I read the newspaper at breakfast, a habit formed sixty years ago.
Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
231–240 of 262 posts
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments also promoting / proposing Wikipedia's Current Events [1] [2] [3] [4] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33417715 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33417336 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33417454 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33417439
You posted this comment four times under this Ask HN. Twice in this thread under nicklaf's comment. Why? (Yes, Wikipedia's Current events portal is great)
awfully sorry, I wanted to 1. underline that it's a shared opinion and 2. notice others that the "Current Events" portal was commented here.
I posted the exact same comment in all 4 positions talking about Wikipedia - if anyone feels offended or spammed just ler me know and I'll delete this superflous cross-reference
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#233Since I started reading HN (2020) I stopped read news elsewhere. HN has enough of most important news for me.
Less consumption of news makes me less manipulated and more open for other opinions. Problem is that I find less and less people around me with same approach. Then leading unbiased conversation on various topics is quite difficult.
I guess rising of "tribalism" is product of overconsumption of news.
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sources of news are reliable on the conflict? I can't find anything which doesn't reek of propaganda: Western or Russian.
I use understandingwar.org. to me it does not seem like western propaganda, but rather an attempt to convey accurate information. But then again, to me mainstream news (which I stay away from) seems sensationalistic, not propagandistic.
Understandingwar has been great, daily updates throuought war. Many other news outlets either recycle or use the same source material; i rarely learn anything new from any other source. Note they avoid detailing ukrainian movements unless confirmed as known by Russian sources, i assume to avoid being a source of Russian intel. That context helps to explain the reporting style, where Ukrainian intel is always reported from confirmed Russian sources, ie stuff Russians are guaranteed to already know. In practice it means there is usually a delay before knowing the latest status of Ukrainian offensive strategy.
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the guardian but it's pretty biased l and sometimes the reporting is terrible. It tends to align with my views but it's still super flawed. Recently I've also been reading dw.com Deutsche Welle. They are more straight factual and of course biased to German related news which is interesting.
> I read the guardian but it's pretty biased l and sometimes the reporting is terrible Do you have any specific examples? I can't say that it mirrors my experience but i might have missed something.
I don't keep a record of the articles that have made me roll my eyes. Usually it's when they report on an area I know a little about, like New Zealand or tech news, and I think "wait, that's not entirely true" or "that's not what people actually think about this subject" and it makes me think if I feel that way about those articles then that reduces the credibility of all articles by a small amount. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ has some information and examples.
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#236I stopped reading the front page of HN and instead use https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=fals... .
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#237Sometimes it cheers me up to read https://goodnews.eu/en/.
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#238Yes and no.
I choose a few sites, and check them periodically. BBC News, Drudge, Mother Jones, and occasionally the routing services like AP, Reuters, and AFP. Usually every other day or so, or when I'm bored, have downtime, etc. Occasionally pick up a copy of the Economist when I'm tired of looking at screens.
But on my terms, when I feel like it. No feed or regular updates, no trying to figure out if it's a clickbate headline.
But what about HN? Well, fair enough, though a lot news gets posted to the "active" URL here at HN and that serves as a "hey check AP" flag, so my approach more-or-less holds.
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general case it is impossible to report news objectively. I personally do not mind propaganda per se anymore. I mean it is ok with me, if the source has a political agenda. I praise media who state their agenda clearly. But what I do not tolerate is the outright lying. I do not like hidden agenda, though it can be revealed by watching a source for some time. Moreover propaganda-phobia is bad by itself. It can be a…
I disagree profoundly. I can do good work which will still never be perfect. Doesn't mean I don't try to do a good job. Without objectivity, what does a news story have left? Amounts of clicks? Granted, that is the current economic reality of news writers. To teach and inform someone means to broaden their perspective. Without a goal like objectivity, a news story has no value. Why even listen to propaganda, it would…
It is sounds good, but I know not a single media that manage to maintain unbiased objective style. They are all present a biased sample of data, reporting what they think is important and rejecting everything else. A biased sample is the best you can get. For this sample to be useful, a reader needs to know what biases the source have. If readers believe that the sample is objective and do not keep their own subjective opinion on how this sample is biased (or which other deficiencies the source has), they just make it easier to others to manipulate their opinions.
I do not believe that anyone can be objective, because the process of selecting data to publication is a subjective process.
> many modern news articles could use a dosage of detachment. It would improve the craft drastically.
Maybe it would. But I'm reading news not to improve craft, but to keep myself informed. So I read what there is, not what it would be nice to have.
Moreover I believe that if you deem your sources are flawed, it make you better at critical thinking. Or rather it could make you better, if you didn't just turn to "post-truth", but tried to measure flaws and to undo them.
So maybe to impove craft of reporting and make it perfect, is not a good thing. It would mean that you no longer can author your own opinion, you can not practice the art, and you are extremely vulnerable to a manipulation. Though maybe if craft was perfected then it wouldn't be an issue?
Re: Ask HN: Have you stopped reading most news?
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sources of news are reliable on the conflict? I can't find anything which doesn't reek of propaganda: Western or Russian.
You're probably being downvoted because of the mere suggestion that Western propaganda is shaping the narrative but this is something that also irks me. I do not defend at all any of Russia's actions but the fact that it's just become commonly accepted that the war happened because "PuTiN iS cRaZyyy" is kinda scary. Absolutely no mention of the US' role in this or the fact that NATO specifically sent Boris to stop th…
The situation and background are complicated and the mainstream media doesn't really have so much time to go into it all - both a lack of reporter time and reader interest. I find it interesting to read takes from people on different sides of it.
One reason the US and UK come across stoppy (eg "Boris to stop the peace negotiations") is Ukraine used to have nukes and in 1994 the US, UK and Russia signed an agreement for them to give them up in return for the parties to guarantee their borders. If you let Russia just send in tanks, kill a few people and then say lets have a new agreement then what's even the point? If they don't stick to the first one they probably won't stick to the second. And then why even bother with nuclear non proliferation? If the agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on you may as well try to get nukes instead.