3 ms·

> 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 r

• 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?