It is ironic that 'news' of his death has attracted attention to this article.
I hate the news
51–60 of 75 posts
Re: I hate the news
#52Similar sentiments from a brother several thousand years ago: "...I start up out of dreams and am disturbed, trembling at every message, with my own peace of mind depending upon letters not my own. Someone has arrived from Rome. 'If only there is no bad news!' But how can anything bad for you happen in a place, if you are not there? Someone arrives from Greece. 'If only there is no bad news!' In this way for you ever…
I like this quote, only slightly newer, by Paul the hermit:
"Tell me, I pray, how fares the human race: if new roofs be risen in the ancient cities, whose empire it is that now holds sway in the world, if any still survive, snared in the error of demons."[1]
It epitomizes the futility of "news:" even if you live in a cave for many years (decades), as long as you know a bit about human nature and history, you know the news--just not the names. Like the OP, I find news pointless and go long periods without it.
Re: I hate the news
#53"There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election." For one thing this places enormous trust in the guide-writers. For another it enormously oversimplifies the topics on which the guides would touch.
And yet what alternative is there? If you follow the news you're placing the same trust in journalists. To become a truly informed voter, not relying on others' summary explanations, would be more than a full-time career.
How about people that are like-minded band together and dedicate one person to research all of the issues and present them, or an issue per person (or something else)?
Re: I hate the news
#54"I think following the news is a waste of time." I'm sure this plaid a role in him being so productive. But I do think its my obligation to read the news. Even if it makes me less productive. Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial. Of course, just knowing the news is not enough. One has to act. In the case of Aaron, we didn't act.
You missed the point of the article entirely. Let's say you knew of Aaron's plight. Would this news have changed your life for the better by you getting this knowledge the day it happened?
And you missed the point as well: if you didn't know who Aaron was, and you didn't click any of the links on HN about him, would your life be any different?
I didn't know about Aaron until all the articles started popping up here. Only curiosity drove me to find out the story, no real need or purpose.
Re: I hate the news
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet what alternative is there? If you follow the news you're placing the same trust in journalists. To become a truly informed voter, not relying on others' summary explanations, would be more than a full-time career.
How about people that are like-minded band together and dedicate one person to research all of the issues and present them, or an issue per person (or something else)?
That sounds suspiciously like a meta-political party.
Re: I hate the news
#56"I think following the news is a waste of time." I'm sure this plaid a role in him being so productive. But I do think its my obligation to read the news. Even if it makes me less productive. Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial. Of course, just knowing the news is not enough. One has to act. In the case of Aaron, we didn't act.
Well, there is a difference between reading "the news" and reading a specialized website about stuff you're interested in. I would have heard about this from the various blogs I read.
I'm actually pretty informed about "the news" but I don't read any newspaper sites unless I get links to them, and I certainly don't watch TV news.
Part of the problem with that is some people might end up getting all their news from websites that feature crazy conspiracy theory stuff, like Alex Jones or whatever.
Re: I hate the news
#57"There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election." For one thing this places enormous trust in the guide-writers. For another it enormously oversimplifies the topics on which the guides would touch.
sure, but think back to the last election. 95% of the coverage was about stupid stuff like Mitt Romney's campaign manager talking about an "etch a sketch" or whatever.
Instead of looking into the details and explaining Romney's bogus tax plan, they just invite a republican and democrat on to yell at each-other to stay "ballanced"
Re: I hate the news
#58I completely disagree with Aaron, but I respect his opinion. Reading the news is incredibly important, and it shapes your understanding of culture and circumstances outside your social bubble, which in turn affects your future social interactions.
Well, I think it depends on whether you count only "news" or if you count stuff like blogs or "social media". I'm very up to date (I think) on politics, but I don't feel like I need to read the NYT every day.
In the Essay Aaron isn't talking about just the concept of being informed about the world, but rather the up to the minute 24/7 generalist news stuff.
It seems like most major events have books written about them later. There were good books written about the Iraq war, for example.
I also think you could learn a lot more about culture by reading non-fiction books then by watching the news. I don't think I learn anything about culture from the news, other then which celebrities people are paying attention too these days.
Re: I hate the news
#59The problem with this theory is that when a person who follows the news hears a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh or reads something from naturalnews.com they realize pretty quickly that it's bullshit. The people who fall for that stuff always seem to be uninformed about current events or get it only from warped sources. You can extrapolate that to nazis or communism or wherever but the bottom line is an uninformed popula…
The problem, though, is that Fox news actually backs up the kind of stuff Limbaugh says. So people can "watch the news" and still see their worldview validated.
Re: I hate the news
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about people that are like-minded band together and dedicate one person to research all of the issues and present them, or an issue per person (or something else)?
That sounds suspiciously like a meta-political party.
My thought was that if you kept it small, you could keep a better handle on whether to trust the person that was gathering the information for you. It's more difficult to scale this sort of solution without running into the same trust issues brought up. But there's not reason that a ton of small groups like this could dot the landscape.