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

Negativity drives online news consumption

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 375 posts

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#221

Post by collinvandyck76 »

siva7 wrote: post #193
Dalewyn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most common bit of wisdom I've heard from older folks is to ignore the news. Don't read the newspaper, don't watch TV news, don't listen to radio news, etc.; they all say nothing in them is worth our time. It's among the most useful piece of advice I've ever had.

Very true but does HN count? Would you be happier without your daily influx of GPT news and tech layoffs?

Not as much in my opinion. True, there are spikes of negative and cynical HN threads, but it's not nearly as consistently sustained as general news media.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#222

Post by UncleEntity »

ar-nelson wrote: post #156
t12hrow wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (a) they're reasonably likely to materially affect some significant portion of readers sometime in the next 6 months, and (b) there's something they can do about it or in response to it. That's the entire point. Who are you to decide that? How can you quantify 'likelyhood to be materially affected'? How can you empirically determine if 'someone can do something about X'? Your opinion is worth the same as the next g…

I get the sense that you think I'm saying more here than I actually am. I'm not proposing that this is the only kind of news that should exist, only that it would be nice if it existed for the kind of people that want to read (only) this kind of news. And I'm generally in agreement that most attempts to quantify 'truth' in media are hopelessly dependent on personal bias---but this mostly shows up in category #2 in my…

> …a government news service's commitment to the principles I listed could be defined by enforceable laws.

The problem is whoever controls the government and controls the news is also the one enforcing the laws.

You want to see suppression of “fake news”, aka anything that makes the ruling party look bad, then look no further than government run media services.

I think they thought long and hard before they add freedom of the press to the bill of rights.

NPR does a half-assed good job of providing unbiased news (they unironically claim that title) as long as it isn’t some hot button issue like Roe v Wade. In those cases they go into full on partisan politics propaganda machine mode. My absolute favorite, as I enjoy the absurd, was trotting out some kids who grew up in foster care with the implication that they would have been better off if their mother had had an abortion. Just an example, not a statement of purpose.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#224

Post by treeman79 »

bpm140 wrote: post #186

About a year ago, I stopped consuming news cold turkey (save technology and movie news [the former work-necessary and the latter a personal vice]). I took the extra step of banning Twitter and Memeorandum at the router level, so that I couldn't revert easily. I didn't read a single political news story in the ensuing six months. Some of the happiest months of my life. These days I will read the section headlines on M…

I’ve found that one needs to decide if they are going to get involved, or if there is a line that can be crossed that they are willing to get involved.

If not, ignore all news. If the line is crossed or going to be crossed soon. Then get involved.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#225

Post by flippinburgers »

siva7 wrote: post #193
Dalewyn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most common bit of wisdom I've heard from older folks is to ignore the news. Don't read the newspaper, don't watch TV news, don't listen to radio news, etc.; they all say nothing in them is worth our time. It's among the most useful piece of advice I've ever had.

Very true but does HN count? Would you be happier without your daily influx of GPT news and tech layoffs?

HN has changed a lot. As others have stated there is a lot of politics injected that I couldn't care less about.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#226

Post by throwaway742 »

olliecornelia wrote: post #3
numbers_guy wrote: post #2

Maybe it is because happy people do not consume the news? Happy people tend to have full lives and are therefore too busy to waste time ingesting news about events that are not going to personally affect them. Whereas, I can only speak for myself, but when I am down (like right now), I spend lots of time doing nothing but browsing news aggregator websites and leaving comments like this one. And of course, negative ne…

Some people are hoping for a catastrophe that will render all their personal problems irrelevant, be it World War III, environmental disasters or societal collapse. Like a snow day for your whole life.

I'm in this comment and I don't like it.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#227

Post by coldtea »

ar-nelson wrote: post #132
gwbrooks wrote: post #10

Former newspaper city editor here. With few exceptions, positive stories -- although readers clamored for them in surveys -- never drove newsrack sales the way negative stories did. That's why we had a whole section for feel-good features but they didn't usually get prime front-page real estate. In the age of infinite content, headlines have become a sort of drama arms race. But the basic dynamic of what works and wh…

The way I see it, news serves three purposes: --- 1. To let you know about local or world events that could affect you and those close to you. 2. To let you know about world events that affect others far away, in order to judge the effectiveness of political decisions and the necessity of future political decisions. 3. As a form of entertainment derived from the ongoing story of world history (or celebrity gossip, or…

>#2 is perhaps necessary for democracy to work

Citizens that are active and care, is what's necessary for democracy to work, that is, citizens which actively monitor, and participate in, political developments. Mere "informed voters" just voting once every 4-5 years do not really make democracy, even if we were to be generous and assume that the elections-very-X-years model and the existing representation hierarchies system are adequate.

Beyond that, for real democracy to work, the number one source of information of citizens should be real life experience with other citizens that they're actively learning from (their issues, grievances, etc with laws, political decisions, officials, etc) and collaborate with. Not the media.

In other words, voter who 99.9% of the time tend to their private affairs alone, can't make democracy work.

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#228

Post by flippinburgers »

olliecornelia wrote: post #3
numbers_guy wrote: post #2

Maybe it is because happy people do not consume the news? Happy people tend to have full lives and are therefore too busy to waste time ingesting news about events that are not going to personally affect them. Whereas, I can only speak for myself, but when I am down (like right now), I spend lots of time doing nothing but browsing news aggregator websites and leaving comments like this one. And of course, negative ne…

Some people are hoping for a catastrophe that will render all their personal problems irrelevant, be it World War III, environmental disasters or societal collapse. Like a snow day for your whole life.

Is is a snow day from their life or is it that their life hasn't or isn't going the way they expected but they perceive everyone else to be living fulfilling lives... and they would like to see that end?

Re: Negativity drives online news consumption

#229

Post by freeone3000 »

uncletammy wrote: post #199
wil421 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to watch my favorite local news station. They have a lot of minor stories that never make the National media. Although there are local issues like murders, thefts, and controversial topics. It’s still a huge downgrade from the rage inducing large outlets.

I expect youre being downvoted for the same reasons I felt the need to reply. I'm skeptical that any "local" news station is able to give you useful content without also pushing strong partisian agendas. What station is it? Asking with an open heart and mind. I would love it if such a thing exists in this day and age.

Local news tends to be way more actionable. City council meetings are attended by like... Thirty people? Max? I've shown up to ones where there are more people on the council than in the gallery. It's very easy to get your voice heard if you're in a crowd the size of a small classroom. And the impact is direct! They were going to accept the suburb negotiation for allocation of service renumeration based on assessed value rather than service quantity consumed! I voiced my opposition, as did several others; the motion was eventually decided against.

But if you're not reading your local paper, you might not even have known. Of course all three of mine are INCREDIBLY partisan, which is great because they're partisan in different ways :)

Post reply on HN