11 ms·

While I like and respect who Aaron was and what he did for us all, I cringed when reading "I Hate the News" because it came across as very naive. It's the same

While I like and respect who Aaron was and what he did for us all, I cringed when reading "I Hate the News" because it came across as very naive. It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting, also the same logic my fellow parents use as reason for not attending town meeting. Find new sources, find your news. While today's news doesn't effect you directly, it might tomorrow, or it might effect your friend, loved one or neighbor. What Aaron is ranting about is the "business" of news which is fair. If the nightly news on your TV news network of choice offers nothing for you, find your local news, follow a reporter, a journalist and get involved. Actual journalism is what informs, enriches and protects American democracy. See also the "fourth estate".

chickenfries 8y ago
Yeah this post is literally the same argument as “my vote has never changed the outcome of an election so why vote?”
- capulate89 8y ago
  And what's wrong with that argument? Democracy and voting aren't unquestionable goods. Just look at what became of most of the non-democratic countries that the US decided to "liberate" via forcing them to adopt democracy over the years.
  - sudoscript 8y ago
    > What’s wrong with that argument? At an individual, probably nothing. But at a macro level, apathy is equivalent to a lack of legitimacy, which is a big problem. If the cancer of apathy spreads too far, the entire system comes crashing down. It’s like a party where your job is to bring one of the mixers. You don’t bring yours, nothing that terrible happens. No one brings any, and the party becomes a disaster.
    - alasdair_ 8y ago
      >a lack of legitimacy Well... yes. And I view this as a good thing. The current US voting system is broken and I am not sure it is fixable simply by voting more - that simply entrenches the current system. I prefer to use illegitimacy and disenfranchisement to spur useful change to the systems themselves. I want to see somethink like ranked choice with an instant runoff, the abolition of the electoral college and a simple one person, one vote choice for president, without dividing people into small groups first. Reforming the senate is likely also a good idea. Apathy and illegitimacy are the kindling needed to foster real change.
      - ruseOps 8y ago
        Reforming the senate, but not the house? Could you provide an example where you, personally, have used illegitimacy and disenfranchisement to spur useful change in a system? While discussing real change, it feels like we should be as exact as possible. Haphazardly enacted real change does not seem useful in the least.
    - jonbarker 8y ago
      I don't think he's arguing for apathy, can't think of a less apathetic individual if I tried. I think he's rightly pointing out that batch processing can be more efficient, and optimizing the schedule for such a process is something many people don't consider.
    - pyrale 8y ago
      Well, after years without electricity, you may start thinking that people not bringing mixers is a symptom rather than a problem.
  - lou1306 8y ago
    > And what's wrong with that argument? It is like saying "I can lift at most 100 pounds; Bob can lift at most 50 pounds: therefore, there's nothing we can do to lift that 104-pound rock".
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    Are you talking about Iraq? I’m pretty sure the problem there was war, not democracy.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    With apologies to Pascal[1] You assume your vote doesn't matter. Then If you are correct and you vote, nothing happens. If you are correct and you don't vote, nothing happens. If you are wrong but you vote, you help make change. If you are wrong and you don't vote, you enable bad things to come about. Game theory says to vote. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
    - DSingularity 8y ago
      Actually this might be the best argument I've read against this line of reasoning. Thank you.
    - Vraxx 8y ago
      Not to mention with all of the recent events in the US related to voter suppression, my question to people who espouse the opinion of "my vote doesn't matter", my question is this. Then why are those in power actively seeking to undermine this ability that is "useless". If it truly was useless I doubt they'd be scared enough to act against it.
      - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
        One of those things deals with your own personal vote, which is not likely to change the outcome of the election, while the other deals with large numbers of votes, which could easily change the outcome of the election. No person trying to suppress votes cares if a single individual is barred from voting. They care that many people are barred from voting.
        Vraxx 8y ago
        well what better way to make sure a large number of people don't vote than to let them convince themselves that voting doesn't matter. My point is that the net effect is the same for both things, one you don't vote because your vote was suppressed and the other is you not voting because you don't think it will matter. Obviously if it's worth paying money to try to make sure than many people can't vote then it's even better if some people don't vote for some personal reason because they don't even have to pay for that or potentially get caught doing shady shit. Disenfranchising yourself serves the same coalition that seeks to dismantle the system in return for more personal power.
- jordanpg 8y ago
  No, not what he says at all. He implies that everything you need to know to vote can fit on one side of an index card. The point is you don't need to follow the news to make informed voting decisions.
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    If all you do is read voter guides then you have delegated your critical thinking to the organization that produces the guide. I would not call you a informed voter if all you do is read a voter guide every election.
    - vehementi 8y ago
      I would not call you an informed voter if all you do is spend 23 hours a day consuming the 0.0001% of the news that time affords you
      - chickenfries 8y ago
        I don’t know anyone who does that. they might be well informed, I would have to see what they were reading but yes I would agree that 23 hours a day of news is not helpful. This is absurd.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    He also suggests reading books instead of daily news! He says weekly or monthly reviews would be fine too. This whole thread is full of people thinking he’s suggesting you stay ignorant, when really he’s saying the culture of everyone must read the news is wrong, and we can get our information from better sources than the news.
    - chickenfries 8y ago
      I mean the title doesn’t help. You might even call it click bait. I think the “everyone should read the news” culture that Aaron describes is a straw man. Most people I know who read the news regularly know that it’s partially entertainment for them and that you can get your info from places other than the daily news. Only people like Donald Trump think that being informed means watching cable news all day. Maybe I just haven’t met any of these people who think that books are bad but daily news headlines are good.
- syn0byte 8y ago
  The big pink elephant; In a lot of cases this is a rational, factual argument with the current system (In the US.) Feel free to refute the argument's validity with empirical data. I would genuinely love to see it. I've seen apologetic researchers offer reasons for why their data isn't as damning as it seems, but never seen anything remotely close to proof of validity.
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    This last presidential election was decided by several thousand votes in a few states. There were even closer local elections this year. One persons vote doesn’t ever decide things, but if you can’t see the absurdity of everyone taking that position, I don’t know what to say.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      Isn't it more absurd to say that "everyone" would take that position? Plus consider that if you increased the number of voters by the margin of victory, what are the odds that 100% of those new voters would vote alike and swing the election?
  - norealidea 8y ago
    1) That's not how the burden of proof works. 2) This is not a factual or rational thought in the current system. every time the Libertarian or third party does well in an election(like in the last election of 2016), it shows those in power the ideals that are looked at when choosing a candidate. The problem does not inherently lie in the system, it lies in the people telling each other that voting third party is a waste. That train of thought is what is ruining this country(USA), because it's a slippery slope to complete apathy of the system.
porpoisely 8y ago
For someone who claims to like and respect Aaron, you are rather dismissive of him and his "rant". Your recommendation to find your news, local or otherwise, might have been valid 50 years ago, but it isn't today as most news ( local, national and international ) is owned by a handful of conglomerates who more or less share the same value. Your recommendation is like telling people who don't like facebook to use instagram instead. Ignoring the fact that facebook owns instagram. I do agree that actual journalism protects democracy. I'd be interested in what you consider actual journalism.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  > For someone who claims to like and respect Aaron, you are rather dismissive of him and his "rant". People you like and respect can have very naive ideas. >but it isn't today as most news ( local, national and international ) is owned by a handful of conglomerates who more or less share the same value. You might be thinking of broadcast news? It's definitely not true of all local news sources. All journalism is full of biases (of the institution, of the individual reporter, etc). You can (and should) still get the news out of them. Learning that your local council is holding a big vote in a week is still important news whether or not its coming from a source on the payroll of a company owned by clearchannel.
  - YinglingLight 8y ago
    I'm curious as to which kind of non-broadcast local news you're talking about. Aside from a motley mix of small town newspapers, this kind of source doesn't exist anymore.
choxi 8y ago
> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting He provides some pretty good reasoning that ignoring the news and doing candidate research might be make you a more informed voter. Could you give an example of something you learned or read in the news that had a practical effect on your life?
- soundwave106 8y ago
  There are many forms of "news" out there (we're on a site called Hacker News after all :) ), which is probably what my complaint about that article would be. To me, more specialized news sources sometimes definitely can be relevant to your career (think trade journals and similar), or perhaps helps you learn new things (techniques, tools, etc.) about your hobby. Definitely I've learned some things from these type of sources. If you have a good local media source, you will also see stories with relevance to your life, perhaps affecting some of the things you do, at the least involving the town you live in. Unfortunately good local media can be tough to find in some places. It usually does not involve me directly (though it indirectly involve me if said investigation is about things I pay for via taxes), but I do appreciate good investigative journalism sometimes for unearthing various wrongs and putting public pressure on organizations to do the right things. Good investigative journalism unfortunately is also in decline, however. I think Aaron's point is absolutely correct when it comes to the current trend of "news" to be talking heads shouting at each other, and yellow journalism designed to titillate, not inform. Even more sober journalism can over-focus on national issues, and that can be problematic without a balance of the local, as Aaron IMHO correctly implies. Unfortunately increasingly national and increasingly overemotional is the most visible trend of "news" today.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Could you give an example of something you learned or read in the news that had a practical effect on your life? Today the news told me that a particular road I use to get to work is closed. Yesterday the news told me that a charity I usually contribute to, but forgot to this year, is falling short of its annual fundraising goal. Last week the news told me that a product I use has been recalled for safety reasons. The only people who say that the news is irrelevant to their lives are people who don't actually consume the news, and choose to imagine that the reality is identical to the parody in their minds. There are more news sources today than ever. If you don't like the one in front of you, there are others.
ptero 8y ago
We frequently need to update our mental model of the world (e.g., how are things in country X? what can I do there? is it reasonably safe to visit? what happened yesterday at place Y?). However, mainstream news usually gives me little information and whatever it gives is skewed by that channel/journalist political affiliation. I do not know of a general solution. Sometimes it is talking to neighbors; sometimes doing your own research; sometimes reading three sources at war with each other. But to be useful I have to start with specific questions, not open my brain to random sources peddling outrage. This "updating the world model" can still include reading news, but for me those should be level headed overviews and not emotional appeals. And they do not need to be real-time: reading news 2 weeks later works just as well and cuts down on "you would not BELIEVE what just happened" type of coverage. > I cringed when reading "I Hate the News" because it came across as very naive. To me, this is simple, might be a bit simplistic, rather than naive. Which is good -- erring on the side of simplicity is better than giving such a "nuanced" approach that one cannot get any actionable advice from reading something. I may agree or disagree, but I prefer opinion posts to have clear advice (maybe this is just my preference). > It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting I see no problem there. When voting offers two choices, both of which unattractive, it is OK in my book to abstain. I grew up in a place practicing one-candidate votes (i.e., you choose between "in favor" that in the end will show 95+% and "against" with no alternatives) so acquired immunity to "citizen votes solve all problems" mentality. > Find new sources, find your news. While today's news doesn't effect you directly, it might tomorrow, or it might effect your friend, loved one or neighbor. The news should not affect my family or friends. Change in the real world could; but I think "news" is not a great source of information to detecting such changes. Just my 2c.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sh33mp 8y ago
  >I grew up in a place practicing one-candidate votes (i.e., you choose between "in favor" that in the end will show 95+% and "against" with no alternatives) so acquired immunity to "citizen votes solve all problems" mentality. I grew up in a place with effectively single party rule, and it was imbued into our culture that it's pointless to vote because you'll never unseat that party anyway. A big recent change was when, in a semi-recent election, an opposition party won an electoral constituency, worth a mere 5% of parliamentary votes, by the thinest of margins. I couldn't tell you what the opposition platform was today. But regardless of the fact that the opposition still wielded absolutely no legislative power, this led to an era of what many would consider a very electorate friendly legislative push. This "don't vote for the lesser of two evils" business is nonsense. Use your right to vote relentlessly: to punish arrogant politicians, to press on single issues, to fight for the lesser of two evils because it is the LESSER of two evils. Finding and balancing the lesser of two evils is your job as a voter. Even if your desired choice has no chance of winning, grinding down the margin, year after year, makes the other side nervous and more willing to compromise. Even if your desired choice has no chance of losing, expanding the margin gives them more room to take less "centrist" stances and push for the things you want. If there's a lesser of two evils, keep voting until the more of two evils has no choice but to compromise and become less evil. Lather, rinse, repeat.
chuckgreenman 8y ago
The US is structured as a representative democracy, specifically because following politics and making reasoned decisions on all this stuff is a full time job. We elect people who we think will do a good job researching, reasoning and governing. I started my academic career in political science, I thought I wanted to be a journalist. Ultimately found that computer science had problems that I was better at working through. Different people have different strengths, there's nothing wrong with outsourcing your news consumption and analysis to someone who represents your interests.
- isoskeles 8y ago
  > The US is structured as a representative democracy, specifically because following politics and making reasoned decisions on all this stuff is a full time job. I don’t think the original intent was that government would be involved in “all this stuff”, but I agree that representative democracy works for the system we’ve built since then.
- ergothus 8y ago
  I don't disagree...but then we need to follow politics and make reasoned decisions as to who to elect to do a good job representing our interests. When we get too comfortable that things will remain the same level of corruption and effectiveness (whether we think that is a good or bad level) and stop being educated and selective, that is when things STOP remaining the same. Good news sources create accountability that isn't managed by PR. Poor news sources instead empower PR.
- elicash 8y ago
  The founders didn't like too much democracy for ALL SORTS of reasons, some valid and some not. They built a system that mostly empowered people like themselves. I'm not demonizing them, historical context matters and they did all sorts of stuff that was good and important -- my point is simply that we should feel more willing to question their assumptions than most people have been willing to do.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
user2426679 8y ago
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” - popularly attributed to Orwell (As you may already know), Swartz was heavily influenced by Chomsky, and Aaron definitely had that pessimistic view of the "news machine." But imo, it seems justified in hindsight considering the backlash that he personally experienced after (arguably, single-handedly) stopping SOPA in it's tracks. His legal persecution was practically guaranteed after that; he was going to be found guilty of something, eventually. Unfortunately, the Secret Service got him by the legal balls for using MIT's facilities to bulk download JSTOR docs.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chrisweekly 8y ago
effect (noun) -> affect (verb, in this intended usage) not nit-picking, rather trying to help correct a common error that distracts from an otherwise excellent comment
- hluska 8y ago
  These types of corrections don't really add to the conversation. I used to have similar editor instincts, but most people who read HN make substitutions like that without being told.
  - chrisweekly 8y ago
    Yeah; same probably goes for this conversation. FWIW it wasn't just a typo, it was a repeated use of the wrong word. I'm no "grammar nazi", but there are (thankfully) a large number of HN readers for whom English is a foreign language. I'm happy to absorb the occasional downvote in the process of helping teach and improve the quality of others' communication. As measured by upvotes and grateful replies, the community here agrees.
aerovistae 8y ago
Thanks for your generic dismissal of our reasons for not voting. I vote in local government matters, but I'm not really sure what the point of my federal vote is supposed to be right now while I'm a blue voter in a permanently very blue state. If we had pure direct democracy that'd be one thing, but in the age of the electoral college, your dismissal of youthful naivety comes across to me as empty arrogance from someone who's convinced his own beliefs are the only ones worth adhering to.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  >for not voting. I vote in local government matters "I vote in local government matters" doesn't really put you in the "not voting" camp. >while I'm a blue voter in a permanently very blue state. It provides signals. Vote for other blue candidates to show support. >your dismissal of youthful naivety The dismissal is of people who don't vote. Those people are the issue because voting is the only way to get changes into your local governments, etc.
omarforgotpwd 8y ago
I think the point he was making is that the news is broken. I want to invent a better a news app.
jondubois 8y ago
>> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting What's wrong with not voting? If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference. I don't buy the argument that "If everyone thought like that, then it would make a terrible difference"... This statement is bullshit because the premise is false to begin with; most people will not think like that because most people are sheep and will vote for whoever the media tells them to vote for. The people who buy the rhetoric that their vote makes a difference are the same people who buy all the bullshit propagated by the political media. If someone is suggestible enough to accept the premise that one vote out of hundreds of million makes a difference, then surely these people are also easily influenced by other kind of media. It's very far fetched. If you're a thinker, then your vote can never compete against the masses who just follow the media.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  One vote never made a difference. ...is the sort of thing said by people who don't watch the news and because of that are unaware of the number of manual re-counts that are done each election.
  - jondubois 8y ago
    Getting an accurate count is not the issue; that's part of the show. The issue is that you only have one single vote out of hundreds of millions and the pool of candidates is ridiculously, ridiculously limited. In a fair system with over 300 million potential candidates, how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president (as was the case for George Bush junior/senior)? What about the Clintons? When we factor in the empirical evidence, how can we still think that one vote out of hundreds of millions make any difference at all?
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president If all 300 million people lived identical lives and had identical histories, then the chances are about one in 300 million. In the real world, people who take specific life paths, get specific degrees, and acquire specific skills are more likely than others to end up in a particular place. Especially when the other 299,999,999 people get to weigh in on the decision. Just as not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a database administrator at Google, and not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a barista.
smokeyj 8y ago
Maybe Aaron doesn't get it. Maybe you don't get it. The question boils down to this. If information doesn't promote action, what good was the information? > It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting And why should they? Has the outcome of an election ever come down to one vote? The pattern is simple. The news let's us focus on what we can't control so we can ignore what we can control. How many fat voters want free health care? How many of them sit down to watch the news instead of exercising? How many voters want more money but won't invest time learning a skill? How many voters want better education but won't log on to (MOOC-du-jour) How many voters want world peace but won't change their consumption habits? How many voters want cleaner energy but won't buy an electric car? I'm with Aaron on this one. Keeping up with the news doesn't make you more "woke". It means you've wasted time that could have been invested in direct action of the outcome you want.
- jrumbut 8y ago
  The majority party of the Virginia House of Delegates was decided not by one vote but by a coin flip because the vote was tied. This happened last year. It was all over the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court-tosses-out-one-vote-victory-in-recount-that-had-briefly-ended-a-republican-majority-in-virginia/2017/12/20/ed979a70-e5b9-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court...

chickenfries 8y ago

Yeah this post is literally the same argument as “my vote has never changed the outcome of an election so why vote?”

capulate89 8y ago
And what's wrong with that argument? Democracy and voting aren't unquestionable goods. Just look at what became of most of the non-democratic countries that the US decided to "liberate" via forcing them to adopt democracy over the years.
- sudoscript 8y ago
  > What’s wrong with that argument? At an individual, probably nothing. But at a macro level, apathy is equivalent to a lack of legitimacy, which is a big problem. If the cancer of apathy spreads too far, the entire system comes crashing down. It’s like a party where your job is to bring one of the mixers. You don’t bring yours, nothing that terrible happens. No one brings any, and the party becomes a disaster.
  - alasdair_ 8y ago
    >a lack of legitimacy Well... yes. And I view this as a good thing. The current US voting system is broken and I am not sure it is fixable simply by voting more - that simply entrenches the current system. I prefer to use illegitimacy and disenfranchisement to spur useful change to the systems themselves. I want to see somethink like ranked choice with an instant runoff, the abolition of the electoral college and a simple one person, one vote choice for president, without dividing people into small groups first. Reforming the senate is likely also a good idea. Apathy and illegitimacy are the kindling needed to foster real change.
    - ruseOps 8y ago
      Reforming the senate, but not the house? Could you provide an example where you, personally, have used illegitimacy and disenfranchisement to spur useful change in a system? While discussing real change, it feels like we should be as exact as possible. Haphazardly enacted real change does not seem useful in the least.
  - jonbarker 8y ago
    I don't think he's arguing for apathy, can't think of a less apathetic individual if I tried. I think he's rightly pointing out that batch processing can be more efficient, and optimizing the schedule for such a process is something many people don't consider.
  - pyrale 8y ago
    Well, after years without electricity, you may start thinking that people not bringing mixers is a symptom rather than a problem.
- lou1306 8y ago
  > And what's wrong with that argument? It is like saying "I can lift at most 100 pounds; Bob can lift at most 50 pounds: therefore, there's nothing we can do to lift that 104-pound rock".
- chickenfries 8y ago
  Are you talking about Iraq? I’m pretty sure the problem there was war, not democracy.
- dhimes 8y ago
  With apologies to Pascal[1] You assume your vote doesn't matter. Then If you are correct and you vote, nothing happens. If you are correct and you don't vote, nothing happens. If you are wrong but you vote, you help make change. If you are wrong and you don't vote, you enable bad things to come about. Game theory says to vote. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
  - DSingularity 8y ago
    Actually this might be the best argument I've read against this line of reasoning. Thank you.
  - Vraxx 8y ago
    Not to mention with all of the recent events in the US related to voter suppression, my question to people who espouse the opinion of "my vote doesn't matter", my question is this. Then why are those in power actively seeking to undermine this ability that is "useless". If it truly was useless I doubt they'd be scared enough to act against it.
    - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
      One of those things deals with your own personal vote, which is not likely to change the outcome of the election, while the other deals with large numbers of votes, which could easily change the outcome of the election. No person trying to suppress votes cares if a single individual is barred from voting. They care that many people are barred from voting.
      - Vraxx 8y ago
        well what better way to make sure a large number of people don't vote than to let them convince themselves that voting doesn't matter. My point is that the net effect is the same for both things, one you don't vote because your vote was suppressed and the other is you not voting because you don't think it will matter. Obviously if it's worth paying money to try to make sure than many people can't vote then it's even better if some people don't vote for some personal reason because they don't even have to pay for that or potentially get caught doing shady shit. Disenfranchising yourself serves the same coalition that seeks to dismantle the system in return for more personal power.
jordanpg 8y ago
No, not what he says at all. He implies that everything you need to know to vote can fit on one side of an index card. The point is you don't need to follow the news to make informed voting decisions.
- chickenfries 8y ago
  If all you do is read voter guides then you have delegated your critical thinking to the organization that produces the guide. I would not call you a informed voter if all you do is read a voter guide every election.
  - vehementi 8y ago
    I would not call you an informed voter if all you do is spend 23 hours a day consuming the 0.0001% of the news that time affords you
    - chickenfries 8y ago
      I don’t know anyone who does that. they might be well informed, I would have to see what they were reading but yes I would agree that 23 hours a day of news is not helpful. This is absurd.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  He also suggests reading books instead of daily news! He says weekly or monthly reviews would be fine too. This whole thread is full of people thinking he’s suggesting you stay ignorant, when really he’s saying the culture of everyone must read the news is wrong, and we can get our information from better sources than the news.
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    I mean the title doesn’t help. You might even call it click bait. I think the “everyone should read the news” culture that Aaron describes is a straw man. Most people I know who read the news regularly know that it’s partially entertainment for them and that you can get your info from places other than the daily news. Only people like Donald Trump think that being informed means watching cable news all day. Maybe I just haven’t met any of these people who think that books are bad but daily news headlines are good.
syn0byte 8y ago
The big pink elephant; In a lot of cases this is a rational, factual argument with the current system (In the US.) Feel free to refute the argument's validity with empirical data. I would genuinely love to see it. I've seen apologetic researchers offer reasons for why their data isn't as damning as it seems, but never seen anything remotely close to proof of validity.
- chickenfries 8y ago
  This last presidential election was decided by several thousand votes in a few states. There were even closer local elections this year. One persons vote doesn’t ever decide things, but if you can’t see the absurdity of everyone taking that position, I don’t know what to say.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    Isn't it more absurd to say that "everyone" would take that position? Plus consider that if you increased the number of voters by the margin of victory, what are the odds that 100% of those new voters would vote alike and swing the election?
- norealidea 8y ago
  1) That's not how the burden of proof works. 2) This is not a factual or rational thought in the current system. every time the Libertarian or third party does well in an election(like in the last election of 2016), it shows those in power the ideals that are looked at when choosing a candidate. The problem does not inherently lie in the system, it lies in the people telling each other that voting third party is a waste. That train of thought is what is ruining this country(USA), because it's a slippery slope to complete apathy of the system.

porpoisely 8y ago

For someone who claims to like and respect Aaron, you are rather dismissive of him and his "rant". Your recommendation to find your news, local or otherwise, might have been valid 50 years ago, but it isn't today as most news ( local, national and international ) is owned by a handful of conglomerates who more or less share the same value. Your recommendation is like telling people who don't like facebook to use instagram instead. Ignoring the fact that facebook owns instagram. I do agree that actual journalism protects democracy. I'd be interested in what you consider actual journalism.

pathseeker 8y ago
> For someone who claims to like and respect Aaron, you are rather dismissive of him and his "rant". People you like and respect can have very naive ideas. >but it isn't today as most news ( local, national and international ) is owned by a handful of conglomerates who more or less share the same value. You might be thinking of broadcast news? It's definitely not true of all local news sources. All journalism is full of biases (of the institution, of the individual reporter, etc). You can (and should) still get the news out of them. Learning that your local council is holding a big vote in a week is still important news whether or not its coming from a source on the payroll of a company owned by clearchannel.
- YinglingLight 8y ago
  I'm curious as to which kind of non-broadcast local news you're talking about. Aside from a motley mix of small town newspapers, this kind of source doesn't exist anymore.

choxi 8y ago

> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting He provides some pretty good reasoning that ignoring the news and doing candidate research might be make you a more informed voter. Could you give an example of something you learned or read in the news that had a practical effect on your life?

soundwave106 8y ago
There are many forms of "news" out there (we're on a site called Hacker News after all :) ), which is probably what my complaint about that article would be. To me, more specialized news sources sometimes definitely can be relevant to your career (think trade journals and similar), or perhaps helps you learn new things (techniques, tools, etc.) about your hobby. Definitely I've learned some things from these type of sources. If you have a good local media source, you will also see stories with relevance to your life, perhaps affecting some of the things you do, at the least involving the town you live in. Unfortunately good local media can be tough to find in some places. It usually does not involve me directly (though it indirectly involve me if said investigation is about things I pay for via taxes), but I do appreciate good investigative journalism sometimes for unearthing various wrongs and putting public pressure on organizations to do the right things. Good investigative journalism unfortunately is also in decline, however. I think Aaron's point is absolutely correct when it comes to the current trend of "news" to be talking heads shouting at each other, and yellow journalism designed to titillate, not inform. Even more sober journalism can over-focus on national issues, and that can be problematic without a balance of the local, as Aaron IMHO correctly implies. Unfortunately increasingly national and increasingly overemotional is the most visible trend of "news" today.
reaperducer 8y ago
Could you give an example of something you learned or read in the news that had a practical effect on your life? Today the news told me that a particular road I use to get to work is closed. Yesterday the news told me that a charity I usually contribute to, but forgot to this year, is falling short of its annual fundraising goal. Last week the news told me that a product I use has been recalled for safety reasons. The only people who say that the news is irrelevant to their lives are people who don't actually consume the news, and choose to imagine that the reality is identical to the parody in their minds. There are more news sources today than ever. If you don't like the one in front of you, there are others.

ptero 8y ago

We frequently need to update our mental model of the world (e.g., how are things in country X? what can I do there? is it reasonably safe to visit? what happened yesterday at place Y?). However, mainstream news usually gives me little information and whatever it gives is skewed by that channel/journalist political affiliation. I do not know of a general solution. Sometimes it is talking to neighbors; sometimes doing your own research; sometimes reading three sources at war with each other. But to be useful I have to start with specific questions, not open my brain to random sources peddling outrage. This "updating the world model" can still include reading news, but for me those should be level headed overviews and not emotional appeals. And they do not need to be real-time: reading news 2 weeks later works just as well and cuts down on "you would not BELIEVE what just happened" type of coverage. > I cringed when reading "I Hate the News" because it came across as very naive. To me, this is simple, might be a bit simplistic, rather than naive. Which is good -- erring on the side of simplicity is better than giving such a "nuanced" approach that one cannot get any actionable advice from reading something. I may agree or disagree, but I prefer opinion posts to have clear advice (maybe this is just my preference). > It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting I see no problem there. When voting offers two choices, both of which unattractive, it is OK in my book to abstain. I grew up in a place practicing one-candidate votes (i.e., you choose between "in favor" that in the end will show 95+% and "against" with no alternatives) so acquired immunity to "citizen votes solve all problems" mentality. > Find new sources, find your news. While today's news doesn't effect you directly, it might tomorrow, or it might effect your friend, loved one or neighbor. The news should not affect my family or friends. Change in the real world could; but I think "news" is not a great source of information to detecting such changes. Just my 2c.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sh33mp 8y ago
>I grew up in a place practicing one-candidate votes (i.e., you choose between "in favor" that in the end will show 95+% and "against" with no alternatives) so acquired immunity to "citizen votes solve all problems" mentality. I grew up in a place with effectively single party rule, and it was imbued into our culture that it's pointless to vote because you'll never unseat that party anyway. A big recent change was when, in a semi-recent election, an opposition party won an electoral constituency, worth a mere 5% of parliamentary votes, by the thinest of margins. I couldn't tell you what the opposition platform was today. But regardless of the fact that the opposition still wielded absolutely no legislative power, this led to an era of what many would consider a very electorate friendly legislative push. This "don't vote for the lesser of two evils" business is nonsense. Use your right to vote relentlessly: to punish arrogant politicians, to press on single issues, to fight for the lesser of two evils because it is the LESSER of two evils. Finding and balancing the lesser of two evils is your job as a voter. Even if your desired choice has no chance of winning, grinding down the margin, year after year, makes the other side nervous and more willing to compromise. Even if your desired choice has no chance of losing, expanding the margin gives them more room to take less "centrist" stances and push for the things you want. If there's a lesser of two evils, keep voting until the more of two evils has no choice but to compromise and become less evil. Lather, rinse, repeat.

chuckgreenman 8y ago

The US is structured as a representative democracy, specifically because following politics and making reasoned decisions on all this stuff is a full time job. We elect people who we think will do a good job researching, reasoning and governing. I started my academic career in political science, I thought I wanted to be a journalist. Ultimately found that computer science had problems that I was better at working through. Different people have different strengths, there's nothing wrong with outsourcing your news consumption and analysis to someone who represents your interests.

isoskeles 8y ago
> The US is structured as a representative democracy, specifically because following politics and making reasoned decisions on all this stuff is a full time job. I don’t think the original intent was that government would be involved in “all this stuff”, but I agree that representative democracy works for the system we’ve built since then.
ergothus 8y ago
I don't disagree...but then we need to follow politics and make reasoned decisions as to who to elect to do a good job representing our interests. When we get too comfortable that things will remain the same level of corruption and effectiveness (whether we think that is a good or bad level) and stop being educated and selective, that is when things STOP remaining the same. Good news sources create accountability that isn't managed by PR. Poor news sources instead empower PR.
elicash 8y ago
The founders didn't like too much democracy for ALL SORTS of reasons, some valid and some not. They built a system that mostly empowered people like themselves. I'm not demonizing them, historical context matters and they did all sorts of stuff that was good and important -- my point is simply that we should feel more willing to question their assumptions than most people have been willing to do.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

user2426679 8y ago

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” - popularly attributed to Orwell (As you may already know), Swartz was heavily influenced by Chomsky, and Aaron definitely had that pessimistic view of the "news machine." But imo, it seems justified in hindsight considering the backlash that he personally experienced after (arguably, single-handedly) stopping SOPA in it's tracks. His legal persecution was practically guaranteed after that; he was going to be found guilty of something, eventually. Unfortunately, the Secret Service got him by the legal balls for using MIT's facilities to bulk download JSTOR docs.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

chrisweekly 8y ago

effect (noun) -> affect (verb, in this intended usage) not nit-picking, rather trying to help correct a common error that distracts from an otherwise excellent comment

hluska 8y ago
These types of corrections don't really add to the conversation. I used to have similar editor instincts, but most people who read HN make substitutions like that without being told.
- chrisweekly 8y ago
  Yeah; same probably goes for this conversation. FWIW it wasn't just a typo, it was a repeated use of the wrong word. I'm no "grammar nazi", but there are (thankfully) a large number of HN readers for whom English is a foreign language. I'm happy to absorb the occasional downvote in the process of helping teach and improve the quality of others' communication. As measured by upvotes and grateful replies, the community here agrees.

aerovistae 8y ago

Thanks for your generic dismissal of our reasons for not voting. I vote in local government matters, but I'm not really sure what the point of my federal vote is supposed to be right now while I'm a blue voter in a permanently very blue state. If we had pure direct democracy that'd be one thing, but in the age of the electoral college, your dismissal of youthful naivety comes across to me as empty arrogance from someone who's convinced his own beliefs are the only ones worth adhering to.

pathseeker 8y ago
>for not voting. I vote in local government matters "I vote in local government matters" doesn't really put you in the "not voting" camp. >while I'm a blue voter in a permanently very blue state. It provides signals. Vote for other blue candidates to show support. >your dismissal of youthful naivety The dismissal is of people who don't vote. Those people are the issue because voting is the only way to get changes into your local governments, etc.

omarforgotpwd 8y ago

I think the point he was making is that the news is broken. I want to invent a better a news app.

jondubois 8y ago

>> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting What's wrong with not voting? If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference. I don't buy the argument that "If everyone thought like that, then it would make a terrible difference"... This statement is bullshit because the premise is false to begin with; most people will not think like that because most people are sheep and will vote for whoever the media tells them to vote for. The people who buy the rhetoric that their vote makes a difference are the same people who buy all the bullshit propagated by the political media. If someone is suggestible enough to accept the premise that one vote out of hundreds of million makes a difference, then surely these people are also easily influenced by other kind of media. It's very far fetched. If you're a thinker, then your vote can never compete against the masses who just follow the media.

reaperducer 8y ago
One vote never made a difference. ...is the sort of thing said by people who don't watch the news and because of that are unaware of the number of manual re-counts that are done each election.
- jondubois 8y ago
  Getting an accurate count is not the issue; that's part of the show. The issue is that you only have one single vote out of hundreds of millions and the pool of candidates is ridiculously, ridiculously limited. In a fair system with over 300 million potential candidates, how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president (as was the case for George Bush junior/senior)? What about the Clintons? When we factor in the empirical evidence, how can we still think that one vote out of hundreds of millions make any difference at all?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president If all 300 million people lived identical lives and had identical histories, then the chances are about one in 300 million. In the real world, people who take specific life paths, get specific degrees, and acquire specific skills are more likely than others to end up in a particular place. Especially when the other 299,999,999 people get to weigh in on the decision. Just as not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a database administrator at Google, and not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a barista.

smokeyj 8y ago

Maybe Aaron doesn't get it. Maybe you don't get it. The question boils down to this. If information doesn't promote action, what good was the information? > It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting And why should they? Has the outcome of an election ever come down to one vote? The pattern is simple. The news let's us focus on what we can't control so we can ignore what we can control. How many fat voters want free health care? How many of them sit down to watch the news instead of exercising? How many voters want more money but won't invest time learning a skill? How many voters want better education but won't log on to (MOOC-du-jour) How many voters want world peace but won't change their consumption habits? How many voters want cleaner energy but won't buy an electric car? I'm with Aaron on this one. Keeping up with the news doesn't make you more "woke". It means you've wasted time that could have been invested in direct action of the outcome you want.

jrumbut 8y ago
The majority party of the Virginia House of Delegates was decided not by one vote but by a coin flip because the vote was tied. This happened last year. It was all over the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court-tosses-out-one-vote-victory-in-recount-that-had-briefly-ended-a-republican-majority-in-virginia/2017/12/20/ed979a70-e5b9-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court...