a heavy focus on the same types of negative topics. What has obviously changed is the large amount of commentary that has sprung up around traditional newsreading.

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

#638

Post by hgomersall »

tmnvix wrote: post #614
lodovic wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep repeating the Economist is rightwing in this thread, but it seems most here disagree with you. I mean, Fox, Breitbart or the NY Post are pretty much rightwing, and the Economist does not even compare, both in tone and in content. What puts them in the right wing camp according to yo?

Growing up in NZ, If you championed free market capitalism and privatisation, you would definitely be considered right wing. That is the Economist's bread and butter. That NZ's major left wing party was and is still a big proponent of these policies didn't change that. Today, it could be argued that neoliberalism has moved the overton window, but many, many people still don't buy it.

I'm not sure it does "champion privatisation". I've read some pretty damning reports on bad privatisation, for example about the problems from rail privatisation, as well as on monopolistic practice by big companies. I would say it's rather more nuanced than private good, public bad.

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

#639

Post by Lascaille »

brightball wrote: post #158
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…

Even the streaming stuff will include it subtly though. I was watching a show on Netflix with my wife the other day, Sweet Magnolia’s and it seemed about as controversial as a Hallmark channel show. But these days I notice whenever specific catch phrases or expressions are getting used across multiple news outlets and it puts me a little bit on guard if a suddenly notice a phrase being used excessively…as if the poin…

>But these days I notice whenever specific catch phrases or expressions are getting used across multiple news outlets and it puts me a little bit on guard if a suddenly notice a phrase being used excessively…as if the point is to normalize it in your language.

This is very very visible on reddit, where a term, phrase or expression will become ubiquitous almost overnight. The most recent one I can think of was the acronym 'BIPOC' - and from the circumstances of its use it was clear that a lot of users didn't understand what it meant, and were just using it as a synonym for 'minorities'.

It leads me to conclude that there is much more centralisation of content than you would otherwise expect.

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

#640

Post by Lascaille »

kenjackson wrote: post #303
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…

The manipulation part is what I find fascinating. And not just the way people use the term now about "fake news". But more about how the news cycle needs to keep you constantly engaged. If you follow the news, especially political news, it seems like the sky is falling constantly. I was always up in arms about something. As the author notes, when I do pay attention to the news I feel better. Again, political news in…

>If you follow the news, especially political news, it seems like the sky is falling constantly

That's because political news is advertising for the political class. You're meant to feel like there's a crisis so that you:

1. vote for them to do something about it and

2. not begrudge them their tax money.

Post reply on HN