4 ms·

> By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage. Talk about generalization. The fu

> By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage. Talk about generalization. The funny thing about poor catch-all statements like this is that I only need one counter example to make your argument silly. The Economist is one of the finest publications in the world (yes, it's a newspaper). WSJ and NYTimes additionally are totally great papers (although I only read the Economist regularly). Maybe give these publications another try? It seems like you've limited your exposure to potentially great works.

Swizec 10y ago
My English wasn't good enough to understand any of those when I became interested in the topics they cover. I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. But, let's see. NYT headline right now: "Terror attack kills 4 in Heart of London". WSJ: "UK parliament attacker leaves 4 dead, 40 injured". The Economist: "A Brazilian meat scandal damages the country's two global producers" Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Maybe the problem is that I am fundamentally just not interested in news. That seems increasingly likely. My fav NYT stories, for instance, are the researched not-news article. The Avalanche was one of the best things I ever read.
- MrGando 10y ago
  > I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. Well, hopefully you finish more than 5% of my reply... > Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Seriously? Those are the only thoughts that an article like that (it's finely written, just read it) can evoke on you? Makes me sad to read your statements, I can only hope that you're not representative of a "29 year old engineer in SF" I happen to be 31 years old, an engineer and also live in SF... a terrorist attack in London, does happen to be pertinent to me.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    > Seriously? Those are the only thoughts that an article like that (it's finely written, just read it) can evoke on you? It's interesting yes. It's sad that some people died. It's inspiring that life continues, that people get on with their lives and don't let themselves get bogged down because some people have stupid ideas. All of that is great. The article even teaches me some practical things about how terrorist attacks work. How to thwart them, how to carry them out. What happens after. Fundamentally though, London has a 0.24% death rate per year. With 8.6 million residents that's 56 dead people per day. I'm sure those 4 people that died were very important to their families and loved ones. And the other 50-ish that died on the same day I'm sure were just as important to their loved ones. And what am i to do with this information? How does it affect my life? I went to work today, I'll go tomorrow. I'll kiss my girlfriend goodnight and play with my parrot. I'll waste some time online. Maybe write or make a video. I'm just as likely to die in a terrorist attack tomorrow as I was yesterday. It is overall not something worth worrying about. Even the people I know who live in London have all said "Meh, this affects nothing. I got shit to do" My point is that following the news is kind of toxic. Every day they find ten things you should be upset about. Why? To what end? What's the point? When one crisis blows over, they'll find the next one.
    - bshimmin 10y ago
      If you can't meaningfully differentiate between people dying of illness or old age and people dying from someone driving a car deliberately into them and then running amok with a knife... well, I think the problem's with you rather than with the news content you're consuming. The people I know in London (I'm about 150 miles west of there) most certainly were not saying, "Meh, this affects nothing".
      - redditmigrant 10y ago
        Have you been able to discern why an attack in London that kills 4 people is considered more pertinent by these bastions of journalism and not the numerous that happen every single day in Iraq and Syria, a place plunged into this power vacuum by Westminister and Washington? Lets be honest, the pertinence of an attack in London is being established not because people dieing is pertinent, its that the people are dieing in a city that looks like yours and mine.
- nindalf 10y ago
  I read the article about the Brazilian meat manufacturers. Here's how it affects you. If you eat meat, you can start to wonder where it's sourced from and what standards it adheres to. The article mentioned that Brazilian exports to the US started last year. You would also know that the vast majority of such factories are well run, unlike the bad apples that this investigation uncovered. Basically it would make you think more about the food you eat.

Swizec 10y ago

My English wasn't good enough to understand any of those when I became interested in the topics they cover. I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. But, let's see. NYT headline right now: "Terror attack kills 4 in Heart of London". WSJ: "UK parliament attacker leaves 4 dead, 40 injured". The Economist: "A Brazilian meat scandal damages the country's two global producers" Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Maybe the problem is that I am fundamentally just not interested in news. That seems increasingly likely. My fav NYT stories, for instance, are the researched not-news article. The Avalanche was one of the best things I ever read.

MrGando 10y ago
> I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. Well, hopefully you finish more than 5% of my reply... > Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Seriously? Those are the only thoughts that an article like that (it's finely written, just read it) can evoke on you? Makes me sad to read your statements, I can only hope that you're not representative of a "29 year old engineer in SF" I happen to be 31 years old, an engineer and also live in SF... a terrorist attack in London, does happen to be pertinent to me.
- Swizec 10y ago
  > Seriously? Those are the only thoughts that an article like that (it's finely written, just read it) can evoke on you? It's interesting yes. It's sad that some people died. It's inspiring that life continues, that people get on with their lives and don't let themselves get bogged down because some people have stupid ideas. All of that is great. The article even teaches me some practical things about how terrorist attacks work. How to thwart them, how to carry them out. What happens after. Fundamentally though, London has a 0.24% death rate per year. With 8.6 million residents that's 56 dead people per day. I'm sure those 4 people that died were very important to their families and loved ones. And the other 50-ish that died on the same day I'm sure were just as important to their loved ones. And what am i to do with this information? How does it affect my life? I went to work today, I'll go tomorrow. I'll kiss my girlfriend goodnight and play with my parrot. I'll waste some time online. Maybe write or make a video. I'm just as likely to die in a terrorist attack tomorrow as I was yesterday. It is overall not something worth worrying about. Even the people I know who live in London have all said "Meh, this affects nothing. I got shit to do" My point is that following the news is kind of toxic. Every day they find ten things you should be upset about. Why? To what end? What's the point? When one crisis blows over, they'll find the next one.
  - bshimmin 10y ago
    If you can't meaningfully differentiate between people dying of illness or old age and people dying from someone driving a car deliberately into them and then running amok with a knife... well, I think the problem's with you rather than with the news content you're consuming. The people I know in London (I'm about 150 miles west of there) most certainly were not saying, "Meh, this affects nothing".
    - redditmigrant 10y ago
      Have you been able to discern why an attack in London that kills 4 people is considered more pertinent by these bastions of journalism and not the numerous that happen every single day in Iraq and Syria, a place plunged into this power vacuum by Westminister and Washington? Lets be honest, the pertinence of an attack in London is being established not because people dieing is pertinent, its that the people are dieing in a city that looks like yours and mine.
nindalf 10y ago
I read the article about the Brazilian meat manufacturers. Here's how it affects you. If you eat meat, you can start to wonder where it's sourced from and what standards it adheres to. The article mentioned that Brazilian exports to the US started last year. You would also know that the vast majority of such factories are well run, unlike the bad apples that this investigation uncovered. Basically it would make you think more about the food you eat.