21–30 of 205 posts
I completely understand why, but on the other hand democracy relies on citizens being informed about what's happening. The risk is that one day, you wake up and there is no democracy any more.
My entire existence is politically controversial. I pretty much have to at least be aware of recent political developments since they could affect my ability to live as myself
Then why read news and not directly read the new laws and regulations that were voted and passed, or new proposed laws under discussion? https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
Perhaps we could pay people to follow important topics, politicians, important lobbyists and see what they're doing and claiming they want to do. They could send us summaries to save us time.
We could call those people journalists.
My entire existence is politically controversial. I pretty much have to at least be aware of recent political developments since they could affect my ability to live as myself
Then why read news and not directly read the new laws and regulations that were voted and passed, or new proposed laws under discussion? https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
My entire existence is politically controversial. I pretty much have to at least be aware of recent political developments since they could affect my ability to live as myself
They used to show news channels.
He said clients would come in all stressed out. So they changed to a home improvement channel.
I really dislike the notion that events outside of your country are somehow not important.
The web has destroyed that business model, because the news industry now controls far less advertising space, so there is no longer enough advertising revenue to support quality journalism. The broadsheets are in real financial trouble, and most have turned to tabloid-style articles (albeit ones that promote more sophisticated worldviews) in order to pull in those social-media clicks.
I find myself increasingly interested in publications like The Economist and The Financial Times, simply because their readerships have financial interest in actually knowing what's going on in the world, and so they can charge a subscription price that supports quality journalism.
My entire existence is politically controversial. I pretty much have to at least be aware of recent political developments since they could affect my ability to live as myself
Then why read news and not directly read the new laws and regulations that were voted and passed, or new proposed laws under discussion? https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
Eg. no law in Poland regulates legal gender change process. But there is a series of directves for courts on how this should be addressed issued by whoever is in the govt at the moment. One govt issued a directive that those are low prority, other that spouse and children should have a power to veto, another that actually those are high priority and then govt-appointed judges in the supreme court decided to veto the veto and implement new procedure altogether. And none of this is in the law - just directives for judges from pliticans and higher judges.