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

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 741 posts

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#541

Post by el_ravager »

drenvuk wrote: post #533
ff317 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite recommendation in this vein is The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ . They've got some great writers and editors and often deliver pretty unique insights. Their articles tend towards long-ish-form, but not nearly as long as e.g. the New Yorker. They're a little less world-focused and more US-centric, but not completely. There is some bias (isn't there always?), but I've seen them cover a si…

The Atlantic. The New Yorker. The Economist. These are neutral to left facing. In a feeble effort to avoid being put in a different bubble, does anyone have something that an educated republican/conservative would read?

None of those publications are leftist in the least. However, they do all happen to share a very strong neoliberal bias—which would put one in more of a corporate centrist bubble—akin to watching just CNN and MSNBC on cable. If you want news without extra commentary, just go straight to Reuters and/or AP.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#542

Post by snoman »

hadlock wrote: post #344
Swenrekcah wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can fully attest to the quality of the Economist but I caution anyone to subscribe because they don’t provide any way to easily unsubscribe. It’s either to call some phone number or attempt it via live chat. I tried the second option and the representative just went on with the script trying to fatigue me out of it, no matter what I said.

When it comes to magazine subscriptions, I just cancel payment via credit card dispute, it auto-resolves itself. Generally I frown upon this kind of thing but yeah it's so hard to cancel that you sort of have to pick the nuclear option with them.

Same here, but I have no ethical qualms about going nuclear. I don’t have time to run the maze of bs dark patterns that companies concoct to try to force me into paying them.

Whenever I’m trying to cancel anything, if there isn’t an obvious and easy way to do so, I just send an email to whatever customer help/etc. mailbox I can find notifying them of the cancellation with 30 days notice. In the mail I tell them that after 30 days I will claw back any payment via my credit card.

I’ve only had to do it twice, and only had to claw back 1 payment, but I’ve never had an issue.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#543

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

cnelsenmilt wrote: post #380
ROTMetro wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to find the Economist great, but with the corrosiveness of everything this last bit, they seem to sneak agenda into articles now days in a way I feel like this whole post is trying to move away from. Maybe as a lost Libertarian who can't stand the control everyone's lives progressives I feel that has crept quite a bit into the Economist. It's funny it bothers me as I have reached a point where I feel Libertari…

> I have reached a point where I feel Libertarianism just isn't compatible with the realities of the modern world as much as this child of hippies wishes it was You may have interest in the writings of the Niskanen Center https://www.niskanencenter.org/ They work from a similar position. For example, I was hugely impressed by this essay https://www.niskanencenter.org/what-the-pandemic-revealed/ I don't know a regular…

Reason magazine is in broadly the same territory.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#544

Post by andrepd »

yojo wrote: post #54
macksd wrote: post #4

I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…

I'm a firm believer in quality over quantity when it comes to news. Google News has gotten increasingly annoying though, forcing me harder toward the "personalized" results, the kind of filter bubble I'm intentionally trying to avoid. What worked well for me was getting a print subscription to the Economist. They definitely have a bias (particularly in their editorials), but it's mostly of the "free trade" variety, w…

The Economist is extremely biased. It's only that their bias is so "natural" to you that you don't even question it or even recognise it, it just seems part of objective reality. There's the "globalised neoliberal capitalism" bias you mention, but also the "US foreign policy" bias for instance. It certainly prevents you from seeing many things in an accurate light.

There is no escaping it: you have to consume plural sources in order to be well-informed, otherwise you're subject to biases. Personally I stick to Reuters/AP + various newspapers.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#545

Post by [deleted] »

jollybean wrote: post #490
secabeen wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist is clearly not a Libertarian newspaper. They represent the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been.

"the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been." ? The 'classical liberal' position is literally the foundation of 'Libertarianism', which is a specifically modern American concept.

[deleted]

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#546

Post by andrepd »

mastazi wrote: post #468
ROTMetro wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I friggin love the Atlantic even though most of the time they have a way different political view than me. They don't hide their view but instead of assuming it's universal they give details and context for their views, where as the Economist seems to hide their agenda and present the underlying story to lead you to their point of view based on the facts and details they choose to report. The Atlantic has discourse a…

> the Economist seems to hide their agenda I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc. I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them…

>They don't hide it. I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre")

My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into something that is objective, common-sense, and neutral.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#547

Post by themacguffinman »

ethbr0 wrote: post #531
themacguffinman wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you think (2) relies on groups being farsighted and patient. The frog boiling that happens today is almost always a result of chaotic incentivization. Politics is very different today than maybe 20 years ago. No conspiracy needed for that. Yet these unintentional or perhaps even well-intentioned changes to the status quo can be worth observing and reasoning about. A single district mandating critical…

As to the slow shifts, I said they were the opposite of rare, and indeed constantly happening as consensus shifts and is rebrokered. Which was a response to the comment I was replying to, regarding distinguishing actual danger from everything else. Danger, to me, means subversion of democracy and/or individual freedoms. Which means either a minority wilfully shifting the zeitgeist out of proportion with their strengt…

Awareness of current news allows you to see that a shift is happening at all.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#548

Post by andrepd »

drenvuk wrote: post #533
ff317 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal favorite recommendation in this vein is The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ . They've got some great writers and editors and often deliver pretty unique insights. Their articles tend towards long-ish-form, but not nearly as long as e.g. the New Yorker. They're a little less world-focused and more US-centric, but not completely. There is some bias (isn't there always?), but I've seen them cover a si…

The Atlantic. The New Yorker. The Economist. These are neutral to left facing. In a feeble effort to avoid being put in a different bubble, does anyone have something that an educated republican/conservative would read?

That someone can honestly say with a straight face that "the Economist is left-facing" speaks volumes to the sad state of the Overton window.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#549

Post by [deleted] »

jollybean wrote: post #490
secabeen wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Economist is clearly not a Libertarian newspaper. They represent the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been.

"the classical liberal position, which is not Libertarian, and never has been." ? The 'classical liberal' position is literally the foundation of 'Libertarianism', which is a specifically modern American concept.

[deleted]

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#550

Post by Aunche »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #222
rootusrootus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your example just highlights my point. Currently abortion rights are enshrined at the federal level. The SCOTUS is not going to ban abortions. They are going to throw it right back down to the state level. If you lose access to abortions, it is because your local politicians decided to ban them. This is exactly why you don't put your faith in the federal government and pay more attention to local government.…

Your claim was the President has the lowest impact on one’s life. As I showed, it is a reality that the President’s actions have a significant impact on people’s lives, probably bigger than a mayor or state senator or state representative probably has in the recent past. Whether the President should or should not is irrelevant. The salient fact is that if the presidential election results for 2016 were different, the…

>As I showed, it is a reality that the President’s actions have a significant impact on people’s lives, probably bigger than a mayor or state senator or state representative probably has in the recent past.

The president nominating a justice that decided to allow the Texas abortion law to remain in effect while it is being challenged has a bigger impact than the state senator who drafted the law?

Of course, the President has more power overall, but your ability to have any impact in that election is infinitesimal if you're in a swing state and non-existent otherwise. The fact Congressional districts are gerrymandered is all the more reason to vote for state legislatures. Even in local districts that are dominated by a single party, the real election occurs during the primaries. Chances are, if you get to know the candidates, there's going to be one you prefer.

People seem to forget that the purpose of democracy is to give a chance to make sure your own interests are heard, not to give you an opportunity to impose your will on the rest of the country. Our government isn't designed for the latter. You'd need a more authoritarian structure to do that. Trying to do so in a democracy just results in politicians who are more interested in virtue signaling absolutist positions than drafting policy that genuinely benefits their constituents.

Post reply on HN