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

The Fandomization of News

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: The Fandomization of News

#51

Post by crimsontech »

878654Tom wrote: post #49

Made the same comment yesterday on another submission but it still fits this discussion. I suggest people who read a lot of news to read up on Rolf Dobelli's book named Stop Reading the news. I found it an eye-opener and have since blocked all news websites on every device. Currently 3 weeks without a newspaper and I don't feel I am missing a thing. The best chapters were the ones were he explained with great example…

I stopped following the news sometime in 2017 I think, it wasn’t really a conscious decision, I just felt annoyed or saddened by it.

A few years later I was talking to my dad and he was in a state, going on about current events and how bad things are so I told him I stopped following the news years ago and felt better for it.

About six months later he called me to tell me he also stopped after our call and realised he felt much better too.

A big part for me was that it was just a barrage of sad or scary topics which left me feeling helpless, mixed in with some celebrity antics which I didn’t care about.

I keep up with what’s going on in my industry, and science and technology through sites like this, newsletter subscriptions, podcasts, etc. But in general I’m mostly clueless to what is currently happening in the news.

It makes me feel somehow ignorant, but it works for me. If someone brings up a topic from the news I normally just say “Oh I hadn’t heard about that!” rather than explain I don’t follow the news.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#52

Post by [deleted] »

crimsontech wrote: post #51
878654Tom wrote: post #49

Made the same comment yesterday on another submission but it still fits this discussion. I suggest people who read a lot of news to read up on Rolf Dobelli's book named Stop Reading the news. I found it an eye-opener and have since blocked all news websites on every device. Currently 3 weeks without a newspaper and I don't feel I am missing a thing. The best chapters were the ones were he explained with great example…

I stopped following the news sometime in 2017 I think, it wasn’t really a conscious decision, I just felt annoyed or saddened by it. A few years later I was talking to my dad and he was in a state, going on about current events and how bad things are so I told him I stopped following the news years ago and felt better for it. About six months later he called me to tell me he also stopped after our call and realised h…

[deleted]

Re: The Fandomization of News

#53

Post by pasc1878 »

878654Tom wrote: post #49

Made the same comment yesterday on another submission but it still fits this discussion. I suggest people who read a lot of news to read up on Rolf Dobelli's book named Stop Reading the news. I found it an eye-opener and have since blocked all news websites on every device. Currently 3 weeks without a newspaper and I don't feel I am missing a thing. The best chapters were the ones were he explained with great example…

And so voters become less informed and so don't know what politician to vote for. How does this help society?

Re: The Fandomization of News

#54

Post by Terr_ »

hliyan wrote: post #46

One day, I hope we look at this period in history and marvel at the fact that our knowledge of current affairs was largely left to chance (or worse yet, algorithms that are designed not to inform but to sell) -- whatever happens to catch our eye as we scroll through our various timelines. With all the data, technology and query capabilities we have at hand, I'm surprised I can't set up preferences like this: drop spo…

> People bought personalized filter programs to skim a few droplets from that sea and keep the rest out. For some, subjective reality became the selected entertainments and special-interest zines passed through by those tailored shells.

> To avoid such staleness, Jen had hired a famous rogue hacker, Sri Ramanujan, to design her own filter. “Let’s see what happens to that list,” she said aloud, “when we use threshold seven, categories one through twenty.”

> “And the surprise factor, Professor Wolling?” Jen felt in a good mood. “Let’s go with twenty percent.” That meant one in five files would pop up randomly, in defiance of her own parameters.

-- Earth by David Brin

Re: The Fandomization of News

#55

Post by jacooper »

> The Los Angeles Times took note of V’s success and tapped them to help launch its own personality-based TikTok account. They’re one of many publications attempting to recreate the success of individual creators on TikTok within their newsroom.

But what's the point? TikTok doesn't share AD revenue, so why do all of that for nothing?

Is it in hope that these followers become readers?

I personally don't trust any single creator news source, a single person is much much easier to influence than a whole news agency.

I used to follow johnny Harris regularly, then he dropped an economic video about a supposed new economic model that's supported by many companies.

The issue is almost all the talking points in that video were taken from the WEF, the same "you will own nothing and be happy" guys.[1]

I still think news creators have a place in the news cycle, maybe for more fun stuff, like science questions maybe economics, Tom Scott style videos, or digital investigations like coffeezilla, but for real news, news agencies are still king, especially ones that are publicly funded.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw

Re: The Fandomization of News

#56

Post by 878654Tom »

pasc1878 wrote: post #53
878654Tom wrote: post #49

Made the same comment yesterday on another submission but it still fits this discussion. I suggest people who read a lot of news to read up on Rolf Dobelli's book named Stop Reading the news. I found it an eye-opener and have since blocked all news websites on every device. Currently 3 weeks without a newspaper and I don't feel I am missing a thing. The best chapters were the ones were he explained with great example…

And so voters become less informed and so don't know what politician to vote for. How does this help society?

He actually talks about this in his book, democracy already existed before newspapers became big (or even existed). People got informed through books, pamphlets, essays, debates and public gatherings. Now, some articles do inform the people more, one of the big examples is Watergate. But the difference in quality and research between the Watergate articles and the daily news is immense. Most political news-articles are nothing more than copy-pastes from what a politician sends to the writer and newspapers aren't the only medium where investigative journalism can exist. In my home-country a one-man journalist published some big scandals on his blog which showcased some unsavory corruption in one of our cities, all the big newspapers could only report what he already said, they had zero investigation themselves.

The other part is, do daily newspapers really inform you? Do they follow up the promises of candidates? Do they analyze effects of laws? Do they give you a neutral view of the situation?

Democracy can work fine without newspapers, maybe even better. Politicians in my country focus mostly to solve small fires without addressing the problems underneath it as those get them in the news but the big problems with complex solutions don't give them the same return of visibility in the papers versus the work required to fix it.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#57

Post by incompatible »

enlyth wrote: post #44
incompatible wrote: post #33

If you want to find out whether Lil Tay is dead or alive, it's a bit of a conundrum. Apparently, you can't trust any sites or accounts that she might have, since they could have been hacked. It's unlikely that you could get any government verification like a death certificate right away, and there won't be one if she is still alive, and who trusts the government anyway. The verification that she is alive comes from "…

TMZ are pretty much the de facto celebrity deaths reporters. They wouldn't risk their reputation by making up stuff like that.

But according to the article, “When there’s no face to it, it seems like it’s a corporation, and corporations to a lot of Gen Z equal bad or untrustworthy”. Do they make an exception for TMZ?

Re: The Fandomization of News

#58

Post by [deleted] »

eastbound wrote: post #42
theonlybutlet wrote: post #40

I'm a bit flabbergasted as an outsider. Reading these comments, there's such a lack of trust it seems in very basic tenets of society and it's institutions in America. (Dismissing certain factors to a degree I'd understand.) If this were an actual sample (which I hope it's not) the country may just descend into anomie.

Inversely, I’m flabbergasted that some people still have trust in institutions like journalism. I can’t count the times I knew about a subject, then read it in the newspapers and it was true. The scientific article that is not quoted in the article may say “…therefore we can’t conclude that XYZ” and all your colleagues are persuaded of XYZ because the AP or Reuteurs or AFP dépèche said “Scientists conclude on XYZ.” A…

[deleted]

Re: The Fandomization of News

#59

Post by mcny »

incompatible wrote: post #57
enlyth wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TMZ are pretty much the de facto celebrity deaths reporters. They wouldn't risk their reputation by making up stuff like that.

But according to the article, “When there’s no face to it, it seems like it’s a corporation, and corporations to a lot of Gen Z equal bad or untrustworthy”. Do they make an exception for TMZ?

I think you're moving goal posts here.

Do I trust TMZ if it tells me to do all my life savings into dogecoin? No. Do I believe if it tells me Michael Jackson has passed away? Absolutely.

There is nothing actionable for me with a celebrity's death but I'll take TMZ's word for it until proven otherwise and even then I'd expect tmz to publish a swift retraction.

Whether gen z trust faceless corporations I don't know but as a millennial, I know that it isn't a dichotomy. It isn't like faceless equals untrustworthy and a face equals trustworthy. I'm sure we have all listened to our CEOs and senior leaderships lie / "bend the truth" even when they know we know the truth. The only thing I'd like to urge and caution against is we don't continue the vilifying of future generations like the boomers did to us.

Re: The Fandomization of News

#60

Post by incompatible »

mcny wrote: post #59
incompatible wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But according to the article, “When there’s no face to it, it seems like it’s a corporation, and corporations to a lot of Gen Z equal bad or untrustworthy”. Do they make an exception for TMZ?

I think you're moving goal posts here. Do I trust TMZ if it tells me to do all my life savings into dogecoin? No. Do I believe if it tells me Michael Jackson has passed away? Absolutely. There is nothing actionable for me with a celebrity's death but I'll take TMZ's word for it until proven otherwise and even then I'd expect tmz to publish a swift retraction. Whether gen z trust faceless corporations I don't know but…

Fair enough. Vilifying younger generations is a tradition that goes back to antiquity.
Post reply on HN