3 ms·

Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have to

Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have to admit, it's pretty wonderful. And somewhat ironic, given that I used to be the TL of Google News 10 years ago. I still read The Economist weekly, come to HN occasionally, and hear about important/local/political events from friends. I don't, however, have to hear the constant doom bombardment that the media has evolved to produce. Stepping back really highlights how toxic the news can be. We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. Access to the internet and globalization has made people (real people, not the loudest selected subset you see in media) genuinely care about each other everywhere in the world I have traveled. Yet you would never think that just looking at typical media. It isn't a perfect society, and horrible situations still exist that deserve attention, but that will always be true. We still have enormous strides we can make, and that struggle is an important aspect of our society, especially in defending against erosions of personal freedoms. Honestly, though, we are doing really well compared with 100 years ago.

Diederich 9y ago
> We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now
abrahamepton 9y ago
Hey, Chris! I largely agree with you, and think reading things like the Economist on a weekly basis is salutary - it's weekly, so building a reading habit around it doesn't lead to constant panic. It's broad, covers a lot of what's going on around the world and isn't as obsessed with the trivialities American media focuses on. As a guy who used to work on Google News with you, I always appreciated the effort to get more global news and more global sources integrated into peoples' reading experiences. Where I disagree is that I think being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention so we can vote as informed participants, and I don't know how to do that without reading the news. And it's important to be clear that there's a lot still wrong with the world. The climate is in crisis; more humans are in slavery today than at any time in human history; we're in the midst of one of the great migrant/refugee crises of the modern world. Importantly, many media outlets largely ignore those things, but not all media does.
- Buttons840 9y ago
  Do you feel it's effective to assess candidates with focused research a week or so before voting? Or do you think it's necessary to always stay up to date on the news to be a good participant in democracy?
  - abrahamepton 9y ago
    Depends on the person, I suppose. Most people go into voting booths fairly poorly-informed, so really any research you do is great. I don't think normal humans will do homework before voting, since normal American humans vote pretty infrequently to begin with. But I think doing such homework can be a great alternative to staying engaged with the news consistently - I do it (sometimes/reasonably often but certainly not always) when voting for judges, or offices that never come up in the news I read. The problem with that approach, beyond remembering to do your homework, is that it can be kinda hard to catch up on everything. Like, let's say there's something your mayor does that you hate, or would hate if you knew about it - are you sure that's gonna come up during your research? If it's a big deal it might.
- eggpy 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can remain informed while reading the news once a week. In fact, I would argue you are likely to be _better_ informed as you will be reading about the most important information, viewing the long term stories that have staying power. By only reading once a week you avoid the hot, attention-grabbing-but-ultimately-inconsequential story of the day. As for voting, you generally receive a "voter information" packet before hand. If you aren't reading the news then a "good citizen" ought to do their own research rather than rely on a news source to provide you with information.
  - abrahamepton 9y ago
    Yes, I quite agree - reading the news once a week can lead you to be incredibly well-informed. But since the OP was asserting that one oughtn't read the news at all, I find "once/week" to be a rather different proposition.
clairity 9y ago
it's possible to listen to news every day and still keep that perspective on how safe and easy our lives are now. and it's reasonable to want to keep your ears perked up for the longer-term, slow moving and large threats via news (as you do with the economist & hn). by my estimation, the more immediate existential threat (to americans at least) is not terrorism or foreign governments or even guns or climate change (although we shouldn't lose sight of those things), but rather the economic destabilization brought on by the aggregation of power in large institutions. the smaller the person is relative to the institution, the more disempowered that individual will feel. let's favor smaller organizations, whether government or business. let's let what's happening immediately around us be the meaning we make of our lives. celebrate local achievements but leave celebrity to entertainment. we can engage in the local while monitoring the global, without pulling our hair out over it.

Diederich 9y ago

> We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now

abrahamepton 9y ago

Hey, Chris! I largely agree with you, and think reading things like the Economist on a weekly basis is salutary - it's weekly, so building a reading habit around it doesn't lead to constant panic. It's broad, covers a lot of what's going on around the world and isn't as obsessed with the trivialities American media focuses on. As a guy who used to work on Google News with you, I always appreciated the effort to get more global news and more global sources integrated into peoples' reading experiences. Where I disagree is that I think being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention so we can vote as informed participants, and I don't know how to do that without reading the news. And it's important to be clear that there's a lot still wrong with the world. The climate is in crisis; more humans are in slavery today than at any time in human history; we're in the midst of one of the great migrant/refugee crises of the modern world. Importantly, many media outlets largely ignore those things, but not all media does.

Buttons840 9y ago
Do you feel it's effective to assess candidates with focused research a week or so before voting? Or do you think it's necessary to always stay up to date on the news to be a good participant in democracy?
- abrahamepton 9y ago
  Depends on the person, I suppose. Most people go into voting booths fairly poorly-informed, so really any research you do is great. I don't think normal humans will do homework before voting, since normal American humans vote pretty infrequently to begin with. But I think doing such homework can be a great alternative to staying engaged with the news consistently - I do it (sometimes/reasonably often but certainly not always) when voting for judges, or offices that never come up in the news I read. The problem with that approach, beyond remembering to do your homework, is that it can be kinda hard to catch up on everything. Like, let's say there's something your mayor does that you hate, or would hate if you knew about it - are you sure that's gonna come up during your research? If it's a big deal it might.
eggpy 9y ago
I'm pretty sure you can remain informed while reading the news once a week. In fact, I would argue you are likely to be _better_ informed as you will be reading about the most important information, viewing the long term stories that have staying power. By only reading once a week you avoid the hot, attention-grabbing-but-ultimately-inconsequential story of the day. As for voting, you generally receive a "voter information" packet before hand. If you aren't reading the news then a "good citizen" ought to do their own research rather than rely on a news source to provide you with information.
- abrahamepton 9y ago
  Yes, I quite agree - reading the news once a week can lead you to be incredibly well-informed. But since the OP was asserting that one oughtn't read the news at all, I find "once/week" to be a rather different proposition.

clairity 9y ago

it's possible to listen to news every day and still keep that perspective on how safe and easy our lives are now. and it's reasonable to want to keep your ears perked up for the longer-term, slow moving and large threats via news (as you do with the economist & hn). by my estimation, the more immediate existential threat (to americans at least) is not terrorism or foreign governments or even guns or climate change (although we shouldn't lose sight of those things), but rather the economic destabilization brought on by the aggregation of power in large institutions. the smaller the person is relative to the institution, the more disempowered that individual will feel. let's favor smaller organizations, whether government or business. let's let what's happening immediately around us be the meaning we make of our lives. celebrate local achievements but leave celebrity to entertainment. we can engage in the local while monitoring the global, without pulling our hair out over it.