I remember in 5th grade we were taught ‘current events’. We learned about newspapers, that the ‘most important news’ was in the right hand column, where the index was in a newspaper, where the editorials were, its various parts… I remember thinking with a child’s naïveté that news was irrelevant to the ‘real’ goal of getting good grades and looking ‘cool’. Looking back on it I see it for what was part of the ‘capitalist reeducation camp’ - a way to produce good soldiers who would know how to continue indoctrinating themselves. It certainly gave individuals the tools to share a common ground , to feel like we were ‘all on the same team’ because we saw the world the same way. It formalized herd behavior and reduced our cognitive load because ‘facts’ and opinions were provided to us - ready made. At the cost of our individuality and our ability to come to terms with the real emotions resulting from our daily actions and encounters in our local space.
Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
661–670 of 741 posts
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#662Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#663We should get paid to read ‘their’ news instead of paying ‘them’
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#664Earlier 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
[deleted]
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#665Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying it was great or not important, only that it wasn't existentially concluding. And the difference between "a bad person" becoming President and "half of the country withdrawing from Congress and formally seceding" is several orders of magnitude.
If your only criteria for concern is "existentially concluding" then I'd say you need to recalibrate your barometer. The biggest problem with this approach is that you'll likely only recognize such an event after it is already impossible to stop. We ended up getting very close to throwing out the past election results, wouldn't that be such an event? Or do you think it doesn't qualify because we managed to stopped it…
> We ended up getting very close to throwing out the past election results
We disagree on this. From what I've read, there was amateurish pontificating on throwing out election results, mostly by sub-Presidential aides or advisors.
And most critically, rejected by almost everyone in a position of authority to legally do so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the most serious legal action taken to deny the results was the Arizona private recount?
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#666Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? It feels like current news would be a poor method for tracking multi-year cultural changes.
Yes I think so. Current news gives you a sense of what mainstream culture considers important this year, then you compare it with what you observed in previous years. It's common for there to be a common cultural trend or debate that is hammered non-stop in mainstream media, you won't have to breathlessly follow news (ie. you just don't have to quit the news entirely, casual check-ins are fine) because it'll be breat…
That example is something of a red herring. If you're a CEO, or someone in a high visibility corporate role, don't talk about political hot-button issues in a public forum.
You have the right to do so, but you also have the possibility of being nailed to the cross (apt metaphor, in this case) for doing so.
So taking the risk is stupid from a personal perspective.
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#667I 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 also got frustrated with overly personalized results in Google News. I tried following a variety of sources on Twitter but that didn't work as well as I'd like either. I made my own topic-aligned news feed, and made a browser extension too (if you're reading an article online, it shows similar articles from other websites). Primarily a passion project, but I find it useful! Located here: https://www.nabu.news
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#668Earlier 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…
I have a different question. What does it matter if I am uninformed on those two topics? What does it matter if I am uninformed on most topics? There are (almost) never any single issue items on the federal ballot. On local or state ballots there are single issue items maybe once every two to four years. I can inform myself on those topics or I can cast an uninformed vote. Again, I would consider an uninformed vote t…
An uninformed vote is a misinformed vote.
> What does it matter if I am uninformed on those two topics?
You have to consider how you spend your time. Not reading on the happenings in your city, state, and country is a choice that you make every time you do something different. Is what you sacrifice by being up to date on the latest happenings more important? Then do that. You would be in the majority.
> What does it matter if I am uninformed on most topics?
For the same reason we teach history in school.
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#669Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism, or more specifically inequality created the tribes. Denying their existence is to purposefully avoid looking for a solution. It’s not an ideology of greater good. I mean it literally in the utilitarian sense: left thinking, focusing on improving the plight of wage earners literally effects more people and is a greater good. Improving/preserving wealthy elites will naturally benefit fewer people. These are…
"Improving/preserving wealthy elites will naturally benefit fewer people. These are facts, with evidence" You are implying, that it is a fact that right leaning people want to preserve wealthy elites. But this is not, what I heard from right leaning people as their goals. "Capitalism, or more specifically inequality created the tribes." And I believe, tribes existed way before capitalism. So I believe, that you are i…
There are not contradicting views. If you look at them with a lenses of preserving wealth they align quite neatly. I’d like to see a counter example.
Nazis are the very definition of preserving the wealth of a few. It’s just you have seen the words “National Socialism” and assumed that meant left. You’ll find the labels are high jacked quite often. But left and right remain more consistent.
Are you saying that trying to bring more benefit to wage earners is not good?
Could you give an example of right wing policy that wasn’t focused on preserving wealthy elites?
Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)
#670Earlier quoted context omitted.
It basically oversimplifies "right" to selfish ideology and "left" to ideology of "greater good". For once I would argue, it is for the greater good, if "selfish" individual rights are increased - and apart from that, I think using the left right spectrum is not very helpful for anything, but dividing society into tribal thinking.
I mean, it's true if you reinterpret "selfish" as "individualist". At the end of the day its "prioritize concerns of the individual at the expense of society" versus "prioritize concerns of society at the expense of individuals".
I disagree. Because in your statement you are hiding the fact that the “expense of the individuals” is a tiny number compared to the number of “members of society”.