7 ms·

Getting rid of “newstainment” and 24-hour news programs significantly improved the quality and breadth of the news I consume. By just reading a quality daily n

by marlor 6y ago

Getting rid of “newstainment” and 24-hour news programs significantly improved the quality and breadth of the news I consume. By just reading a quality daily newspaper and a couple of newsmagazines, I’m better informed than when I was a news junkie with cable news on in the background and news websites refreshing on my phone. “Breaking news” is broken. Print media, especially weekly newsmagazines, have the luxury of time to actually think about their coverage and provide adequate research and follow-up. Conversely, space is limited, so if it’s not adding value, it gets chopped. Live news, on the other hand, needs to alternate between being first to report, then filling time until something else occurs, all while making whatever is occurring seem more important than it really is.

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
Which print media do you recommend?
- mcgin 6y ago
  The Financial Times is my main news source. It seems to be the only one that I've found which doesn't have sensationalist stories/click baity headlines
  - Stupulous 6y ago
    Financial journalism really outperforms most media sources in terms of picking important stories and telling them in an unbiased way. Maybe their wealthier audience means that they're not racing to the bottom for clicks. Maybe the people in charge know to run a business that gives people what they want without alienating half of potential customers. Maybe something else entirely. Whatever it is, it's working, and I hope it stays that way.
    - lostandbored 6y ago
      Agreed. Even Reuters News is high quality in comparison to CNN and Fox News.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  not OP but I've had a long running subscription to The Economist since the early 90ies. One of my favorite sections usually glossed over by everyone I know (but I'm weird) is the quality from "Letters to the Editor" that are incredibly well selected and often hilarious when checked with the original piece that they are referring to. The Letters are not my causa primera for reading it, but if something so mundane is done with so much attention to detail, the rest should also be up to my expectation (and it usually is). Secondly there is also their Tech section which compared to politics / economics / finance ..., I can as an insider judge its quality. It stands out among the rest IMO. I also like the FT for similar reasons.
  - 867-5309 6y ago
    >had a long running subscription to The Economist >their Tech section ... stands out among the rest this is some hardcore Gell Mann sorcery right here
    - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
      having trouble understanding the reference. would you care to elaborate?
    - sien 6y ago
      To the child sub comment. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge... 867 is either implying that because something you know is good you judge the rest likely to be good. Alternatively they are being sarcastic because they think The Economist's tech section is poor.
      - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
        ah, thanks for shedding light. yes it's my own opinion and I don't consider myself to be an authority on these other subjects, so my only tools are intuition or trying to piggyback on people I think (or was told) are authorities. (but both are blunt tools since if I can't judge the subject my trust in others who I think know those things is equally questionable)
- marlor 6y ago
  The Economist is the gold standard, with unbiased, quality writing. Brilliant all round. However, it’s expensive (especially if you prefer print over digital). I subscribe on and off. I also really like Foreign Policy. Despite its name, it’s not really a specialist publication, just a general overview of global current affairs with a bit of a policy focus. The Guardian Weekly has great international coverage. Its editorial stance is also less overt than it once was (far more measured than the website). There are still occasional stories and writers that make my eyes roll, but it also covers really interesting global stories I don’t find anywhere else. My daily newspaper is the Sydney Morning Herald. I’ve been based in Australia since travel restrictions hit, and I’m really happy with the paper. It seems to be just as good as it was a decade ago when I was last based here. Contrary to popular opinion, there’s plenty of quality print journalism out there. You just need to read an individual paper for a while to internalise the house style and (with the notable exception of The Economist) get to know the individual predilections of each journalist. That level of engagement with the paper and its writers is not something you get from skimming Google News, but I really feel it’s at the heart of getting the most from journalism. Just buy a particular paper or newsmagazine for a month or two, and see if it’s for you. One local/national and one with a global focus is all you need. If you find them, you’ll hopefully be set for years.
Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
(This is not addressed directly at you, parent commenter, these are just general thoughts.) I studied journalism in undergrad, and I have never understood why people are so drawn to watch these national 24hr 'news' channels. During a major crisis, sure, but day in and day out? I just don't get it. There just isn't that much that happens at a non-personal level (personal meaning self-, family-, friend-, work-oriented) each day. In terms of staying "up to date," I still am not clear on why this is important to do daily at a national-focused level, but if it's important to you, it can be done in a few minutes by reading a brief recap. If you do want a more traditional news cast, PBS News Hour is a good one. But with these 24 hr networks, given how little of import happens on an average day, most of the time what you are being shown are not facts, but opinions. And these networks are all owned by massive, massive megacorps. Not sure why anyone is interested in getting drip fed opinions that originate, however loosely, from these conglomerates. They try to get you to buy into them by convincing you it's important to "stay informed," but never really explain why. They play on your desires to be a good citizen, to be seen as intelligent, to feel 'serious.' If staying informed is important, it's most important at a local level, where your real connections can help you have a real impact. People are so focused on what all the senators tweeted yesterday that they are missing the real problems, issues, etc. that they could help address in their local communities. In this sense, news might not come from media at all -- and here is where social media could actually have real value.
- Groxx 6y ago
  Honestly, I think it's addiction by design (intentionally, or merely A/B tested into existence, end result is similar). Emotional swings are impactful, even if repeated ones are not very individually memorable, and the endless rollercoaster is one way to keep you looking at the rollercoaster rather than at e.g. boredom elsewhere. Eventually you're habituated, and looking away looks less interesting than this fire that just erupted in you-wouldn't-guess-where / it-could-happen-to-you.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > They try to get you to buy into them by convincing you it's important to "stay informed," but never really explain why. The common explanation you hear everywhere, even here on HN, is that citizens "staying informed" is the key to an effective democracy. While it may be true in the abstract, using this as an argument for 24h news - or even daily news - is quietly omitting the fact that these news sources provide negative information value. Your worldview becomes less accurate, not more. Widespread addiction to breaking news is thus creating a less effective democracy.

by marlor 6y ago

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago

Which print media do you recommend?

mcgin 6y ago
The Financial Times is my main news source. It seems to be the only one that I've found which doesn't have sensationalist stories/click baity headlines
- Stupulous 6y ago
  Financial journalism really outperforms most media sources in terms of picking important stories and telling them in an unbiased way. Maybe their wealthier audience means that they're not racing to the bottom for clicks. Maybe the people in charge know to run a business that gives people what they want without alienating half of potential customers. Maybe something else entirely. Whatever it is, it's working, and I hope it stays that way.
  - lostandbored 6y ago
    Agreed. Even Reuters News is high quality in comparison to CNN and Fox News.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
not OP but I've had a long running subscription to The Economist since the early 90ies. One of my favorite sections usually glossed over by everyone I know (but I'm weird) is the quality from "Letters to the Editor" that are incredibly well selected and often hilarious when checked with the original piece that they are referring to. The Letters are not my causa primera for reading it, but if something so mundane is done with so much attention to detail, the rest should also be up to my expectation (and it usually is). Secondly there is also their Tech section which compared to politics / economics / finance ..., I can as an insider judge its quality. It stands out among the rest IMO. I also like the FT for similar reasons.
- 867-5309 6y ago
  >had a long running subscription to The Economist >their Tech section ... stands out among the rest this is some hardcore Gell Mann sorcery right here
  - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
    having trouble understanding the reference. would you care to elaborate?
  - sien 6y ago
    To the child sub comment. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge... 867 is either implying that because something you know is good you judge the rest likely to be good. Alternatively they are being sarcastic because they think The Economist's tech section is poor.
    - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
      ah, thanks for shedding light. yes it's my own opinion and I don't consider myself to be an authority on these other subjects, so my only tools are intuition or trying to piggyback on people I think (or was told) are authorities. (but both are blunt tools since if I can't judge the subject my trust in others who I think know those things is equally questionable)
marlor 6y ago
The Economist is the gold standard, with unbiased, quality writing. Brilliant all round. However, it’s expensive (especially if you prefer print over digital). I subscribe on and off. I also really like Foreign Policy. Despite its name, it’s not really a specialist publication, just a general overview of global current affairs with a bit of a policy focus. The Guardian Weekly has great international coverage. Its editorial stance is also less overt than it once was (far more measured than the website). There are still occasional stories and writers that make my eyes roll, but it also covers really interesting global stories I don’t find anywhere else. My daily newspaper is the Sydney Morning Herald. I’ve been based in Australia since travel restrictions hit, and I’m really happy with the paper. It seems to be just as good as it was a decade ago when I was last based here. Contrary to popular opinion, there’s plenty of quality print journalism out there. You just need to read an individual paper for a while to internalise the house style and (with the notable exception of The Economist) get to know the individual predilections of each journalist. That level of engagement with the paper and its writers is not something you get from skimming Google News, but I really feel it’s at the heart of getting the most from journalism. Just buy a particular paper or newsmagazine for a month or two, and see if it’s for you. One local/national and one with a global focus is all you need. If you find them, you’ll hopefully be set for years.

Gene_Parmesan 6y ago

(This is not addressed directly at you, parent commenter, these are just general thoughts.) I studied journalism in undergrad, and I have never understood why people are so drawn to watch these national 24hr 'news' channels. During a major crisis, sure, but day in and day out? I just don't get it. There just isn't that much that happens at a non-personal level (personal meaning self-, family-, friend-, work-oriented) each day. In terms of staying "up to date," I still am not clear on why this is important to do daily at a national-focused level, but if it's important to you, it can be done in a few minutes by reading a brief recap. If you do want a more traditional news cast, PBS News Hour is a good one. But with these 24 hr networks, given how little of import happens on an average day, most of the time what you are being shown are not facts, but opinions. And these networks are all owned by massive, massive megacorps. Not sure why anyone is interested in getting drip fed opinions that originate, however loosely, from these conglomerates. They try to get you to buy into them by convincing you it's important to "stay informed," but never really explain why. They play on your desires to be a good citizen, to be seen as intelligent, to feel 'serious.' If staying informed is important, it's most important at a local level, where your real connections can help you have a real impact. People are so focused on what all the senators tweeted yesterday that they are missing the real problems, issues, etc. that they could help address in their local communities. In this sense, news might not come from media at all -- and here is where social media could actually have real value.

Groxx 6y ago
Honestly, I think it's addiction by design (intentionally, or merely A/B tested into existence, end result is similar). Emotional swings are impactful, even if repeated ones are not very individually memorable, and the endless rollercoaster is one way to keep you looking at the rollercoaster rather than at e.g. boredom elsewhere. Eventually you're habituated, and looking away looks less interesting than this fire that just erupted in you-wouldn't-guess-where / it-could-happen-to-you.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> They try to get you to buy into them by convincing you it's important to "stay informed," but never really explain why. The common explanation you hear everywhere, even here on HN, is that citizens "staying informed" is the key to an effective democracy. While it may be true in the abstract, using this as an argument for 24h news - or even daily news - is quietly omitting the fact that these news sources provide negative information value. Your worldview becomes less accurate, not more. Widespread addiction to breaking news is thus creating a less effective democracy.