Live data from Hacker News

News is bad for you

theguardian.com

131–140 of 239 posts

Re: News is bad for you

#131
Early this year I switched to skimming headlines and reading editorials only. In short this was the best decision I've made around media consumption. Between how much time it frees up and my reduced stress I'm so much happier.

This thread gave me pause to think about what I believed then, in the media induced state of stress, and what has come to pass. Of the notable ones:

- twitter would fail and cause the tech bubble to burst. Twitter now sits pretty on $51/share

- the euro zone would collapse and riots would rock the world. I actually skipped out on two trips (a wedding in France and a stag party in Taiwan) because I thought the world was on the brink of disaster. Nothing happened.

I only list two but there are a half dozen others that haven't happened either. The thing that really strikes me though, is that my perspective on others' has changed dramatically. When I see people spinning themselves up into a state because of some media (and quite often it is not reputable media) I feel a combination of anger and derision; somewhat akin to the emotional reflex I experience when a homeless person is drunk.

Re: News is bad for you

#132
I 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 analysis pieces by the NYT. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But to my first point -- I would love a service that would "curate" the need-to-know headlines, to send to me every morning/afternoon. Where each headline had a numerical score or increasing importance (say, 1-5), and I could choose to subscribe to all headlines of 5, and all headlines 3-5 in tech, for example. The important thing being that this is not a simple daily digest, but that I'd only receive it when there was something newsworthy -- plenty of days, you'd receive nothing at all.

Re: News is bad for you

#133
post #86
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting there is some point? That there's real value, to oneself or to anyone else, in repeatedly dismaying oneself over things which one does not have, and cannot obtain, the power to affect?

I suppose I just can't imagine being content at being ignorant of the world. By that principle surely it's also worthless to learn about world history?

Not in the slightest; the mistake there would lie not in studying the dead past, but rather in taking it personally enough to experience dismay. Taking sides in the past is pointless; one studies the past to take sides in the present.

I also want to pick on the fallacy I find in your equation of largely ignoring journalism and being ignorant of the world. Having in early life studied journalism without reference to history, and then later studied history without reference to journalism, I found the former to leave me bewildered in a morass of facts with no useful means of assembling from them a coherent picture of the world, and the latter to furnish me with the cognitive mechanisms necessary to derive a coherent, if of course not perfectly accurate, model, into which to fit the facts I derive from review of what I am forced to conclude is the rather slapdash and careless journalistic profession.

Re: News is bad for you

#134

Yeah, ignorance is bliss, but, while the premise is fundamentally flawed, I'll direct you to Idiocracy about what happens with an uneducated populace.

I'll second this.

The world isn't in great state, so watching keeping up on whats going on is by definition somewhat depressing.

Its important for me in my "democracy" to keep up with whats going on a bit so that I can make a somewhat informed decision come election time.

Re: News is bad for you

#135
post #20

While 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

I stopped reading at Taleb's first example. I've seen very similar stories from both Richard Feynman and John Littlewood. Here's Taleb:

"I was thinking about calling my third cousin Antiochus this morning when the phone rang. Miracle! It was him on the other line; this confirms my developed sixth sense! This is a great omen except that perhaps I should wake up and take into account the number of times when I thought about calling him without his calling me; the times when he called me without my thinking about calling him; and, most significantly, the numerous occurrences of my not thinking about him, and him not trying to call me."

Feynman has several variations on this theme. Here's one:

"I remembered the time I was in my fraternity house at MIT when the idea came into my head completely out of the blue that my grandmother was dead. Right after that there was a telephone call, just like that. It was for Pete Bernays-- my grandmother wasn't dead. So I remembered that, in case somebody told me a story that ended the other way. I figured that such things can sometimes happen by luck--after all, my grandmother was very old--although people might think they happened by some sort of supernatural phenomenon."

And another:

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing! "

There's an extended quote in the Feynman biography "Genius" (by James Gleick) which is a closer match than both these. I don't have an easy cut-and-paste, alas, but here's a link on Google books (it's the third page link):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=j42RD66g72oC&printsec=frontc...

Taleb basically reads as a reorganized and edited version of this last quote.

Edit: I couldn't resist reading on. Taleb's article is embarassingly bad. Half his "original examples" I'd heard before from statisticians and other scientists, often years before Taleb's books. I will say this: there are a few instances in there where Dobelli should be genuinely embarassed. But Taleb should be at least equally embarassed by presenting, Wolfram-like, well-known truths as his deep original thought.

Re: News is bad for you

#136
Yes, 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. Even if there is an absolute bloodbath on the stock exchange it'll never rattle me like the baby thing does (and I didn't even read the actual article). The stock exchange is just numbers...maybe I lost some money - so be it. That I can absorb without lasting damage.

I'd love a open platform that can process RSS that I know won't close/change/fail me. Google Reader had some ability in this regard but we all know how that went. Plus I think RSS might no longer be sufficient...cutting edge news is now on twitter. Not sure if 140 chars counts as news though...headlines maybe.

Re: News is bad for you

#137
I've been hearing from more and more people each day that they have opted to receive curated news instead of jumping from site to site. Mainly from people outside the IT circle. They seem to me -- my impression -- to be less tolerant to ads then us, and even less to poor quality content. I think we from IT tend to judge content faster by just scanning headlines -- thank HN for that skill. Most people just can't do this, so curated news are a good thing for them, to the point some are actually paying to receive it on a regular basis.

Re: News is bad for you

#138

I 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…

In reference to your point 1: Ask! It'll get you a funny look or two, maybe, but my experience has been that people love explaining things that "everybody knows" almost as much as they do expounding their opinions. (I couldn't care less about the Superbowl, but I recognize lots of people do -- so, when one of them asks me what I think of it, I shrug and say I don't know a thing about baseball. This always gets a laugh, which usually leads into a conversation that's enjoyable for all involved even if the informational content thereof isn't worth committing to memory.)

Re: News is bad for you

#139
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers. The medium is partly the problem.

News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. I think you've missed the point of my comment, which is that I actively disregard sources that have that defect, and look for sources that tell me about verified, actionable information. (I have been wondering about the pattern of upvotes and downvotes on my comment, and if this is what people think I am saying, that I like the sensational,…

I think there's some misunderstanding over the meaning of the word "news" here. The author of the article uses the word "news" when referring to "sensational, bite sized news articles" (because it makes for a better headline). He doesn't think all journalism is bad. The article concludes with this thought:

"Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too."

You and the author seem to mostly agree in that respect.

Re: News is bad for you

#140
I disagree. Without news, I wouldn't be able to determine which organizations are legit and good for humanity. Armed with that knowledge, I join the appropriate orgs (i.e. EFF), donate money, and send nasty-grams to the proper senator/congressperson when needed.

The caveat is that it's necessary to know which news is garbage and which is meaningful. Clue: meaningful news is not typically popular.

Post reply on HN