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

Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 333 posts

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#321

Post by RonaldRaygun »

guscost wrote: post #260
RonaldRaygun wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very strange that an unusually terrible politician would have an unusual number of negative articles written about him, isn't it? Clearly this is bias in action. Many people don't realize that everyone has exactly the same moral standing, and that any indication to the contrary is not to be trusted. Thank goodness we have the catchphrases "Orange Man Bad" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to safely allow us to ignore…

You have part of a point. But then you also go into this fantasy where most criticism of Trump is the sober assessment of dispassionate intellectuals with no conflicts of interest, rather than plain old opposition PR funded by the people whose power he threatens. You’re not seeing the whole picture by a long shot.

> But then you also go into this fantasy where most criticism of Trump is the sober assessment of dispassionate intellectuals with no conflicts of interest

I used sarcasm to make a point, yes. Here, you have claimed I've said something completely outside of the content of my post.

I base my criticism of Donald Trump solely on his actions and his words. They are indelible, and a clear-eyed person needs nothing beyond them to understand who his is and what he represents.

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#322

Post by luckylion »

thefucnjosh wrote: post #319
luckylion wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the illiterate can see the problems. But he will not know how they came to be, or how they could be resolved. Will the literate know ? It seems similar to a sports fan saying what the coach should do. They absolutely know that if they'd just do X, they'd win. I have zero knowledge about professional sports. My guess is that neither I nor that kind of fan actually do know how to coach a professional sports team…

What experiences have you had in the world that make you think things are so complicated? From what I've seen in my short time, it seems like when you get "experts" in a room you get closed-mindedness because everyone thinks alike. I can't even begin to think of an example were a voter would need to be an expert to be informed. But I can think of dozens of examples of bad policies that experts have backed. Book bans,…

There are obvious things like "should we just blow up the planet for lolz?" where you don't need to be an expert. But there's also a lot of stuff where a universe of complexity expands once you look close enough. Things have unintended side effects, and the average voter will not and can not spend the time to look close enough to even notice that there are side effects, much less what they are or how they are connected.

"That's easy, just do X" is usually something non-experts say, me included in things that I know nothing about. I like to look into some of those things and usually learn that it's not as simple as a cursory glance makes it look. That's also why most people shouldn't be day traders.

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#323

Post by zarkov99 »

aww_dang wrote: post #320
zarkov99 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure admiting that there is a bias would make any difference. Its plain to see. I think the fundamental problem is that the bias is the main thing now. It trumps everything, including decency, respect for your fellow citizen or the profession. Activism has become the mission. The people who think this is OK seem to lack the imagination to realize how quickly the BS firehose can turn towards when unencumbered…

I'm not sure they are aware of what they are doing. It isn't hard to imagine them claiming they're only reporting 'the truth'. Deep convictions have a way of shaping perceptions. Partisan 'fact-check' outlets are a good example of this. An admission of bias would serve as a disclaimer and a reminder for the consumer of news. Integrating the disclaimer into the writing could actively influence how the article is writt…

That is interesting. You do not think the people at CNN, NYT, WPro and Foxnews are aware of their biases? It seems so hard to believe.

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#325

Post by aww_dang »

zarkov99 wrote: post #323
aww_dang wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure they are aware of what they are doing. It isn't hard to imagine them claiming they're only reporting 'the truth'. Deep convictions have a way of shaping perceptions. Partisan 'fact-check' outlets are a good example of this. An admission of bias would serve as a disclaimer and a reminder for the consumer of news. Integrating the disclaimer into the writing could actively influence how the article is writt…

That is interesting. You do not think the people at CNN, NYT, WPro and Foxnews are aware of their biases? It seems so hard to believe.

Let's take WaPo as an example. They changed their tagline to "Democracy dies in darkness" after Trump won.

I imagine they know they don't like the guy, but in their minds it is justified. I suspect there's a fair proportion of their staff who believes enacting Godwin's law isn't hyperbole.

For them, selectively misquoting the Charlottesville press conference isn't misleading, because they believe that they know the _truth_ about his intentions.

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#326

Post by zarkov99 »

aww_dang wrote: post #325
zarkov99 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is interesting. You do not think the people at CNN, NYT, WPro and Foxnews are aware of their biases? It seems so hard to believe.

Let's take WaPo as an example. They changed their tagline to "Democracy dies in darkness" after Trump won. I imagine they know they don't like the guy, but in their minds it is justified. I suspect there's a fair proportion of their staff who believes enacting Godwin's law isn't hyperbole. For them, selectively misquoting the Charlottesville press conference isn't misleading, because they believe that they know the _…

All right, but these are intelligent adults, not children, why wouldn’t they see the exact issues you mention? Isn’t it a more natural explanation that they of course see it, but believe their misinformation is justified because Trump in their eyes is an existential threat to democracy?

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#327

Post by zarkov99 »

maxerickson wrote: post #318
zarkov99 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you should not be in journalism. It can't be done that way and what can be done that way is worse than useless.

You aren't really addressing what I am getting at. There's too much happening for the simple editorial decisions that go into choosing what to talk about for an hour to not end up looking like bias.

Maybe that makes a little sense for live media. Maybe. But you cannot tell me the nyt or wpost do not have the resources for thoughtful editorialization.

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#328

Post by aww_dang »

zarkov99 wrote: post #326
aww_dang wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take WaPo as an example. They changed their tagline to "Democracy dies in darkness" after Trump won. I imagine they know they don't like the guy, but in their minds it is justified. I suspect there's a fair proportion of their staff who believes enacting Godwin's law isn't hyperbole. For them, selectively misquoting the Charlottesville press conference isn't misleading, because they believe that they know the _…

All right, but these are intelligent adults, not children, why wouldn’t they see the exact issues you mention? Isn’t it a more natural explanation that they of course see it, but believe their misinformation is justified because Trump in their eyes is an existential threat to democracy?

>believe their misinformation is justified

More or less, but the belief may be strong enough that they don't view it as misinformation. If they already believe Trump is a racist, selectively quoting his press conference in a way that construes him as a racist is accurate in their eyes. The full quote where he criticizes the racist groups could be viewed as Trump lying or hiding his true intentions, so they may feel it is their duty to not report that.

Of course journalists are individuals and there's a spectrum of this behavior on both sides of the aisle, but this is my take. Willful ignorance isn't only for children or idiots. Let's also observe the volume of illogical and often emotional arguments presented.

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#329

Post by arolihas »

Foivos wrote: post #304
vinbreau wrote: post #128

I reconnected with an old friend from childhood a few years ago. I knew he was politically opposite from me so I kept politics out of our conversations... do you know how hard that is? It's hard enough that it requires effort, effort that he noted. He accused me of being closed off and never saying what I really wanted to. I made it clear we should not go there. He told me that several years ago watching the news mad…

> He eventually said he found all women of my wife's race "unattractive" and then could not understand why I was upset at him. Obviously, I am not aware of the full context of the conversation you had or even his tone and this could make a huge difference. But I have to note that he did not call a whole race "stupid" or "lazy" or anything else objectively racist. He just expressed a sexual preference. What is wrong w…

It would be very rude to say something like that to your friend. He effectively called a whole race ugly in his eyes. We don’t know the race mentioned but I think you can imagine a context where that would be considered more offensive and sensitive than red hair.

Re: Reading too much political news is bad for your well-being

#330

Post by Foivos »

arolihas wrote: post #329
Foivos wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He eventually said he found all women of my wife's race "unattractive" and then could not understand why I was upset at him. Obviously, I am not aware of the full context of the conversation you had or even his tone and this could make a huge difference. But I have to note that he did not call a whole race "stupid" or "lazy" or anything else objectively racist. He just expressed a sexual preference. What is wrong w…

It would be very rude to say something like that to your friend. He effectively called a whole race ugly in his eyes. We don’t know the race mentioned but I think you can imagine a context where that would be considered more offensive and sensitive than red hair.

I agree. It shows at minimum lack of empathy / interpersonal skills and at maximum an attempt to offend him.

It is not racist though.

Post reply on HN