5 ms·
I used to get by on The Economist and a smattering of online news. It works pretty well, but not so much for a world that feels like it's moving really quickly.
by davidw 9y ago
I used to get by on The Economist and a smattering of online news. It works pretty well, but not so much for a world that feels like it's moving really quickly.
For instance:
https://twitter.com/ananavarro/status/971209163115253760 https://twitter.com/ananavarro/status/971209163115253760
This week:
Nunberg subpoenaed, couldn’t stop blabbing;
Kellyanne said to have violated ethics law;
Carson realized HUD’s complicated;
Cohn quit, over tariffs not anti-Semitism;
Guy from UAE who knows stuff, cooperating w/Mueller;
Trump tweeted there’s no chaos;
It’s only Tuesday.
... and she wrote that before the news broke about the porn star suing Trump about their hush agreement/money inked in the weeks before the election.
I subscribed to the Washington Post via Amazon for national coverage, and I also get my local paper for their coverage of things like city council meetings, which actually make a lot more differences in our day to day lives than a lot of national issues.
- rubidium 9y agoWhy do you desire to be connected to that world?
- davidw 9y agoBecause I live in the US, and this stuff matters, one way or the other.
- ghotli 9y agoI don't mean to pick on you specifically, because I'm sure you have your reasons for saying "this stuff matters". However, I am curious of what the value is of staying that up to date in the news cycle other than dopamine hits. Seems more like an addiction to stay that on top of the news cycle than a more measured approach like the weekly economist digests posited above.
- davidw 9y agoThe Economist just doesn't cover everything that's going on. Realistically, any one of us could ignore most news and be fine, but I feel that it's part of our job as citizens to be informed and aware. I also feel that it's worth kicking in some money to the people doing the journalism that's uncovering important stuff. Look at the Roy Moore stuff that got uncovered, for instance. That was the election right there.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jacobush 9y agoCould you do a weekly in this format? Reads very entertaining!
- majormajor 9y agoHow much of those will be meaningful to have known about on Tuesday instead of Friday or Saturday, three months from now? A lot of events have been discussed, fewer of them have had significant impact yet, or have well-understood impact yet.
- jethro_tell 9y agoEven more of those items are not actionable by me, which means as 'news' it's as good tomorrow as Friday. There is something about how much info you can consume weekly vs. daily. That's a separate question though.
- djrogers 9y ago> This week: Nunberg subpoenaed, couldn’t stop blabbing; Kellyanne said to have violated ethics law; Carson realized HUD’s complicated; Cohn quit, over tariffs not anti-Semitism; Guy from UAE who knows stuff, cooperating w/Mueller; Trump tweeted there’s no chaos; It’s only Tuesday. If you consider all of that ‘news’ rather than mostly rumor and spectacle, then you probably fit in with the social media news crowd. I personally don’t see anything on that list that’s worthy of being called News, and certainly not anything I’d need to read about the day it happened. The closets might be the Mueller thing, but even that is technically hearsay until mueller’s next report comes out - then it’s news.