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

591–600 of 741 posts

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

#591

Post by seanmcdirmid »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #75
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…

We had a similar experience recently. We curate everything the kids watch so that they're not exposed to ads (as much as possible). Anyway, we had been watching the Olympics (can we please not let NBC have the Olympics anymore!?), and wow, every time the ads came on you could visibly see the kids demeanor change. They were hyper-focused. Then they started repeating the ads during the day then next day during play.

My son just gets annoyed when he can’t find the “Skip Ad” button on the TV. That he has no experience with cable or broadcast TV is probably going to shock him eventually.

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

#592

Post by weq »

I quit new 4 years ago when the Australian Right Wing extremist government was reelected after a properganda campagine by Rupert Murdoch. I said i wouldnt watch the news until the next election.

Come next election, i will never watch TV/the news, again. There is no need for it. I solicit news from my friends when i feel like i want to consume it (hardly ever). I instead spend time out in my community and neighbourhood doing what i can to improve the direct situation around me for which i have control.

If you spend your evening reviewing all the death and destruction and uncertaintity around the world, you will live a very lonely life.

I travelled the world pre-covid and nothing gives a worse picture of what the world really is then "the news"

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

#594

Post by Quindecillion »

I quit news a few months ago, but I felt guilty about it for a while. The feeling was that it was only through my exorbitant privilege that I was able to do that, but in all honestly... do people less privilege than myself derive any value from watching/consuming the news too? Does it help improve their situation? I'd say that in most cases the answer is "no".

What I've found is that the news I really need to know about reaches me anyway.

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

#595

Post by inopinatus »

andrepd wrote: post #546
mastazi wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 somethi…

It's an effort to distance themselves from those left/right labels that are so thoroughly debased as to afford little meaning[1].

The term "extreme centre" is far from new. It was used in 1955 by Geoffrey Crowther, editor at the time, when he said "the extreme centre is the paper's historical position"

[1] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/02/...

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

#596

Post by sinuhe69 »

I agree with most points and I myself read and watch very little news, except for the most important ones. But I want also to highlight the still relevance of news and more importantly the conversations surround it.

For me as an on-the-side investor, relevant news can mean gain or loss. Conflicts like the Ukraine-Russian one can affect the price of oil and gas significantly, not just in the short term. We’ve also seen how much global logistics was affected by the event of Evergreen blocking the Sue canal. There are countless examples like that.

The second important aspect of news for me is the sentiment and conversation surround it. I want to understand what other people are thinking, what do they feel and how they are trying to explain and substantiate their thinking/believe. It’s not always intellectually enriching but sometimes it can be even enlightening, especially when it proved I was wrong or mistaken. Completely unaware of current news would not allow me to converse with people like that.

Nevertheless, I also see that most media today are trying to polarize people more than ever with the results that people are increasingly driven by belief and ideology instead of facts and logics. I afraid the classic news and reporting is an endangered species and reading news today will likely endanger your (not just mental) health.

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

#597

Post by inopinatus »

Talanes wrote: post #559
andrepd wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 somethi…

It's fine to be upset about the Overton window of American politics, but I don't think it's too egregious that an American publication describe their politics within the usual political language of their country. Or, at the very least, it's not deceptive to call themselves "centre" as neoliberals in a country where the majority understand "centre" to mean "neoliberals" (even if they don't actually know what "neoliber…

The Economist is a British publication.

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

#598

Post by lodovic »

andrepd wrote: post #548
drenvuk wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You keep repeating the Economist is rightwing in this thread, but it seems most here disagree with you. I mean, Fox, Breitbart or the NY Post are pretty much rightwing, and the Economist does not even compare, both in tone and in content. What puts them in the right wing camp according to yo?

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

#599

Post by onethought »

dnissley wrote: post #565
andrepd wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 somethi…

Could you clarify what you mean without using the words right, left, or neoliberal? All of which are extremely vague.

Not the OP but,

Right: conservative. Policy designed to preserve corporate interests and wealthy elite. Often masquerading as “looking after the middle class” - when really at best they get some trickle down benefits. Selfishly You should be right leaning if you are a significant owner of capital or have a very high chance of that (they will convince you that everyone has this chance).

Left: Progressive (in that it looks to reform the existing structure). Policy design to assist the working class (wage earners). It typically looks to take from corporates/wealthy elite and redistribute. Selfishly You should be left leaning if you don’t own significant capital and derive most of your income from wages.

Unselfishly you should err on the side of the left as it is aiming for a “greater good”.

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

#600

Post by Pamar »

Talanes wrote: post #559
andrepd wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 somethi…

It's fine to be upset about the Overton window of American politics, but I don't think it's too egregious that an American publication describe their politics within the usual political language of their country. Or, at the very least, it's not deceptive to call themselves "centre" as neoliberals in a country where the majority understand "centre" to mean "neoliberals" (even if they don't actually know what "neoliber…

When you say "an American publication" you mean The Economist?

They are not exactly Americans, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

Post reply on HN