4 ms·

Look, I think this is great and all, but I'm pretty skeptical of this chant, "If the news bothers you so much because of what you're reading, just stop reading.

Look, I think this is great and all, but I'm pretty skeptical of this chant, "If the news bothers you so much because of what you're reading, just stop reading. It's not like you can change it." Obviously, events that already happened can't be changed. But a lot of what upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy. These things are changeable, and direct (and/or collective) action can change them. When you're in a position where by default things go your way (dominant gender, dominant sexual orientation, dominant phenotype/race in local community) then yeah, you can just disengage and suspect that things are ticking over nicely for you. That's not the case for people outside this happy intersection. It certainly reads to me, as someone out of one of those bounds like you're telling me to disengage while people actively trying to shape law to marginalize me certainly won't. Further, resistance to propaganda and misinformation is not an attribute of mentality. It's a combination of learned skills and _context_. By yielding all current contextual information, you are severely damaging your ability to process current events. This is in sharp contrast to the arguments put forth here and in the article that often lament the lack of skills (e.g., statistical thinking) that you can both learn and maintain in isolation. I agree that controlling your media consumption is important and some folks (including myself) sometimes go off on media benders, getting very stressed. But the second assumption (that it's pointless) is wrong. My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support.

edgarvaldes 9y ago
I check news once a week, sometimes less. I mean reading newspapers, opinion articles, news on television, the subreddit of my country. The most relevant news come to me through comments from friends or family, in the after-dinner talks or meetings. With that combination, I am well informed of current events, and I am not overwhelmed by what I consider repetitive or irrelevant information.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  That's fascinating, but neither the subject of the article nor my comment. Thank you.
rossdavidh 9y ago
If you read the conventional news, say, once a month, you would still be more than informed enough to know what way you should vote when the time comes. As for your health and wellbeing, mainstream news is probably worse than nothing, in that it skews your perception of where your risks are, and definitely worse than using your own research skills to find other (often primary) sources.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  That's fascinating, but neither the subject of the article nor my comment. Thank you.
- abrahamepton 9y ago
  I don't think it's true at all that paying attention to the news once/month would render you informed enough to vote for more than 1-2 offices. (If in US:) President, Congress, sure. But probably not Governor, Mayor or any local issues.
scarecrowbob 9y ago
"My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support." I hope your correct in this; I've felt similarly in the past. As I've gotten older, I've felt more like a lot of what I was seeing as useful action was the fantasy of useful action. That is, I haven't seen a lot of real gains or losses due to my own political actions. Maybe I just don't give enough money or knock on enough doors. But as I've gotten older it's felt more and more that this is just engaging in a particular kind of fantasy role playing. Perhaps it is true that I can disengage with this kinds of political anger because I can look like I can pass as a white cishet male. Consider, however, that the only folks who can actually make political gains are people that are already in a position of some amount of power and privilege. The basic premise of incremental change is that the kinds of changes that you'd like to see are sustainable via the system you're interacting with. To take a specific example from my own set of stuff that pisses me off, I believe that the system of policing where I live is systematically racist. I would never have a problem with people advocating for incremental changes and I've seen people make small gains in those directions. However, I believe that the complete disarmament of the police for and more or less the total abolition of prisions is the only workable solution. I wholly understand that this position is not a moderate position and is probably not something many people agree with, and I neither expect other people to see it as reasonable nor want to support that view here. I bring it up, rather, because there is no incremental change that I can see which will bring about the conditions under the system where I live. So I've more or less given up on following news on this front: there is nothing that I can do about the fact that the racist Texas "justice" system has incarcerated some lady for 5 years for voter fraud. I'm neither surprised nor do I feel like there is something that I can do to convince Ken Paxton, et al, that they aren't terrible, terrible people. There's just nothing that can be done that is going to correct that kind of problem in the world. So, while I think you're correct in asserting that there is a certain amount of privilege in ignoring the news, I point out this: there is a certain amount of intersectionality with a system involved in believing that you can incrementally change that system to operate with justice.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > I would never have a problem with people advocating for incremental changes and I've seen people make small gains in those directions. > However, I believe that the complete disarmament of the police for and more or less the total abolition of prisions is the only workable solution. "Perfect is the enemy of the good," a common form of apathetic thinking. It's defensive in many cases, I grant, but it is still ultimately giving up.
BeetleB 9y ago
>But a lot of what upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy. Maybe for the HN crowd, but my observation about the populace at large does not agree with this. A lot of what upsets people is a narrative they have in their minds about the world, and mostly that narrative is shaped by the media in some form or other (pundits, talk shows, etc). People react to news events, but it is the underlying narrative that defines their reactions. Once a narrative is stuck in you head, you become partially blind. News items that don't fit the narrative often are not processed and forgotten quickly. News items that do fit are remembered and repeated for years. Rarely do I find someone who has formed relatively independent opinions about the stuff they read/see in the news. Rarely do they perform any kind of critical thinking. These holes in their knowledge are easily exposed when they talk to a neutral party who does not follow the news and knows little about the subject. That party doesn't have a narrative, so he will quickly come up with clarifying questions that throw the average news reader off. So while on the surface political policy seems what people are upset about, it really isn't. >Further, resistance to propaganda and misinformation is not an attribute of mentality. It's a combination of learned skills and _context_. I agree that it takes a lot of learned skills and context. I disagree with the next statement: >By yielding all current contextual information, you are severely damaging your ability to process current events. I find the moderately informed are always the most misinformed. I find the ones who actively do not read the news, while still uninformed, are generally not misinformed. Now some people will develop the skills to analyze the news well. They will always be a small minority. Encouraging people to read the news and to try to think critically may fail more than simply disengaging. I often tell my friends that the one lesson I learned while being a news junkie was that unless your goal is to understand as much of the news as possible (including how it is curated, etc), you're better off enjoying life instead. Just trying to stay up to date with the news so you don't feel out of touch will position you poorly.

edgarvaldes 9y ago

I check news once a week, sometimes less. I mean reading newspapers, opinion articles, news on television, the subreddit of my country. The most relevant news come to me through comments from friends or family, in the after-dinner talks or meetings. With that combination, I am well informed of current events, and I am not overwhelmed by what I consider repetitive or irrelevant information.

KirinDave 9y ago
That's fascinating, but neither the subject of the article nor my comment. Thank you.

rossdavidh 9y ago

If you read the conventional news, say, once a month, you would still be more than informed enough to know what way you should vote when the time comes. As for your health and wellbeing, mainstream news is probably worse than nothing, in that it skews your perception of where your risks are, and definitely worse than using your own research skills to find other (often primary) sources.

KirinDave 9y ago
That's fascinating, but neither the subject of the article nor my comment. Thank you.
abrahamepton 9y ago
I don't think it's true at all that paying attention to the news once/month would render you informed enough to vote for more than 1-2 offices. (If in US:) President, Congress, sure. But probably not Governor, Mayor or any local issues.

scarecrowbob 9y ago

"My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support." I hope your correct in this; I've felt similarly in the past. As I've gotten older, I've felt more like a lot of what I was seeing as useful action was the fantasy of useful action. That is, I haven't seen a lot of real gains or losses due to my own political actions. Maybe I just don't give enough money or knock on enough doors. But as I've gotten older it's felt more and more that this is just engaging in a particular kind of fantasy role playing. Perhaps it is true that I can disengage with this kinds of political anger because I can look like I can pass as a white cishet male. Consider, however, that the only folks who can actually make political gains are people that are already in a position of some amount of power and privilege. The basic premise of incremental change is that the kinds of changes that you'd like to see are sustainable via the system you're interacting with. To take a specific example from my own set of stuff that pisses me off, I believe that the system of policing where I live is systematically racist. I would never have a problem with people advocating for incremental changes and I've seen people make small gains in those directions. However, I believe that the complete disarmament of the police for and more or less the total abolition of prisions is the only workable solution. I wholly understand that this position is not a moderate position and is probably not something many people agree with, and I neither expect other people to see it as reasonable nor want to support that view here. I bring it up, rather, because there is no incremental change that I can see which will bring about the conditions under the system where I live. So I've more or less given up on following news on this front: there is nothing that I can do about the fact that the racist Texas "justice" system has incarcerated some lady for 5 years for voter fraud. I'm neither surprised nor do I feel like there is something that I can do to convince Ken Paxton, et al, that they aren't terrible, terrible people. There's just nothing that can be done that is going to correct that kind of problem in the world. So, while I think you're correct in asserting that there is a certain amount of privilege in ignoring the news, I point out this: there is a certain amount of intersectionality with a system involved in believing that you can incrementally change that system to operate with justice.

KirinDave 9y ago
> I would never have a problem with people advocating for incremental changes and I've seen people make small gains in those directions. > However, I believe that the complete disarmament of the police for and more or less the total abolition of prisions is the only workable solution. "Perfect is the enemy of the good," a common form of apathetic thinking. It's defensive in many cases, I grant, but it is still ultimately giving up.

BeetleB 9y ago

>But a lot of what upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy. Maybe for the HN crowd, but my observation about the populace at large does not agree with this. A lot of what upsets people is a narrative they have in their minds about the world, and mostly that narrative is shaped by the media in some form or other (pundits, talk shows, etc). People react to news events, but it is the underlying narrative that defines their reactions. Once a narrative is stuck in you head, you become partially blind. News items that don't fit the narrative often are not processed and forgotten quickly. News items that do fit are remembered and repeated for years. Rarely do I find someone who has formed relatively independent opinions about the stuff they read/see in the news. Rarely do they perform any kind of critical thinking. These holes in their knowledge are easily exposed when they talk to a neutral party who does not follow the news and knows little about the subject. That party doesn't have a narrative, so he will quickly come up with clarifying questions that throw the average news reader off. So while on the surface political policy seems what people are upset about, it really isn't. >Further, resistance to propaganda and misinformation is not an attribute of mentality. It's a combination of learned skills and _context_. I agree that it takes a lot of learned skills and context. I disagree with the next statement: >By yielding all current contextual information, you are severely damaging your ability to process current events. I find the moderately informed are always the most misinformed. I find the ones who actively do not read the news, while still uninformed, are generally not misinformed. Now some people will develop the skills to analyze the news well. They will always be a small minority. Encouraging people to read the news and to try to think critically may fail more than simply disengaging. I often tell my friends that the one lesson I learned while being a news junkie was that unless your goal is to understand as much of the news as possible (including how it is curated, etc), you're better off enjoying life instead. Just trying to stay up to date with the news so you don't feel out of touch will position you poorly.