Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 741 posts

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#181

Post by cpach »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #113
xattt wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m waiting for someone to jump in and shit on The Economist. However, I don’t think a person that doesn’t have any sort of social standing to uphold will have anything bad to say.

I'll bite. The Economist is a right-wing publication. The quality of the writing is usually pretty good so it's not a bad choice if you're in to that sort of thing, but it is propaganda.

I guess that depends on how you define right-wing.

But sure, the publication is in favour of capitalism. Is that really so controversial though? I thought it was pretty obvious that The Economist is neither Social Democrat, nor socialist or communist. On the other hand, a Social Democrat could probably agree with much that’s written there.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#182

Post by ROTMetro »

joshstrange wrote: post #139
flats wrote: post #83

I strongly agree with this. I would, however, like to call out one TV program here in the U.S. that I think comes much closer to approximating the experience of “reading a 5,000-word article”: PBS NewsHour. It’s great, completely free and available to watch online, and you can even get most of what you need from their podcast alone ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/segments ). It consists of fairly in…

PBS Newshour is a gem for sure and one of the few sources I trust almost fully. NPR is also high on my list.

I just wish there was a similar Right leaning news source to offset their very Progressive filter.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#183

Post by agumonkey »

ignacioaal wrote: post #173

It's been about 8 years since I've completely stopped watching tv news or reading newspapers but this post made me realize that I still browse reddit and r/worldnews sometimes. This is just to say that quitting everything might be close to impossible considering that in some cases we even get news reports via unsolicited SMS messages but we can still reduce input and have a more focused, calmer state of mind.

I really wonder how it feels for farmers in small places. They might be able to live with near no news.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#184

Post by giantg2 »

Kye wrote: post #33
giantg2 wrote: post #19

One caveat. Local news on TV can still be decent. It depends on the specific area though (big cities tend to drop a lot smaller stories). It can help you find out about stuff going on in your area that you wouldn't otherwise know about (unless your area also has a small newspaper).

A lot of local stations are more or less syndication houses these days. They might buy up packages from stringers and sometimes actually send someone out to report from scenes after the fact, but it's nothing you can't get from skimming their web page after you stop the auto-playing video. Most actual local news IME comes from local Facebook pages/groups and, rarely, Nextdoor.

True, you can get it from their web page. The facebook group thing can be good too. I think those tend to miss things like interviews with local leaders or politicians.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#185

Post by rootusrootus »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #157
rootusrootus wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Now the major team sport is who you want for President, even though he arguably has the lowest impact on your life. As long as he doesn't hit The Button. IMO people ought to put down social media, put down the national news, and pick up their local newspaper. Read about their own mayor, city council, whatever. And maybe even get involved -- depending on the size of your city, an ordinary individual can actua…

The president has a very significant impact on many people’s lives via judicial nominees. The biggest this year is expected to be the effects of the 3 Republican Supreme Court judges installed by Trump on many women’s access to abortions, but many other judges in the system are appointed by presidents as well that make decisions that affect many people’s lives.

I think your example just highlights my point. Currently abortion rights are enshrined at the federal level. The SCOTUS is not going to ban abortions. They are going to throw it right back down to the state level. If you lose access to abortions, it is because your local politicians decided to ban them. This is exactly why you don't put your faith in the federal government and pay more attention to local government.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Republican Party appears to understand this very well. They made state and local government a priority because they know that is where politics begins. Their success at the national level is disproportionate to the size of their voting bloc because they know how to play the game.

Anyone who opposes their ideals needs to remember that, and get involved locally.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#186

Post by yojo »

petemcc wrote: post #117
yojo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a firm believer in quality over quantity when it comes to news. Google News has gotten increasingly annoying though, forcing me harder toward the "personalized" results, the kind of filter bubble I'm intentionally trying to avoid. What worked well for me was getting a print subscription to the Economist. They definitely have a bias (particularly in their editorials), but it's mostly of the "free trade" variety, w…

I've done exactly the same thing. Grew tired mid pandemic Y1 of the constant drone and misinformation, just a continuation of how it had been going already. Print and digital sub to the Economist and then "banned" myself from reading 24hr/live news sites. Has been interesting to see how many real life conversations I've been in ~18m in where I've been (anecdotally) better informed, or able to add colour (the recent e…

I've definitely noticed having more background knowledge on major events. My wife still takes all her news digitally (mostly NYT), and I'm able to add a lot of color to her understanding of events when we talk through news of the day.

What's actually really surprising to me is how "not behind" my information normally is. I work my way through an issue over breakfasts and evenings in the course of the week, so my information is typically 2-9 days stale. It almost never matters.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#187

Post by quacked »

james-redwood wrote: post #144
flats wrote: post #83

I strongly agree with this. I would, however, like to call out one TV program here in the U.S. that I think comes much closer to approximating the experience of “reading a 5,000-word article”: PBS NewsHour. It’s great, completely free and available to watch online, and you can even get most of what you need from their podcast alone ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/segments ). It consists of fairly in…

I would have also recommended the Economist until I experienced a Gell-Mann amnesiac effect [1] with regards to an article they wrote about South Africa, a country where I lived much of my life in, in which they so horrifically butchered the coverage I simply canceled my subscription for fear of how inaccurate everything else might have been. [1]: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

What did they get wrong about it? I am particularly interested in South Africa; when I was young my favorite novel was set there (Spud by John Van De Ruit) and it's grown into a very interesting "split narrative" among Americans, who believe things about it depending on their political beliefs.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#188

Post by ppeetteerr »

wnolens wrote: post #129
ppeetteerr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with much of what you wrote. Finding curious and open minded people is super important and I would encourage you to spend the time to find people who actively participate in their society. Unless, of course, you'd rather not. > But you're not truly informed, at best you know the opinions of others. Or more typically, you're informed as to what media outlet publishes to get eyeballs for advertising revenue. I…

I'm a bit of a pessimist here. Finding open minded people has been very difficult. I've got a set, they are my oldest and best friends, spread across the continent now. What is your reading list and hours per week spent? If you are regularly reading several publications like the economist and keeping tabs on diverse set of news outlets, then you might be able to see the forest. But that takes significant time, and I…

I agree that it's difficult. I am very selective with friends and it takes months if not years to find a new friend. However, when one is found, they are a friend for life.

> What is your reading list and hours per week spent?

It's a combination of local (municipal, state) and national/international news. Local is easy and tends to be very factual. If you're in the US, there are a lot of smaller publication that report on local events related to your city or state.

For international news, something like r/worldnews is a good start.

National news is the trickiest one because it tends to be the most partisan and requires reading from multiple sources. I also ignore it the most for that reason (US national politics are a shitshow: no one cares about the house and senate, and over indexes on the president, which should have very limited power compared to congress).

I read about 10/12 hours per week.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#189

Post by jabroni_salad »

flats wrote: post #83

I strongly agree with this. I would, however, like to call out one TV program here in the U.S. that I think comes much closer to approximating the experience of “reading a 5,000-word article”: PBS NewsHour. It’s great, completely free and available to watch online, and you can even get most of what you need from their podcast alone ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/segments ). It consists of fairly in…

I feel like PBS is one of the few orgs that prioritizes quality above all else and really means it. Between newshour, NOVA, and the kids programming, they get a lot of playtime in my home.
Post reply on HN