12 ms·

This is an arrogant privileged position to just ignore what is going on around you. This is at best ignoring the trampling of rights of the weakest of our socie

This is an arrogant privileged position to just ignore what is going on around you. This is at best ignoring the trampling of rights of the weakest of our society and at worst being an active colluder in such acts.

sachdevap 7y ago
Is it really? 99.9% of the people who read the news do nothing to use that in any way to fight for the weakest in our society. For most, news is nothing but a list of topics for small talk. A few work towards using it to understand topics and make informed decisions. Even fewer actually act on anything they hear in the news directly.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  One thing a lot of people do, even if they're not politically active, is discuss their concerns with others. That may inform others and possibly even change their minds on important issues. So even if you're not out there marching in protests or volunteering for your favorite political organization, you can still make a difference by informing others. The effect of this is evident on HN, which used to be almost exclusively a navel-gazing tech and startup news site, but has over the years become more politically aware. I believe that things like the recent tech employee moves towards unionizing, and various protests at companies like Google are partially motivated by information employees at these companies received on sites like HN, where important political topics are discussed and people are informed. Sticking one's head in the sand by ignoring news makes it less likely that you'll ever be motivated to do anything yourself and less likely you'll help motivate anyone else to act either.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > 99.9% of the people who read the news do nothing to use that in any way Wouldn't that imply that we don't live in a democracy and ppl are picking boxes at random at the ballot box?
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    The thing is, news consumption correlates with partisanship. Your news addicts are the least likely to actually change their mind at the ballot box with all of that 'information'.. it's doing them remarkably little good besides feeding dopamine receptors on a regular schedule.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    No. There are many sources that inform people's choices at the ballot box, i.e. their parents, education, books, and life experience. One of my close friend coming out as gay in high school has had a larger effect on who I have voted for during my lifetime than any news.
  - shantly 7y ago
    1) I don't need to keep up with the news at all ~355 days/yr to be an adequately informed voter. It's not like it takes that long to google a candidate and some issues and catch up on what you missed. 2) If we're going the informed-voter justification, we'd be much (for large values of "much") better off if everyone took 99% of the time they spend on news and instead read foundational works and textbooks in political science, economics, comparative politics, ethics, statistics, history, and government in [home country], with maybe a smidge of modern policy pieces (e.g. think-tank stuff, policy studies, that kind of thing).
    - dominotw 7y ago
      > keep up with the news at all ~355 days/yr Is that what the article is discussing though?
gherkinnn 7y ago
Get off your high horse. Not reading the news does not equate to ignoring what’s going on around you. Reading the news does not necessarily help the trampled.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > Not reading the news does not equate to ignoring what’s going on around you. how so? > Get off your high horse. no need to be rude here.
  - gherkinnn 7y ago
    How so? It takes active measures to not hear about what’s new. No one here is advocating that. Researching an issue is not “reading news”. Debating current events is not “the news”. Understanding the world is not “the news”. Going on strike is not “the news”. It’s craving the next hit of shallow information that is poison.
    - dominotw 7y ago
      > shallow information Article doesn't define news as such. He estimates that about 10% of news is legitimate. > Debating current events is not “the news” So.. your "debates" are "deep" and everything else is "shallow". Get off your high horse.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > This is an arrogant privileged position No need to be rude here, either.
    - dominotw 7y ago
      because i am describing the position as "arrogant privileged" vs GP who is describing me as a person on "high horse".
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
coffeefirst 7y ago
Yes. There’s a grounded argument for choosing quality over quantity, reading news on a short delay instead of at every notification, choosing a limited number of trustworthy sources—basically the opposite of what social media encourages you to do. But deciding to opt out entirely is kind of like dropping out of high school because you won the lottery. Can you get away with it? Maybe, for a while. Are you ignorant because if it? Of course.
- treebornfrog 7y ago
  You can 'get away' for as long as you like. I stopped consuming news years ago. The only way it reaches my conscious is if: 1) friends or family mention something (or anyone else within my social circle). Fair game. This helps me understand their thinking patterns too. Very helpful to see what they find important. 2) retweets. If I'm following someone who is retweeting low quality news I immediately block. I don't feel anxious, when I go to the barbers and everyone is staring at the TV in the top corner, it reminds me of why I stopped. Gyms are evil that play general trashy news on TV. On the whole, you are not ignorant if you don't consume the news, not by any standard. Don't believe that one bit. P.s great handle.
  - coffeefirst 7y ago
    Thanks! Agreed about the TVs. I never understood why so many places have it running in the background all day long.
    - zepto 7y ago
      To wash your brain.
    - treebornfrog 7y ago
      Now we have Facebook and Netflix for passive consumption.
  - nadagast 7y ago
    > On the whole, you are not ignorant if you don't consume the news, not by any standard. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but aren't you ignorant (by definition) of current events if you don't read/hear about them?
kerkeslager 7y ago
It seems like news has given you the illusion of caring as mentioned in section 14. Did you read that far? ;)
tomhoward 7y ago
What can you point to that demonstrates a correlation between spending a lot of time consuming mainstream media news, and undertaking actions that improve the lives of the downtrodden? Is it not possible that by spending less time/energy on the sensationalism of corporate news, we can spend more time and energy observing, contemplating and addressing the actual problems in the world?

sachdevap 7y ago

Is it really? 99.9% of the people who read the news do nothing to use that in any way to fight for the weakest in our society. For most, news is nothing but a list of topics for small talk. A few work towards using it to understand topics and make informed decisions. Even fewer actually act on anything they hear in the news directly.

pmoriarty 7y ago
One thing a lot of people do, even if they're not politically active, is discuss their concerns with others. That may inform others and possibly even change their minds on important issues. So even if you're not out there marching in protests or volunteering for your favorite political organization, you can still make a difference by informing others. The effect of this is evident on HN, which used to be almost exclusively a navel-gazing tech and startup news site, but has over the years become more politically aware. I believe that things like the recent tech employee moves towards unionizing, and various protests at companies like Google are partially motivated by information employees at these companies received on sites like HN, where important political topics are discussed and people are informed. Sticking one's head in the sand by ignoring news makes it less likely that you'll ever be motivated to do anything yourself and less likely you'll help motivate anyone else to act either.
dominotw 7y ago
> 99.9% of the people who read the news do nothing to use that in any way Wouldn't that imply that we don't live in a democracy and ppl are picking boxes at random at the ballot box?
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  The thing is, news consumption correlates with partisanship. Your news addicts are the least likely to actually change their mind at the ballot box with all of that 'information'.. it's doing them remarkably little good besides feeding dopamine receptors on a regular schedule.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  No. There are many sources that inform people's choices at the ballot box, i.e. their parents, education, books, and life experience. One of my close friend coming out as gay in high school has had a larger effect on who I have voted for during my lifetime than any news.
- shantly 7y ago
  1) I don't need to keep up with the news at all ~355 days/yr to be an adequately informed voter. It's not like it takes that long to google a candidate and some issues and catch up on what you missed. 2) If we're going the informed-voter justification, we'd be much (for large values of "much") better off if everyone took 99% of the time they spend on news and instead read foundational works and textbooks in political science, economics, comparative politics, ethics, statistics, history, and government in [home country], with maybe a smidge of modern policy pieces (e.g. think-tank stuff, policy studies, that kind of thing).
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > keep up with the news at all ~355 days/yr Is that what the article is discussing though?

gherkinnn 7y ago

Get off your high horse. Not reading the news does not equate to ignoring what’s going on around you. Reading the news does not necessarily help the trampled.

dominotw 7y ago
> Not reading the news does not equate to ignoring what’s going on around you. how so? > Get off your high horse. no need to be rude here.
- gherkinnn 7y ago
  How so? It takes active measures to not hear about what’s new. No one here is advocating that. Researching an issue is not “reading news”. Debating current events is not “the news”. Understanding the world is not “the news”. Going on strike is not “the news”. It’s craving the next hit of shallow information that is poison.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > shallow information Article doesn't define news as such. He estimates that about 10% of news is legitimate. > Debating current events is not “the news” So.. your "debates" are "deep" and everything else is "shallow". Get off your high horse.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > This is an arrogant privileged position No need to be rude here, either.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    because i am describing the position as "arrogant privileged" vs GP who is describing me as a person on "high horse".
    - kerkeslager 7y ago

coffeefirst 7y ago

Yes. There’s a grounded argument for choosing quality over quantity, reading news on a short delay instead of at every notification, choosing a limited number of trustworthy sources—basically the opposite of what social media encourages you to do. But deciding to opt out entirely is kind of like dropping out of high school because you won the lottery. Can you get away with it? Maybe, for a while. Are you ignorant because if it? Of course.

treebornfrog 7y ago
You can 'get away' for as long as you like. I stopped consuming news years ago. The only way it reaches my conscious is if: 1) friends or family mention something (or anyone else within my social circle). Fair game. This helps me understand their thinking patterns too. Very helpful to see what they find important. 2) retweets. If I'm following someone who is retweeting low quality news I immediately block. I don't feel anxious, when I go to the barbers and everyone is staring at the TV in the top corner, it reminds me of why I stopped. Gyms are evil that play general trashy news on TV. On the whole, you are not ignorant if you don't consume the news, not by any standard. Don't believe that one bit. P.s great handle.
- coffeefirst 7y ago
  Thanks! Agreed about the TVs. I never understood why so many places have it running in the background all day long.
  - zepto 7y ago
    To wash your brain.
  - treebornfrog 7y ago
    Now we have Facebook and Netflix for passive consumption.
- nadagast 7y ago
  > On the whole, you are not ignorant if you don't consume the news, not by any standard. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but aren't you ignorant (by definition) of current events if you don't read/hear about them?

kerkeslager 7y ago

It seems like news has given you the illusion of caring as mentioned in section 14. Did you read that far? ;)

tomhoward 7y ago

What can you point to that demonstrates a correlation between spending a lot of time consuming mainstream media news, and undertaking actions that improve the lives of the downtrodden? Is it not possible that by spending less time/energy on the sensationalism of corporate news, we can spend more time and energy observing, contemplating and addressing the actual problems in the world?