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

691–700 of 741 posts

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

#691

Post by andrepd »

chinchilla2020 wrote: post #635
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…

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

Ironically yours is the most unsubstantive in this whole thread.

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

#692

Post by Clubber »

strictlybiznes wrote: post #647
thrashh wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the Economist is pretty well known to be neoliberal. Which is fine… I subscribe and it’s a pretty good source if you understand that.

Neocon*

Neoliberalism is not related to liberalism, its economics theory we've been living in since Reagan. Ds and Rs embrace it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoconservatism is more a social theory, i.e. pushback from 60s social liberals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

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

#693

Post by andi999 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #390
ROTMetro wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to find the Economist great, but with the corrosiveness of everything this last bit, they seem to sneak agenda into articles now days in a way I feel like this whole post is trying to move away from. Maybe as a lost Libertarian who can't stand the control everyone's lives progressives I feel that has crept quite a bit into the Economist. It's funny it bothers me as I have reached a point where I feel Libertari…

I agree. The Economist is like NPR for rich people and diplomats. Head out to the parlor with your cigar and jacket and enjoy it. They are good in that they are informative and not subtle about the voice of the paper. But it gets a little boring to me if I read it for a few months.

What is NPR? I only found Nevada Public Radio.

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

#694

Post by eyelidlessness »

harry8 wrote: post #632
eyelidlessness wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

My point is not “there’s no such thing as objective reality”, it’s that for issues with more room for dispute than your example being objective in the sense you clearly mean sometimes requires rejecting ideas inconsistent with one’s understanding of reality.

As an example which recently came up in a local (to me, in Seattle) news context: it will soon be legal to ride bikes without a helmet. Unintuitively, this has safety benefits for cyclists. Pointing this out is often met with ridicule. But it’s true, and once known, a person with integrity must reject that intuition.

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

#695

Post by bleuchase »

ff317 wrote: post #296
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…

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…

And most importantly it’s owned by the billionaire widow of Steve Jobs who also hangs out with Ghislaine Maxwell

https://news.yahoo.com/steve-jobs-widow-takes-stake-atlantic... https://www.twitter.com/austerewyatt1/status/146967519091742...

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

#696

Post by ok123456 »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #392
ok123456 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Edit: I should be clear on what I mean by news. In the traditional sense, it's reporting on facts, checking sources, and providing two sides to every story. Opinions and partisan "news" are not that. Yeah, good luck with that. Even what appears to be purely factual reporting is subject to bias in the form of what gets factually reported and what is simply ignored. Several good examples of this were documented in "Ma…

You may be right that you could read the speech yourself to form an opinion, but you wouldn't know there was a speech to begin with without someone reporting it.

Yes, you have to seek it out.

When was the last time you saw, on an American news outlet, a foreign spokesman or leader giving a direct statement? Other than showing them walk across the stage to shake the American president's hand or, in Saddam's case him waving a shotgun in the air on very old b-footage, I can't recall an instance of that. You only get 'expert analysis'. That's by design. It's actually possible to get a wider exposure to foreign primary sources on TikTok than CNN. This was especially true at the beginning of COVID, when the consensus in Washington was deeply confused on what the messaging should be, and now on Russia where I can see clips of Putin laying out his case with subtitles.

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

#697

Post by sol_invictus »

onethought wrote: post #669
hutzlibu wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I can give you plenty of left-wing policies that ended in mass genocide. How do you fit that into your mental model?

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

#698

Post by tempnow987 »

kipchak wrote: post #123

I thought it was odd when YouTube started implementing a "Covid-19 News" feed to the home page that couldn't be disabled. I get why they would implement such a feed as a default, but not letting people turn it off and let people watch cat videos or whatnot in peace seems like a bad idea.

Apple TV or Newsstand (I forget which) added I think an unremovable covid and/or black lives matter channel. I didn't mind them surfacing them, but it was annoying you couldn't edit them.

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

#699

Post by ecf »

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…

Why not skip the media by reading news directly from AP itself?

Their iOS app leaves a lot to be desired, but that’s a benefit for me. I open it up and can quickly get updates for what’s happening and not be at risk of a advertisement-driven company wanting to take me down a rabbit hole of clickbait.

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

#700

Post by hutzlibu »

onethought wrote: post #669
hutzlibu wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"It’s just you have seen the words “National Socialism” and assumed that meant left."

No, I just happen to live in an area (in germany) with lots of nazis and had to engage with their ideology a lot.

There definitely exist anticapitalist, socialist fascist today, as did back then. Those are the ones, that were put down in Nazi germany in 1934 in the Röhm Putsch, so they did not rose to power, but nevertheless exist. They do believe in a socialist aryan society. So the greater good and negating of the individual, but limited to a certain race.

So how do they fit in, in the left = altruistic, right = selfish metric?

They are not individualists. They are willing to sacrifice themself for Volk und Vaterland.

"There are not contradicting views"

And with contradicting I meant in general. The socialist pagan Nazis do not really agree with the capitalist, catholic fascist of spain for example, but both are labeld right.

While anarchosyndicalist do not really share much with stalinist, yet both are labeled left.

Post reply on HN