7 ms·

Spoiler: He did not actually quit the news, just watching news on TV as opposed to reading articles. >I’m mostly talking about following TV and internet newsca

Spoiler: He did not actually quit the news, just watching news on TV as opposed to reading articles. >I’m mostly talking about following TV and internet newscasts here. This post isn’t an indictment of journalism as a whole. There’s a big difference between watching a half hour of CNN’s refugee crisis coverage (not that they cover it anymore) versus spending that time reading a 5,000-word article on the same topic.

cpach 5y ago
Yeah enormous difference. It is indeed a good idea to avoid TV news. My suggestion: Go to a news stand instead and grab a copy of The Economist. One who does that will learn much about the world. About countries one rarely hear about in other media outlets. About advances in science and technology. In my opinion, time spent reading The Economist is not wasted. Well that’s my 2¢ anyway ¯\＿(ツ)＿/¯
- xattt 5y ago
  I’m waiting for someone to jump in and shit on The Economist. However, I don’t think a person that doesn’t have any sort of social standing to uphold will have anything bad to say.
  - cpach 5y ago
    There are of course things one could criticize them for. I still believe it’s a useful and interesting publication. And quite unique, dare I say.
  - thescriptkiddie 5y ago
    I'll bite. The Economist is a right-wing publication. The quality of the writing is usually pretty good so it's not a bad choice if you're in to that sort of thing, but it is propaganda.
    - kibblesalad 5y ago
      Clearly you don't have any sort of social standing to uphold and have disqualified yourself from the discussion! Citations Needed has a decent episode on the publication and its history: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-98-the-refined-sociopathy-of-the-economist https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-98-the-refined-so...
      - cpach 5y ago
        That seems like a quite opinionated podcast indeed. From the blurb it sounds like the old proverb “som fan läser bibeln” (don’t know if you have it in English but it means “like the Devil reads the Bible”). The book discussed could be interesting though. I might pick up a copy! https://www.versobooks.com/books/3090-liberalism-at-large https://www.versobooks.com/books/3090-liberalism-at-large
    - ghostpepper 5y ago
      It’s right wing on many economic issues (free trade, globalization, etc) but don’t expect them to fall in with typical USA Republican Party lines on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc)
    - cpach 5y ago
      I guess that depends on how you define right-wing. But sure, the publication is in favour of capitalism. Is that really so controversial though? I thought it was pretty obvious that The Economist is neither Social Democrat, nor socialist or communist. On the other hand, a Social Democrat could probably agree with much that’s written there.
- telchior 5y ago
  I agree, it's a great magazine. But don't forget that even the Economist is only providing a shallow overview of any given topic (despite the apparent depth); has a specific partisan viewpoint / world philosophy; and is frequently wrong. Most people know that at an intellectual level, of course. But it's all too easy to read something like an Economist article and come away thinking "oh, I learned a lot / have a decent understanding of this issue". A lot of that comes down to the editorial style and self-assured tone of the writing. It helps to remember that even something like the Economist is largely written by people in their mid-20s with no particular expertise, and edited by people who may be older and wiser but also cover many different topics.
  - cpach 5y ago
    Good point. To really get to know a field / question, one needs deeper sources.
  - Seattle3503 5y ago
    All true, and yet often it is the best someone can do when they are looking for a quick breakdown of the week.
- mahogany 5y ago
  > My suggestion: Go to a news stand instead and grab a copy of The Economist. One who does that will learn much about the world. About countries one rarely hear about in other media outlets. About advances in science and technology. To play Devil's advocate, why is it useful to spend time learning about these types of things -- world politics, economics, even current scientific developments? Is it mainly because it's interesting (so that it's primarily entertainment)? Or is it to better yourself in some way? I think a lot of people implicitly think that this type of knowledge falls into the "bettering yourself" category, but I wonder if it's mostly for entertainment. Of course, if you are actively involved in international politics, then things look different, but I'm mainly talking about the "everyperson". I bring this up because I go through phases where I get really into world "happenings" as described above, but then after a while I feel as though I have gained little or nothing, except emotional responses and opinions about these things, which causes no noticeable positive effect in my day-to-day life (and in fact, often affects my mental state negatively, given the amount of fear-mongering in media). Instead, I have the suspicion that all of that time would have been better spent focusing on things local: myself, friendships, family, hobbies.
  - berkes 5y ago
    My reason for reading in-depth articles and books is to increase my learnings on all these topics. Partly for entertainment. But mostly because our world is hyperconnected. A looming war in Eastern Europe, combined with supply-chain shortages, apparently has a giant effect on stock prices. So, in order to understand why my pension is at risk, what I can do to secure it, or whether I should wait with buying a new car or house, , I need to know about 1) Russian Geopolitics, 2) Natural-Gas usage, 3) Supply-chains of, mostly, computer-chips, 4) inflation and then, 5, how all this ties together. We live in a hyperconnected world where every butterfly has profound effects on my daily life. For me, that means I try to avoid reading about every butterfly or wing-flapping (i.e. the daily news) but I try to learn as much as possible about underlying mechanisms and issues.
  - telchior 5y ago
    I pointed out that the Economist isn't that great in another comment, but turning around and leaping to its defense: It tends to give an overview of geopolitical events that do have some meaning. For instance, your entire idea of the Philippines may be that it's a US ally, has a lot of beaches and happy people. The Economist (or something similar) may then clue you in that no, actually, the country is on the edge of falling to dictatorship and in bed with China. That info is slanted, and may not be useful for you taking any substantive action; but on the other hand, it gives you a starting point if, say, you ever had a Filipino coworker. It also tells you something about the broader world, such as the fact that a lot of democracies are starting to look fragile enough that you might want to consider learning enough to decide whether that could actually be a local problem. (This isn't a screed, just an example; the Philippines may be fine and your local democracy may be strong!) If you already knew a decent amount about the situation -- well, maybe just skip that particular article, or give it a quick skim and move on. Maybe look at the Economist as a sampler, rather than something to read cover to cover. It also has stuff like the Technology Quarterly, which actually covers a much broader range of tech concepts than, say, HN.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > It is indeed a good idea to avoid TV news. I was in the original wave of "cord cutters," it's been 20+ years. I have also spent many of those years abroad. My exposure to TV news is around 1-2 hours per year, in various countries. When I visit my family back at home there is normal American news on the TV. I can only last a few seconds before I have to leave the room because the news is presented as if the audience consists of people with a 5th grade education. It is beyond insulting. I never felt this until I left TV's influence for a few years. This phenomenon is extremely exaggerated in the USA.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  My suggestion is don't even bother with the economist. It's news in more pretentious and intelligent packaging. It's honestly better than some other sources for sure, but that isn't the point. The point isn't to find good sources of news. I think the point is that most news, no matter how good it is, is largely pointless. I'll pick up the economist if something in it interests me. Otherwise I largely ignore all news.
  - ROTMetro 5y ago
    And it definitely is biased. It sadly very much "informs" you towards having the opinion it wants to promote which is what I think we are discussing getting away from.
    - cpach 5y ago
      If I may ask, what other publications do you recommend that you deem more objective? Do they also cover large swathes of the whole world, like The Economist does?
      - ROTMetro 5y ago
        I wish I knew some I would probably be less 'OMG everything has gotten horrible' overreacting.
  - foo92691 5y ago
    The Economist is also like 100+ pages per week. Very hard to consume without significant dedication.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Don't read every article?
- JSONderulo 5y ago
  Love The Economist. I have a subscription.
- XorNot 5y ago
  I'd advise against the news stand. Classic intelligence fieldwork ploy: if you make someone work a little for a bit of information, they're more likely to assign it a higher value. Adding friction to your news consumption makes it feel higher quality, but is of course actually totally independent of that.
afterburner 5y ago
Yeah, TV News is the real issue, it only gives a completely surface level understanding of anything, such that you will be forming political opinions based on emotional impact and nothing else. And that, btw, is the reason to stay informed: to come to accurate conclusions that inform your political opinions. Because at some point, decisions need to be made about things, and your vote is part of that process. Not just your own vote, either, but the votes of anyone else you can communicate with. Of course, for many, the emotional impact is all that happens, which forms the basis of all propaganda and advertising.
- redisman 5y ago
  Most web based news is not any better. Just because someone wrote it down doesn’t make the analysis any deeper
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - afterburner 5y ago
    I agree, there's plenty of terrible news. TV news is just the most common that also has an outsized effect on voters.
chrisfosterelli 5y ago
I don't think it's specifically against TV so much as against junk news. There's lots of junk news in article form. TV is just a really bad offender as far as junk news goes.
rovek 5y ago
It feels like some of the more agile publishers reacted to this sentiment some years ago, in that they started publishing 5,000 word articles about EVERYTHING and subsequently even long reads are self-indulgent garbage. I personally would extend this article in today's world to be more like "scan the headlines every 2-3 days and go read books instead". That way you know "what" is largely happening, e.g. geopolitics, floods, murder trial, but you don't waste time consuming a few thousand words of garbage from somebody who knows no more than you do. A friend of mine started doing this way before me and a take of his was that any sufficiently big news will make its way through to you via social circles anyway, use people who don't value their time as your filter.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DesiLurker 5y ago
My strong rule regarding news is that I will not get any news from a narrated source. if I want the news I'll read it & preferably pay for it like NYT etc. my reasoning is that evolutionary we are not well designed to reject reality, and anything that is absorbed via audio-visual senses is considered reality (at least initially) by our monkey brains. if we believe a lie we just end up creating a smaller 'universe' in our heads where that lie is true and do a sort of 'chroot' to it. this makes rejecting outright-lies/spin/BS very taxing. I have noticed that I can be much more critical of info presented if I am reading it because I have control on the process & that provides necessary space to insert my reasoning and context into it. TLDR: Dont watch news, read it.

cpach 5y ago

Yeah enormous difference. It is indeed a good idea to avoid TV news. My suggestion: Go to a news stand instead and grab a copy of The Economist. One who does that will learn much about the world. About countries one rarely hear about in other media outlets. About advances in science and technology. In my opinion, time spent reading The Economist is not wasted. Well that’s my 2¢ anyway ¯\＿(ツ)＿/¯

xattt 5y ago
I’m waiting for someone to jump in and shit on The Economist. However, I don’t think a person that doesn’t have any sort of social standing to uphold will have anything bad to say.
- cpach 5y ago
  There are of course things one could criticize them for. I still believe it’s a useful and interesting publication. And quite unique, dare I say.
- thescriptkiddie 5y ago
  I'll bite. The Economist is a right-wing publication. The quality of the writing is usually pretty good so it's not a bad choice if you're in to that sort of thing, but it is propaganda.
  - kibblesalad 5y ago
    Clearly you don't have any sort of social standing to uphold and have disqualified yourself from the discussion! Citations Needed has a decent episode on the publication and its history: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-98-the-refined-sociopathy-of-the-economist https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-98-the-refined-so...
    - cpach 5y ago
      That seems like a quite opinionated podcast indeed. From the blurb it sounds like the old proverb “som fan läser bibeln” (don’t know if you have it in English but it means “like the Devil reads the Bible”). The book discussed could be interesting though. I might pick up a copy! https://www.versobooks.com/books/3090-liberalism-at-large https://www.versobooks.com/books/3090-liberalism-at-large
  - ghostpepper 5y ago
    It’s right wing on many economic issues (free trade, globalization, etc) but don’t expect them to fall in with typical USA Republican Party lines on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc)
  - cpach 5y ago
    I guess that depends on how you define right-wing. But sure, the publication is in favour of capitalism. Is that really so controversial though? I thought it was pretty obvious that The Economist is neither Social Democrat, nor socialist or communist. On the other hand, a Social Democrat could probably agree with much that’s written there.
telchior 5y ago
I agree, it's a great magazine. But don't forget that even the Economist is only providing a shallow overview of any given topic (despite the apparent depth); has a specific partisan viewpoint / world philosophy; and is frequently wrong. Most people know that at an intellectual level, of course. But it's all too easy to read something like an Economist article and come away thinking "oh, I learned a lot / have a decent understanding of this issue". A lot of that comes down to the editorial style and self-assured tone of the writing. It helps to remember that even something like the Economist is largely written by people in their mid-20s with no particular expertise, and edited by people who may be older and wiser but also cover many different topics.
- cpach 5y ago
  Good point. To really get to know a field / question, one needs deeper sources.
- Seattle3503 5y ago
  All true, and yet often it is the best someone can do when they are looking for a quick breakdown of the week.
mahogany 5y ago
> My suggestion: Go to a news stand instead and grab a copy of The Economist. One who does that will learn much about the world. About countries one rarely hear about in other media outlets. About advances in science and technology. To play Devil's advocate, why is it useful to spend time learning about these types of things -- world politics, economics, even current scientific developments? Is it mainly because it's interesting (so that it's primarily entertainment)? Or is it to better yourself in some way? I think a lot of people implicitly think that this type of knowledge falls into the "bettering yourself" category, but I wonder if it's mostly for entertainment. Of course, if you are actively involved in international politics, then things look different, but I'm mainly talking about the "everyperson". I bring this up because I go through phases where I get really into world "happenings" as described above, but then after a while I feel as though I have gained little or nothing, except emotional responses and opinions about these things, which causes no noticeable positive effect in my day-to-day life (and in fact, often affects my mental state negatively, given the amount of fear-mongering in media). Instead, I have the suspicion that all of that time would have been better spent focusing on things local: myself, friendships, family, hobbies.
- berkes 5y ago
  My reason for reading in-depth articles and books is to increase my learnings on all these topics. Partly for entertainment. But mostly because our world is hyperconnected. A looming war in Eastern Europe, combined with supply-chain shortages, apparently has a giant effect on stock prices. So, in order to understand why my pension is at risk, what I can do to secure it, or whether I should wait with buying a new car or house, , I need to know about 1) Russian Geopolitics, 2) Natural-Gas usage, 3) Supply-chains of, mostly, computer-chips, 4) inflation and then, 5, how all this ties together. We live in a hyperconnected world where every butterfly has profound effects on my daily life. For me, that means I try to avoid reading about every butterfly or wing-flapping (i.e. the daily news) but I try to learn as much as possible about underlying mechanisms and issues.
- telchior 5y ago
  I pointed out that the Economist isn't that great in another comment, but turning around and leaping to its defense: It tends to give an overview of geopolitical events that do have some meaning. For instance, your entire idea of the Philippines may be that it's a US ally, has a lot of beaches and happy people. The Economist (or something similar) may then clue you in that no, actually, the country is on the edge of falling to dictatorship and in bed with China. That info is slanted, and may not be useful for you taking any substantive action; but on the other hand, it gives you a starting point if, say, you ever had a Filipino coworker. It also tells you something about the broader world, such as the fact that a lot of democracies are starting to look fragile enough that you might want to consider learning enough to decide whether that could actually be a local problem. (This isn't a screed, just an example; the Philippines may be fine and your local democracy may be strong!) If you already knew a decent amount about the situation -- well, maybe just skip that particular article, or give it a quick skim and move on. Maybe look at the Economist as a sampler, rather than something to read cover to cover. It also has stuff like the Technology Quarterly, which actually covers a much broader range of tech concepts than, say, HN.
consumer451 5y ago
> It is indeed a good idea to avoid TV news. I was in the original wave of "cord cutters," it's been 20+ years. I have also spent many of those years abroad. My exposure to TV news is around 1-2 hours per year, in various countries. When I visit my family back at home there is normal American news on the TV. I can only last a few seconds before I have to leave the room because the news is presented as if the audience consists of people with a 5th grade education. It is beyond insulting. I never felt this until I left TV's influence for a few years. This phenomenon is extremely exaggerated in the USA.
deltaonefour 5y ago
My suggestion is don't even bother with the economist. It's news in more pretentious and intelligent packaging. It's honestly better than some other sources for sure, but that isn't the point. The point isn't to find good sources of news. I think the point is that most news, no matter how good it is, is largely pointless. I'll pick up the economist if something in it interests me. Otherwise I largely ignore all news.
- ROTMetro 5y ago
  And it definitely is biased. It sadly very much "informs" you towards having the opinion it wants to promote which is what I think we are discussing getting away from.
  - cpach 5y ago
    If I may ask, what other publications do you recommend that you deem more objective? Do they also cover large swathes of the whole world, like The Economist does?
    - ROTMetro 5y ago
      I wish I knew some I would probably be less 'OMG everything has gotten horrible' overreacting.
- foo92691 5y ago
  The Economist is also like 100+ pages per week. Very hard to consume without significant dedication.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Don't read every article?
JSONderulo 5y ago
Love The Economist. I have a subscription.
XorNot 5y ago
I'd advise against the news stand. Classic intelligence fieldwork ploy: if you make someone work a little for a bit of information, they're more likely to assign it a higher value. Adding friction to your news consumption makes it feel higher quality, but is of course actually totally independent of that.

afterburner 5y ago

Yeah, TV News is the real issue, it only gives a completely surface level understanding of anything, such that you will be forming political opinions based on emotional impact and nothing else. And that, btw, is the reason to stay informed: to come to accurate conclusions that inform your political opinions. Because at some point, decisions need to be made about things, and your vote is part of that process. Not just your own vote, either, but the votes of anyone else you can communicate with. Of course, for many, the emotional impact is all that happens, which forms the basis of all propaganda and advertising.

redisman 5y ago
Most web based news is not any better. Just because someone wrote it down doesn’t make the analysis any deeper
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- afterburner 5y ago
  I agree, there's plenty of terrible news. TV news is just the most common that also has an outsized effect on voters.

chrisfosterelli 5y ago

I don't think it's specifically against TV so much as against junk news. There's lots of junk news in article form. TV is just a really bad offender as far as junk news goes.

rovek 5y ago

It feels like some of the more agile publishers reacted to this sentiment some years ago, in that they started publishing 5,000 word articles about EVERYTHING and subsequently even long reads are self-indulgent garbage. I personally would extend this article in today's world to be more like "scan the headlines every 2-3 days and go read books instead". That way you know "what" is largely happening, e.g. geopolitics, floods, murder trial, but you don't waste time consuming a few thousand words of garbage from somebody who knows no more than you do. A friend of mine started doing this way before me and a take of his was that any sufficiently big news will make its way through to you via social circles anyway, use people who don't value their time as your filter.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DesiLurker 5y ago

My strong rule regarding news is that I will not get any news from a narrated source. if I want the news I'll read it & preferably pay for it like NYT etc. my reasoning is that evolutionary we are not well designed to reject reality, and anything that is absorbed via audio-visual senses is considered reality (at least initially) by our monkey brains. if we believe a lie we just end up creating a smaller 'universe' in our heads where that lie is true and do a sort of 'chroot' to it. this makes rejecting outright-lies/spin/BS very taxing. I have noticed that I can be much more critical of info presented if I am reading it because I have control on the process & that provides necessary space to insert my reasoning and context into it. TLDR: Dont watch news, read it.