111–120 of 205 posts
I think there should be a middle ground where you dont have to completely remove yourself from the news, just the endless feeds and opinions. It does seem helpful to know what is going on with the world. Whether thats socially or just understanding other events. I fully agree there is a limit and most of what is out there is junk but not all of it. I have been actively trying to build something to get away from the e…
The blending of comedy/entertainment with news, going back to the GWB era with the Daily Show is a good example of this problem. People consuming junk food thinking they are getting their vegetables. Better to simply turn off your brain and honestly watch real junk without the false sophistication.
What's your opinion of John Oliver? I just watched a YouTube video of his show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqK3_n6pdDY . It seemed pretty good, but I'm also very ignorant. What's the best way to become informed about a topic? Or, is it better to stay ignorant?
I think its success can be attributed to how it presents things that are often inherently worrying, controversial or critical. By partially presenting it in a funny way, it's easier to digest.
The reports typically present verifiable sources and quotes - at least in part. But I don't think he is suggesting that he's the arbiter of unbiased truth. There are clear biases, exaggerations and so on. What they choose to cover is also impacted by these biases.
Given all that, it seems more honest and authentic rather than less.
Compare that to (non-satirical) news media that _does_ act as if it's objectively truthful (except for example if pressed in court). Where claims are made _without_ verifiable sources but via punditry and half-truths.
However, that does not mean that all journalism should be disregarded. I read the Washington Post and listen to NPR (regardless of how you feel about their cultural programming, their news organization is excellent.) Citizens in a free society have a duty to be informed about the issues facing that society. I reject the idea that there aren't readily available high quality sources of information about the world. Are any of them perfect? Clearly, no. But ignoring them because they're not perfect strikes me as nihilistic.
There's one quote from the article that alarmed me:
> The news is overwhelmingly about things you cannot possibly influence
In democracies, we do have elections...
The more I think about the state of news, the more I'm convinced that we need independent rankings of news sites and journalism. Something similar to a health inspection score. With considerations like: - News needs to be verifiable. Direct links to data sources. - News need to have history of modifications to their article. - Factual errors will cause dings to their score. - Revenue sources/tax forms need to be publ…
I think you're going about this in a way that won't make sense to anyone but individuals like yourself. People watching Fox News all day can't possibly think that it's a picture of reality, unless they use their intuition and rational systems in exactly the opposite sense that you are doing here (and this system of ratings would serve). People are not interested in more information, they are interested in the right i…
I think there should be a middle ground where you dont have to completely remove yourself from the news, just the endless feeds and opinions. It does seem helpful to know what is going on with the world. Whether thats socially or just understanding other events. I fully agree there is a limit and most of what is out there is junk but not all of it. I have been actively trying to build something to get away from the e…
You might like Axios: https://www.axios.com/
I am using LLMs for what I am building and i'm envisioning a system that understands what you read yesterday so its able to give you more concise and direct information.
I also enjoy the completeness of a set amount of stories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your opinion of John Oliver? I just watched a YouTube video of his show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqK3_n6pdDY . It seemed pretty good, but I'm also very ignorant. What's the best way to become informed about a topic? Or, is it better to stay ignorant?
If you just want a medium-intensity tip, whenever a newsman reports on what someone said, look up what that person actually said (in context and with a charitable "best possible interpretation" lens). If the two match up then the reporting is about as good as you'll find anywhere. If you can't find a primary source then there is a very real question of how the newsman figured it out that deserves some reflection. The…
For "biased" rather than outright lies, I think the two most common easily observable techniques I see are:
- Quoting known unreliable sources: "Black people eat human babies! (say KKK leadership)"
- Using passive and active voices to shift blame: "Police shoot and kill bystander during drug bust" vs. "Shots fired during drug bust fatally injured potentially uninvolved man"
The more I think about the state of news, the more I'm convinced that we need independent rankings of news sites and journalism. Something similar to a health inspection score. With considerations like: - News needs to be verifiable. Direct links to data sources. - News need to have history of modifications to their article. - Factual errors will cause dings to their score. - Revenue sources/tax forms need to be publ…
How much do you personally spend subscribing to independent journalism? There are great outlets and journalists closing down and moving on every day, because when push comes to shove, people don't want to pay a dollar to read important news that they care about, even in their own communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should start understanding that "independent" rankings won't ever work. Let's not even get started with "fact-checking" places which we can count by dozens per country now, as they all have their own interpretations (or otherwise a single one alone would be enough). For such a thing to work, it needs to be funded. At the end, it doesn't matter if it comes from public or private hands, it's going to be leaning towa…
I think it can work, but will require a very well designed set of rules. For example, with fact checking, some fact checking is easy. Eg if an article says "the unemployment rate last year was X%". You have to do some research to determine what measure of unemployment they're using, but boom, you can say it is factually incorrect if no measure lists that number. This process is even easier if it's linked to the data…
So I doubt people are coming to a news site to read a one-liner with some statistic, they want more development, perhaps adding some opinions in between, comparing it with previous governments, whatever.
But yeah, there's not much business in a "news site" that'd just copy-paste statistics.
The comparison with junk food is an apt one. It seems like for every human desire or appetite or source of value, there exists a quick hit, instantly gratifying satisfaction that is bad for long-term health. And there also exists a slowly-acquired, initially difficult or unpleasant, eventually-rewarding satisfaction that is good for long-term health. Wouldn't a healthy society encourage its members to pursue the more…
I don't know if you used an AI chatbot for this, but this is an often used starting point.
I started my career as a reporter a decade ago. I can't tell you how many stories I filed that an editor twisted into something different to fit their narrative. There were also stories I was directed away from because they would alienate our audience. It's a narrative business.