6 ms·

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 l

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?

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?