4 ms·

I listen to or read probably 8hrs of news at double speed (so 16hrs) a day. I intentionally listen to as many varied opinions as possible. For stories I try to

I listen to or read probably 8hrs of news at double speed (so 16hrs) a day. I intentionally listen to as many varied opinions as possible. For stories I try to find the source material and then can decide better for myself any bias. The most interesting part is trying to explain to people when they are incorrect about a story. 50% of the time people won’t believe it even when presented with source material. One particular faction almost always ignores the facts. A site I’ll recommend people to explore bias and all sides is https://ground.news/ https://ground.news/ It’s not perfect, but if you explore it you can at least see all perspectives and stories you may otherwise miss. A few personal observations about echo chamber regions in news: 1. Corporate news (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, New York Times, Washington post, etc) is never the fastest or most detailed to report anything. Imo it’s completely government propaganda, primarily far-left leading. 2. Populist news & podcasters (New York Post, Daily Mail, Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, WarRoom Pandemic, Lex Friedman, Michal Malice, Eric Weinstein, Sam Harris, etc) typically breaks news or investigates topics which inform the listeners or readers. The discussions and articles are typically in-depth. Often this content is moderate, but can be left or right. 3. Pundits (NPR, DailyWire, John Oliver, stephen colbert, etc) they are critics, often masking their critics in comedy or discussion. News is never broken, but opinions are more digestible. These people are pitching their view point, rather than validating facts and are often incorrect in assertions. They range wildly from left to right, there are few moderates. I think those are the three broad categories of media echo chambers. People tend to fall into one branch of one of those chambers, so “left populist” news or “right pundits”. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the best way to form opinions. I really wish there was straight news, but there’s really not a ton of journalism. Most of the “journalism” is really done by the populists or podcasters who end up interviewing experts for long conversations. “Information” seems to primarily spread via social media, and imo that’s why journalism is limited. Corporate news can simply respond to Twitter trends. Podcasters tend to go into interesting topics with guests. And pundits do something in-between.

skybrian 5y ago
For science news at least, it’s a warning sign when populist publications pick up a story but the more reputable ones won’t touch it. There’s probably something wrong with the story.
- hkt 5y ago
  For science in particular, nobody but science publications or commentators is worth reading. Even reputable newspapers publish things which are bunk. More places need to engage with organisations like the science media centre[1] since they engage specifically with journalists and try to act as a bridge. [1] https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > There’s probably something wrong with the story. Yup, by wrong you mean it doesn't fit the Marxist agenda. Wrongthink: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrongthink https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrongthink Remember, it was the Lancet that carried Daszak's Wuhan lab leak coverup. And it's reported that multiple other "reputable" scientific journals fell in line like good comrades. Biggest coverup in world history.
ArnoVW 5y ago
That's quite an enormous effort! Do you do it for professional reasons, or to keep up? If your objective is really to have an understanding of the world, it may not be that effective though. Watching US news 8 hours a day does not broaden your news diet by that much. Have you considered investing some of those 8h in learning French or German, and reading the international press? Being Dutch I read NRC. Since I live in France I read Le Monde, which is 'ok', except during election season. And I follow vaguely BBC and CNN, although they are becoming more and more unreadable. Through HN I get some articles from the economist and NYT / WaPo. I've always found the difference in coverage between countries more interesting than the difference between sources within a country. In France there is a weekly magazine called Le Courrier International. They translate articles from all over the world, so you get for example one page about a diplomatic incident between China and Korea, with one article from each country. Each source is contextualized, when the paper was created, who are the owners, etc. Maybe something like that exists in English?
- hkt 5y ago
  Le Monde also has a publication in English - Le Monde Diplomatique: http://mondediplo.com/ http://mondediplo.com/ I find it gives helpfully different perspectives on foreign affairs, and when it reports on my country (UK) it escapes the day to day press allegiances because it looks from the outside in. I'm having a go at learning Esperanto to read the edition they publish in that language, because I suspect the view will be even further from that of the English language edition. To GP: the populists are, in my experience, just partisans. There's not much value to any of them. Save your time and find international publications.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > Le Monde Diplomatique ...which also uses RSS ( mondediplo.com/rss )! Unfortunately, that other suggestion, ground.news, does not seem to.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    First, yes I listen to various items from around the world. I think I even put a couple in the short list. That being said, most of the stuff around the world is effectively propaganda. It’s good to see sentiment, but it’s generally paid for by government or for government. Even Le Monde started by request of the government and is own largely by someone in another country. IMO it’s pretty partisan. Not saying it’s bad by any means, just that you have to weight it.
Ardren 5y ago
> I listen to or read probably 8hrs of news at double speed (so 16hrs) a day. > I intentionally listen to as many varied opinions as possible. For stories I try to find the source material and then can decide better for myself any bias. How do you have time to track down sources? Last news story that I track the original source for took about 30mins (from mainstream, to local news, to primary sources), and it revealed that mainstream story was correct. I'd need a big team of people to critically look at 16 hours of news a day.
- lettergram 5y ago
  Most of the more populist news & podcasters tell you where to go. I can easily follow a link on their website. In contrast, go to CNN or MSNBC, you won’t find any links off their website. Their sources are “anonymous” as well, so real sources are more difficult.
anticodon 5y ago
I know three languages and before I've tried to read news in different languages to get supposedly "more complete" picture. I've abandoned this approach completely after 06/01 when the next day I went to read news from EU and they were repeating word to word the same BS as American news. I understand that USA population is brainwashed and all their media are under tight control. But I was hoping that this situation would be portrayed from a different angle at least from another countries. In the end it just proves two things I've believed before: 1) USA controls almost all of the world media 2) Europe is a colony of the USA that cannot make any independent free choice - it just does what is ordered by the USA
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > Europe … just does what is ordered by the USA. Except for that large Nordstream 2 pipeline with Russia.
  - anticodon 5y ago
    Except for that large Nordstream 2 pipeline with Russia. Without that pipeline, Europe (or Germany) would collapse. Germany needs that pipe because it needs energy for the industry and maybe to some extent because it destroyed it own energy system earlier (e.g. closing nuclear powerstations). Yes, it is the only case where Europe did something that contradicted orders of the Big Brother. But it's similar to the the situation where one person tells another to jump of the cliff: if you jump off the cliff you're dead anyway, so most people would disobey in this situation even under heavy pressure.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Stop reading «world media» then and start looking for worthwhile analysts.
- lettergram 5y ago
  This is why I suggested not listening to the corporate media. Independent podcasters are the most effective, albeit not perfect, at providing actual insights.
lapinot 5y ago
> 1. Corporate news (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, New York Times, Washington post, etc) [..]. Imo it’s completely government propaganda, primarily far-left leading. Either you slipped a bit in the heat or i misunderstood something but it's pretty wild to qualify "government propaganda" as "far-left". There's hardly any government in the world that is far-left. Besides one could argue that governing far-left isn't far-left anymore since any governing party has to compromise because inertia.
zeruch 5y ago
"I listen to or read probably 8hrs of news at double speed (so 16hrs) a day." So you spend more time trying to optimize input than comprehension or thoughtful contemplation.

skybrian 5y ago

For science news at least, it’s a warning sign when populist publications pick up a story but the more reputable ones won’t touch it. There’s probably something wrong with the story.

hkt 5y ago
For science in particular, nobody but science publications or commentators is worth reading. Even reputable newspapers publish things which are bunk. More places need to engage with organisations like the science media centre[1] since they engage specifically with journalists and try to act as a bridge. [1] https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/ https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/
redis_mlc 5y ago
> There’s probably something wrong with the story. Yup, by wrong you mean it doesn't fit the Marxist agenda. Wrongthink: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrongthink https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrongthink Remember, it was the Lancet that carried Daszak's Wuhan lab leak coverup. And it's reported that multiple other "reputable" scientific journals fell in line like good comrades. Biggest coverup in world history.

ArnoVW 5y ago

That's quite an enormous effort! Do you do it for professional reasons, or to keep up? If your objective is really to have an understanding of the world, it may not be that effective though. Watching US news 8 hours a day does not broaden your news diet by that much. Have you considered investing some of those 8h in learning French or German, and reading the international press? Being Dutch I read NRC. Since I live in France I read Le Monde, which is 'ok', except during election season. And I follow vaguely BBC and CNN, although they are becoming more and more unreadable. Through HN I get some articles from the economist and NYT / WaPo. I've always found the difference in coverage between countries more interesting than the difference between sources within a country. In France there is a weekly magazine called Le Courrier International. They translate articles from all over the world, so you get for example one page about a diplomatic incident between China and Korea, with one article from each country. Each source is contextualized, when the paper was created, who are the owners, etc. Maybe something like that exists in English?

hkt 5y ago
Le Monde also has a publication in English - Le Monde Diplomatique: http://mondediplo.com/ http://mondediplo.com/ I find it gives helpfully different perspectives on foreign affairs, and when it reports on my country (UK) it escapes the day to day press allegiances because it looks from the outside in. I'm having a go at learning Esperanto to read the edition they publish in that language, because I suspect the view will be even further from that of the English language edition. To GP: the populists are, in my experience, just partisans. There's not much value to any of them. Save your time and find international publications.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > Le Monde Diplomatique ...which also uses RSS ( mondediplo.com/rss )! Unfortunately, that other suggestion, ground.news, does not seem to.
- lettergram 5y ago
  First, yes I listen to various items from around the world. I think I even put a couple in the short list. That being said, most of the stuff around the world is effectively propaganda. It’s good to see sentiment, but it’s generally paid for by government or for government. Even Le Monde started by request of the government and is own largely by someone in another country. IMO it’s pretty partisan. Not saying it’s bad by any means, just that you have to weight it.

Ardren 5y ago

> I listen to or read probably 8hrs of news at double speed (so 16hrs) a day. > I intentionally listen to as many varied opinions as possible. For stories I try to find the source material and then can decide better for myself any bias. How do you have time to track down sources? Last news story that I track the original source for took about 30mins (from mainstream, to local news, to primary sources), and it revealed that mainstream story was correct. I'd need a big team of people to critically look at 16 hours of news a day.

lettergram 5y ago
Most of the more populist news & podcasters tell you where to go. I can easily follow a link on their website. In contrast, go to CNN or MSNBC, you won’t find any links off their website. Their sources are “anonymous” as well, so real sources are more difficult.

anticodon 5y ago

I know three languages and before I've tried to read news in different languages to get supposedly "more complete" picture. I've abandoned this approach completely after 06/01 when the next day I went to read news from EU and they were repeating word to word the same BS as American news. I understand that USA population is brainwashed and all their media are under tight control. But I was hoping that this situation would be portrayed from a different angle at least from another countries. In the end it just proves two things I've believed before: 1) USA controls almost all of the world media 2) Europe is a colony of the USA that cannot make any independent free choice - it just does what is ordered by the USA

throwaway210222 5y ago
> Europe … just does what is ordered by the USA. Except for that large Nordstream 2 pipeline with Russia.
- anticodon 5y ago
  Except for that large Nordstream 2 pipeline with Russia. Without that pipeline, Europe (or Germany) would collapse. Germany needs that pipe because it needs energy for the industry and maybe to some extent because it destroyed it own energy system earlier (e.g. closing nuclear powerstations). Yes, it is the only case where Europe did something that contradicted orders of the Big Brother. But it's similar to the the situation where one person tells another to jump of the cliff: if you jump off the cliff you're dead anyway, so most people would disobey in this situation even under heavy pressure.
mdp2021 5y ago
Stop reading «world media» then and start looking for worthwhile analysts.
lettergram 5y ago
This is why I suggested not listening to the corporate media. Independent podcasters are the most effective, albeit not perfect, at providing actual insights.

lapinot 5y ago

> 1. Corporate news (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, New York Times, Washington post, etc) [..]. Imo it’s completely government propaganda, primarily far-left leading. Either you slipped a bit in the heat or i misunderstood something but it's pretty wild to qualify "government propaganda" as "far-left". There's hardly any government in the world that is far-left. Besides one could argue that governing far-left isn't far-left anymore since any governing party has to compromise because inertia.

zeruch 5y ago

"I listen to or read probably 8hrs of news at double speed (so 16hrs) a day." So you spend more time trying to optimize input than comprehension or thoughtful contemplation.