News is bad for you, except for this bit of news explaining how news is bad.
News is bad for you
171–180 of 239 posts
Re: News is bad for you
#172Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps. The claim tha…
Yes, indeed, heartily concur.
"News" is nothing more than a report of events potentially affecting our lives: if a particular report is intelligent, trustworthy, and helpful to our understanding of what we need to do to better our lives, it is something to be valued and even on occasion treasured; if, in contrast, it is nothing more than what amounts to a reporter's trick for grabbing attention or an attempt to pass off what amounts to drivel as something that somehow should command our time, we have good reason to shun and even resent it. We do need to care about things beyond ourselves but who wants to endure the institutional barrage of worthless or semi-worthless reports that can impose upon us throughout a given day if we allow it in this age of instant and ubiquitous communication? I wouldn't go so far as to say "please turn it all off" because then you do lose the ability to get a minimum exposure each day as needed to stay meaningfully informed as a person and as a citizen but I would say "give me one giant filter" to be able to control and limit the flow. Who can realistically profit from a daily surfeit of junk-bond-quality reporting and especially about things such as a sensational car wreck (or whatever) having little or no affect on our lives? Since that is what "news" mostly is these days, it is best to apply that one great filter available to us all - that is, personal self-control. That is what I love most about your comment: it reminds us clearly that it is within our power to use such self-control and to thereby focus on quality while filtering what is junk.
The article itself is somewhat dubious, as you note. Important note for those who would commend their views to others: scatter-gun assertions made in support of a point can leave one doubting how great is the author's grip on the topic at hand; if you have something to say, think it through and develop your points well before assuming that others will want to hear what you have to say. Not really well written at all.
Re: News is bad for you
#173Yes, though its not that black & white. The optimal solution in my mind is to cleverly filter what news you consume. In my home country "news" consists mostly of bad stuff. e.g. I glanced at a local news paper _today_...among the headlines "3 y/o baby gang raped". Being bombarded with that kind of stuff daily can break the strongest soul, so I just don't read local news anymore. I tend to focus on finance & tech. Eve…
I am the same as you, as far as focusing on finance and tech. I think there are reasons why these topics are far less stressful or depressing: Tech news and reviews are exciting when they are good, and irrelevant when they are bad. If something gets some bed press, you simply don't buy! Also the tone is often nice, probably because tech reviewers have a pretty good job. They get to play with new things all the time and get paid.
Finance is usually upbeat as well -- now, I get most of my news from Bloomberg, if that matters. But since hedge funds can't advertise, literally everyone in the financial news chain benefits from the stock market going up. This may tend to color reports to the positive, making for a happier listening experience. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt that they would ever "color" a story, then even in difficult times, the focus is on investment opportunities and interviews are always with those doing well. Ever since I switched to Bloomberg news radio and a focus on online tech news, I feel like I can bear to live in the world again!
Re: News is bad for you
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. ... what if bitcoin, currently, _is_ only about the speculative aspect, and is not actually more useful with less friction?
If that is the case, then I used a bad example, but I really don't think I did. Off topic, but... I recently bought a days usage from put.io with bitcoin. They got their money instantly, I don't have to worry about a hacker getting my credit card info or using more bitcoins in my wallet than I gave. I didn't have to enter a bunch of personal information to prove my identity.
> I didn't have to enter a bunch of personal information to prove my identity.
You are wrong here. You did exactly that (a bitcoin transaction is that), just in a way you are not used to.
Re: News is bad for you
#175There is an opportunity here to create technology that will facilitate thinking instead of fragment it. Imagine a distraction-free internet. Our machines are programmed to exacerbate hyperbolic discounting, to replicate and encourage the so-called monkey mind. We much teach our machines to meditate. We must quiet their computations.
Re: News is bad for you
#176I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed!
I'm with you on this. Upworthy is my news source of choice.
Re: News is bad for you
#177I agree... but I think there are two important caveats. 1) Some news is important, purely for social (not informational) reasons. When you show up to the office, you want to know why everyone's talking about Miley Cyrus! And you need to know who won the Superbowl, even if you have no interest. 2) News does have explanatory power, but mostly in weekly mags like The Economist, New Yorker, etc., and occasionally in anal…
Similarly, I've always dreamed of a service like this. At least one that informs you of world-impact-level events; wars breaking out, major disasters, etc. It'd be nice to find out about these quickly, without stumbling on it later.
I haven't tried this but you might get something out of creating a reddit multi (maybe r/worldnews, r/news, r/science, r/foodforthought, and whatever else), check it once a week and sort by top and "this month" or "this week". The top ten links are probably impactful, engaging, and relevant.
The lazy in me would actually like this in a weekly email.
Re: News is bad for you
#178While I agree with the sentiment, Rolf Dobelli himself is a plagiarist. This whole reasoning is basically stolen from Nassim Taleb. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/dobelli.htm http://blog.chabris.com/2013/09/similarities-between-rolf-do... EDIT: For another take on not reading the news, see http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
Of course we can put our heads in the sand. The problem is: if you do this, you should no longer be allowed to vote. Because democracy can only survive if the feedback cycle is encouraged , not sabotaged : (Good|bad) news => critical thinking by the citizen => citizen votes accordingly => corruption (and other problems) are corrected. If you stop reading news, you stop being a responsible citizen. If you feel bad abo…
> If you stop reading news, you stop being a responsible citizen.
If the elected actors interfere with the news you read, you also stop being a responsible citizen. We simply never had a chance.
Re: News is bad for you
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. ... what if bitcoin, currently, _is_ only about the speculative aspect, and is not actually more useful with less friction?
If that is the case, then I used a bad example, but I really don't think I did. Off topic, but... I recently bought a days usage from put.io with bitcoin. They got their money instantly, I don't have to worry about a hacker getting my credit card info or using more bitcoins in my wallet than I gave. I didn't have to enter a bunch of personal information to prove my identity.
When a hacker gets your credit card info, you're liable for $50 and have the hassle of a few days without your card until you get new one.
When a hacker gets your bitcoin wallet, they can empty out your entire account.
Re: News is bad for you
#180[deleted]