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

Things You Notice When You Quit the News

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 502 posts

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#211

Post by white-flame »

I find the best source for current events news is large general internet forums, if it's not related to some hyper-selective socially slanted cluster like social media groups. You tend to get multiple perspectives, but also a higher chance of having actual people close to or directly informed about the goings on, and hopefully decent moderation to keep the discussion sane.

Real perspective and information is nearly impossible to get from for-profit sources. It's not really what they peddle, but rather sizzle and shock value.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#212

Post by grzm »

tw04 wrote: post #209
cloakandswagger wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at recent events if you need further evidence of this. The term "fake news" has exploded in just under a month in the mainstream media. If my memory serves me, tabloids like The Enquirer have been sitting on news stands for as long as I can remember. So how did this fervor over "fake news" coalesce so quickly and uniformly? Mainstream outlets move in lockstep with each other and these are the final, desperate de…

It coalesced when the "MSM" managed to get the election outcome in the US so comically wrong. The only possible reason for the mistake was "fake news". It turns out "fake news" has been a driving force since roughly the time twitter arrived. I can only hope the (in theory) REAL media will eventually give up on "first is best" and instead focus on ACTUAL REPORTING . Relaying what twitter has to say about a world event…

Have you read Ryan Holiday's "Trust Me I'm Lying"? I found it a great read on the current media situation.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#213

Post by white-flame »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #118

This is incredibly relevant to me rn. I recently cut the cord and quit FB. I legitimately do feel much happier. My FB feed was just a stream of things to get pissed about and MSNBC was just filling my head with other people's opinions. Here's my daily routine: skim thehill.com, politico.com, reddit.com/r/news for headlines zerohedge.com when I want to see what's going on in right-wing land newsblok.com if I want to s…

I find realclearpolitics.com to be a broad slice of articles and videos from "both sides", as well as holding actual raw polling data when questionably sounding statistics are being bandied about. It also links to other non-political news in other areas, showing the major splash headlines.

Its front page is also very information dense, so it's a lot more efficient than hitting all those sites individually. I believe I've seen content referenced there from most those sites you've listed.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#215

Post by sooheon »

nkurz wrote: post #173
leephillips wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenwald's "excellent" piece is itself fake news. It deliberately misrepresents the reporting done by Kurt Eichenwald about the leaked emails. We know it's deliberate because he's distorted the story the same way in the past and it's been pointed out to him. Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false, but showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russia…

Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false When I follow a link from Greenwald's piece I see this tweet that was sent by Eichenwald: "Russian gov manipulates email to @johnpodesta. Publishes disinformation. Takes it down. Trump recites false info." https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/785676641880027136 I interpret "manipulates" as claiming that the emails to Podesta were changed by the Russi…

I had the same question as you and skimmed Eichenwald's article. He claims that his own words were attributed to someone else (Blumenthal) in these manipulated leaks, and subsequently parroted by trump. He had written a long article about Benghazi, and the email leak takes Blumenthal's quotation of that out of context, misattributing it.

It checks out, and at least on that point Eichenwald seems to be closer to the truth than Greenwald is (Greenwald hardly has anything to say in his own article about the details of the Eichenwald situation, only name-drops and sneers). It looks like this is Greenwald raising his hackles because he perceives his work with wikileaks to be under attack from Eichenwaldl.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#216

Post by RodericDay »

siberianbear wrote: post #203
colordrops wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist also has a fairly evident political agenda.

Has The Economist shifted? I started reading it in about 2000, and at the time I really liked it because it seemed so intelligent and neutral. It seemed like such a pleasure to read something that went deep into interesting topics without an obvious axe to grind. In the past ten years it seems to have drifted gradually leftward. Sometimes I can't reconsile The Economist of 2000 with the one of 2016. Did The Economist…

Left? The Economist has a blatant liberal slant.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#217

Post by ianai »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #204
closeparen wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is it beneficial to learn about every instance of "humans behaving badly"? Because it is your civic responsibility to care that such things are happening in your community, and to allocate your political activity, voting, and charitable giving in a way that you believe will mitigate that suffering. Because if everyone said, "sometimes humans behave badly; why should I care?" we'd be living in a hellscape.

I see your point. I guess I would prefer a summary every month/year, vs. a graphic live video report each night.

It's because violence gets viewers and it's a constant. Every channel has a weather man/woman for the same reasons.

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#218

Post by sooheon »

leephillips wrote: post #150
tshaddox wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have a "nuh uh, YOU'RE the one that's fake" situation between two apparently reputable news sources, on a topic with which you have no personal experience or expertise, how are you supposed to figure out which ones are fake? The instances of so-called "fake news" that I have seen are quite easy for me to "verify" as fake with relative confidence: it's generally an explicitly partisan source with a shady-look…

Greenwald's fake news is his false description of Eichenwald's reporting. If you read Eichenwald's article, then you have all the "personal experience" you need to see that Greenwald is misrepresenting what he reported. And when you look up Greenwald's past, identical lies, you see that this misinformation campaign is deliberate. It's not a matter of opinion or of trying to judge competing claims. It's laid out right…

Does HN have a hard-on for Greenwald? I really cannot understand the down votes here. I took 7 minutes to skim the article in question, and Eichenwald's point is very simple: his own word were misattributed to someone else, and Trump regurgitated this misinformation, knowingly or not. So many people are arguing from ignorance here...

Re: Things You Notice When You Quit the News

#220

Post by sooheon »

tshaddox wrote: post #137
leephillips wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenwald's "excellent" piece is itself fake news. It deliberately misrepresents the reporting done by Kurt Eichenwald about the leaked emails. We know it's deliberate because he's distorted the story the same way in the past and it's been pointed out to him. Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false, but showed, to a high degree of certainty, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russia…

When you have a "nuh uh, YOU'RE the one that's fake" situation between two apparently reputable news sources, on a topic with which you have no personal experience or expertise, how are you supposed to figure out which ones are fake? The instances of so-called "fake news" that I have seen are quite easy for me to "verify" as fake with relative confidence: it's generally an explicitly partisan source with a shady-look…

Did you actually read the two articles in question, or did you just look to see whether the sources were "reputable"? In this case, there is a clear discrepancy of facts between the two, and it's not hard to come to an informed opinion. Just read.
Post reply on HN