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

721–730 of 741 posts

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

#721

Post by hutzlibu »

macksd wrote: post #715
onethought wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they wanted to move wealth, and consolidate it. So you could be fooled into initially thinking it was a leftist agenda when it was “take wealth away from rich bankers”. But it quite quickly deteriorated to something else. It’s important distinction that at the extremes both left and right don’t look that different. It is essentially use extreme violence to achieve wealth distribution/consolidation. Typically once…

So 17 levels below a comment I made about the news just making everyone angry and addicted to it, people are still commenting about whether Nazis are economically left or right. I guess that tracks.

Oh, people can always fight about and against nazis.

But I am not angry, just mildly annoyed, that my point does not get through.

(my point was the left right metric is not helpful - but when applied, you will find not a homogenous group, but right leaning nazis, as well as left leaning nazis, when defining right or left with distributing or conserving wealth. Another common definition would be racist, or not.

But I am out of this semantic debate)

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

#722

Post by minusSeven »

One thing I can suggest is to switch to business news instead. Business news is more inclined to give all the facts rather than give an opinion on things. Also looking at things from a business perspective is usually much more neutral and you learn a lot more. Regardless of this you shouldn't be consuming news on TV anyway.

This article isn't new though. Similar articles have been posted in HN since 2010s.

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

#723

Post by env123 »

I have to say this again for the Economist fan girls here. It's still news, it may be more objective in tone and content than other publications, but it still influences negative thinking. Negative thinking is part of the job of global leaders or actual economists, so unless you're one, you're not doing yourself a favor

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

#724

Post by env123 »

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…

I have to say this again for the Economist fan girls here. It's still news, it may be more objective in tone and content than other publications, but it still influences negative thinking. Negative thinking is part of the job of global leaders or actual economists, so unless you're one, you're not doing yourself a favor

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

#725

Post by meatsauce »

ff317 wrote: post #296
yojo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

I like reading the Atlantic when I want to know which propaganda the DNC is pushing for the day.

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

#726

Post by escapedmoose »

I’m a bit amazed at how many people here watch the news. Of course you’re going to feel better if you don’t watch it; TV/internet news is the bottom of the barrel. If you don’t subscribe to your local paper though, you’re really missing out, imo. You get a sense of community, and info that actually impacts your life, that is actionable. And usually if a non-local story is big enough, the local paper will report on it anyway.

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

#727

Post by jacquesm »

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.

> The 'classical liberal' position is literally the foundation of 'Libertarianism', which is a specifically modern American concept.

Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

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

#728

Post by hn_version_0023 »

phatfish wrote: post #492
ROTMetro wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that one I really really confuses me.

Joe has not stood still since 2017 either, he profits off the outrage just a much as any other media company that makes money from viewers or listeners. His podcasts used (going back a bit before 2017) to be chill conversations ranging from interesting to bonkers depending on the guest. He is consumed by politics now unfortunately, and it just gets tiresome.

Joe Rogan is very well paid to have his opinions. I do wonder who is paying him though; it can’t just be Spotify.

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

#729

Post by onecommentman »

bnralt wrote: post #506
yojo wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article leads with drawing a distinction between pop news and more traditional journalism: "To be clear, I’m mostly talking about following TV and internet newscasts here. This post isn’t an indictment of journalism as a whole." Good print journalism does go into depth, it does give useful background, and it does teach you about the proximate causes of events. It is not full of pundits trying to score internet po…

> The article leads with drawing a distinction between pop news and more traditional journalism: Sure, but I don't think it goes on to justify why that distinction is there. Particularly points 2 to 5 seem to work just as well as criticism of written media as TV. > If you're informed you can make rational decisions on things like giving and voting...I'm not convinced there's a better way of getting an understanding o…

Also, focusing on people/orgs who must try to accomplish something in the face of significant news is a good non-inflammatory way to get the real story on any current event. Visit professional organization websites, professional trade rags, actual financial newsletters. You may not be able to sort out real signal from the noise of Mainstream media, but manufacturers, military, diplomats, maritime, etc. can’t themselves afford to be confused nor do politicians want them confused. Those “essentials” will get the real facts and report what they can through their professional organizations and trade publications. Read them, listen to them, and watch what they do. They don’t get flustered and don’t make their money by inflaming or distorting.

And remember, there is no such thing as “The News”, only “some news”.

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

#730

Post by eyelidlessness »

harry8 wrote: post #718
eyelidlessness wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is not “there’s no such thing as objective reality”, it’s that for issues with more room for dispute than your example being objective in the sense you clearly mean sometimes requires rejecting ideas inconsistent with one’s understanding of reality. As an example which recently came up in a local (to me, in Seattle) news context: it will soon be legal to ride bikes without a helmet. Unintuitively, this has s…

"Objectively I'm right and all the positions I hold and advocate for are beyond reproach. Objectively anyone making less effort than me to make the world a better place in the manner of my preference is a biased, bad faith actor." --Things not said out loud. Striving for objectivity is allowing for ones own bias and acknowledging the validity of facts and arguments that do not support one's own view on the matter. In…

> In reporting it is attempting to make one's own view on the matter irrelevant to the content written.

This is impossible. Part of the determination of what to report is what’s important to even report on in the first place. Omission, or emphasis of stories otherwise reported objectively correctly, is a bias too.

The rest of your comment… I sincerely can’t tell if you’re objecting to anything I said or just generally ranting apropos of nothing above. So I don’t know how to address that.

Post reply on HN