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

The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 378 posts

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#291

Post by misterman0 »

intertextuality wrote: post #284
bilbo0s wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just took a look at my main "Go to", the BBC. It's difficult to tell, because the front page of BBC has so many more articles on it than the front page of HN, but the "outrage porn" proportion seems about equal to me. Right around 1/4 or 1/5 of the articles I would classify that way. Seems about the same as HN. Just for context, at the moment on HN, I'd say these are the "news"-y and "outrage porn"-y posts on the fro…

For starters, I think you're being extremely cynical. Second, unlike other news sources, HN tends to have moderate to high quality discussion. I come to HN because I tend to learn things and grow here. That's not to say that it's perfect of course, but I think you're being more than a bit dishonest when you compare HN to mainstream media news.

>> compare HN to mainstream media news

HN is a aggregator of (mainstream) media news. It is in a position where it should be able to achieve a better ratio between clickbait and non-clickbait than others. Parent suggested it doesn't. I agree. Huston, we have a problem.

Am I outraged over the fact? Not at all. Because I do not expect HN to be better than mainstream. And in fact it isn't. HN is just a different pie.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#292

Post by Barrin92 »

chillfox wrote: post #176
throwaway5752 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay a news site and I get high quality news from them that is curated. And since they make money from subscriptions, the need for eyeballs and page views is not a factor. Something to consider.

Care to share what news site that is?

Not OP, but for me it's an economist subscription. I've also dropped most of my news app usage (I feel disconnecting from the news altogether is a little too drastic) but I definitely feel less irritated without missing too much.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#293

Post by araker »

I've stopped follwing the news cycle 4 years ago. I realized it wasn't a proper source of information. News needs to be published fast, so there is no time to do a proper source check. It it short, so there is no room for other views. It needs to be simple, easily understood, so it uses the dominant world view as a frame. News needs to get attention/clicks, so it is focussed on negative events, creating a skewed view of the world.

I only read analysis, long reads, investigative articles and news sites that do not focus on news, but on (global) developments. A good example is https://thecorrespondent.com (english version not active yet), I'm a member of the dutch version and I really enjoy reading investigative pieces about our tax system, healthcare, forgotten dutch histories and so on.

All in all I can say that when I stopped following the news cycle, the mental clutter really reduced and it made me feel better.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#294

Post by jiggunjer »

roenxi wrote: post #127
EGreg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember someone coined a concept recently that when you read about a problem in the world that you can help alleviate then you become morally responsible. It’s liks quantum entanglement but with ethics. Found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949572 What about that? Coming upon news where you can make a difference right now, by sending money to NGOs with workers on the ground.

That is an impractical argument. Say there is a situation that Alfred have the power to effect. To reliably cause change for the good Alfred must: (1) Identify a problem and its root cause (2) Change the root cause (3) Confirm that the problem is solved. There are people who claim you can leap straight to (2) and skip (3). These are people who (if they ever honestly checked) would discover that they are not responsib…

You can frequently skip (1) because the actionable options are clear, or you can trust the news/charities have identified the cause that requires the least resources to fix/mitigate the problem.

The term 'root cause' is problematic because it assumes a simplistic cause-effect model. However, a problem may be the consequence of a complex 'chain reaction' of events. Most charities identify a single event leading up to a problem and focus on eliminating/mitigating that.

E.g. a problem is: people in country X dying unnaturally every year. The immediate cause is starvation, which is indirectly caused by famine as a result of multiple factors like poor farming technology and government policy. There is no 'root cause', and attempting to solve the farming problem might be much less resource efficient harder than just providing emergency rations every year.

Another problem with your wording is 'change for the good'. If famine death is reduced by 100 deaths for each 1000USD donated, is this a 'change'? Or would Alfred only take action if it would possibly result in entirely stopping the deaths 100%?

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#295

Post by stubish »

Faark wrote: post #228
clay_the_ripper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the same thing about 4 years ago and haven’t looked back. I find though that a lot of people are actually offended by it since I have no clue what thing they and everyone else is outraged about. I get accused of not caring, being disengaged, blah blah blah. It’s difficult to explain to people who are still deep in outrage mode, so I mostly avoid taking about it. My life is so much better since cutting out the new…

How do you know whom to vote for? I understand the US doesn't have a lot of choice on the ballot, political news is highly polarized and latest/developing news is probably not worth following. But somewhat keeping up with what your government does so you can hold it accountable seems like a civic duty to me. And what better way to do this than news?

When all the major parties have completely stopped serving your interests, following big media is pointless as it neglects the minor parties. You need to research it yourself or subscribe to fringe media, and you have more time to do that and are better informed if you don't waste your time with big media.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#296

Post by lefstathiou »

Argh, it pains me that even professionals cannot get the word "peruse" right...

"I skim e-mail newsletters in my in-box, scroll through my Twitter feed, and peruse the news apps on my phone; later, in the office, I tap through my notifications and monitor more than a dozen news-related apps, including Facebook and Twitter, while juggling other tasks. I usually feel as though I’m managing to stay abreast of the day’s biggest news stories, but my reading tends to be fragmentary—I’m only skimming a story or absorbing a partial update."

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#297

Post by hutattedonmyarm »

ac130kz wrote: post #289

Are those fonts a special journalist joke? They are 100% unreadable, I just don't understand why a reputable newspaper/journal would use such font selection.

Looks fine for me[0] The title has a weird font, but still legible

[0]https://i.imgur.com/0CkHdIP_d.jpg

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#298

Post by _cs2017_ »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #206
_cs2017_ wrote: post #36

The article and the comments express the desire for news to be an effective tool to inform and educate the public. While appealing, this idea has never worked in the past, and there's no evidence that it can work in the near future. The reason is not that the media or the journalists do something wrong. Rather, the vast majority of the public is simply not interested in being educated or informed. You can send the be…

The problem might even be more fundamental than public interest. Even if we had the best possible news organizations, with the best possible journalists, only honest, upright politicians and interest groups, and the best possible news consumers that were interested in the right things, it still might be impossible for most people to be truly knowledgeable about anything but very, very narrow slices of the world, most…

I suspect that as long as humans remain the same species, we'll never get to the point where the majority of the population is informed. It's just not fun for most people; or it's too hard; or both.

The trick is to find a system of government that still results in a stable, functional, and comfortable society, even though most of the people have basically no clue what's going on.

I think the Federalist papers were a decent attempt to design such a system of government. In fact, I think it's worked quite well for the past 200+ years.

Perhaps the world changed so much that a new approach might work better. Perhaps that same approach will continue working for a while longer, especially if it evolves a bit. It's a interesting topic but sadly I don't have any good insights to share.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#299

Post by noyesno »

specialist wrote: post #248
Accacin wrote: post #93

I try and avoid the news whenever possible. Nothing good can come from it. I do however subscribe to a newspaper/magazine called 'Private Eye' that comes out fortnightly. Let's me catch up on the important news :)

I would like a "fortnightly" version of HN, reddit, etc: Show me the popular stories from two weeks ago, after things have settled down. I really only want the conclusions vs the real time updates. It'd also help mitigate my compulsion to participate.

Check out hackernewsletter.com. The only downside is that you will be too late to add your own comments.

Re: The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News

#300

Post by jiggunjer »

dba7dba wrote: post #211
steelframe wrote: post #14

I stopped reading the news about a year ago. I felt like my emotions were being manipulated by a sharply-honed system built precisely to invoke outrage and draw you in to read more and more of it. I've been able to direct my focus and energy to much more productive tasks since I disconnected. Of course I entirely missed that whole Supreme Court thing until after it was over, and I have no idea what people around me a…

I have been reading news (news on real paper) since I could barely understand what I was reading about. I read news often just for reading. But I have also stopped reading/watching/hearing news. When election time comes, I will read the laws being proposed, do some google search and pick a candidate or yay/nay a proposition (I live in California). Just step back and reconsider what 'news' is trying to tell you from a…

You read the law proposals? I don't have weeks to decipher and interpret dry verbose text and cross-reference each party's stance on it by sending emails. Especially since my country has 10+ national fractions.

In general, I try to understand their underlying values by reading discussions and previous news items. I vote based on values, not legislation snapshots.

Post reply on HN