3 ms·

It's not a test of whether it was "news" at the time - it's a test of its relevance to you. If you look back at the news from a particular day and see now that

It's not a test of whether it was "news" at the time - it's a test of its relevance to you. If you look back at the news from a particular day and see now that reading it didn't convey information you've used since, then that is a good indication that the news you're reading now probably won't convey anything you find useful going forward.

giobox 5y ago
This is demonstrably nonsense. People make investment decisions for one, based on events in the news. The news every day is not required to be relevant specifically to you alone, that's an absurd notion, but it will from time to time be relevant to you, as it will be for anyone who exists in a given polity.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It is a signal to noise issue. If you are a day trader, daily financial news may be relevant. 99.9% of news isn't relevant or actionable for most people. If I can't answer the question "how will this inform a decision I have to make?" the news is purely entertainment. If entertainment doesn't make your life better, don't consume it. There is no value in having an "informed opinion" about topics that don't change your life.
  - giobox 5y ago
    > 99.9% of news isn't relevant or actionable for most people. This is what news is supposed to be though! To expect otherwise is the problem. Just because something isn't immediately actionable or entertaining that day in some measurable outcome is a poor test of "value" too, and would eliminate many other things people consider of "value". Continuing my previous single example, financial news can affect anyone who owns a home or has retirement savings, whether they want to admit it or not, the scope is vastly beyond financial professionals and day traders. If I know interest rates are likely due to rise in March (I do! Thanks news!), I can take steps to lock a low rate now for any debts I have, like a mortgage...
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >This is what news is supposed to be though! To expect otherwise is the problem. Just because something isn't immediately actionable or entertaining that day in some measurable outcome is a poor test of "value" too, and would eliminate many other things people consider of "value". Where do you think the value of news comes from, if not helping people take better actions to navigate their lives? >Continuing my previous single example, financial news can affect anyone who owns a home or has retirement savings, Whether they want to admit it or not, the scope is vastly beyond financial professionals and day traders. My point is that information doesn't matter even if it will or could affect you, unless you will take some action based on it. If someone realistically thinks they might sell their family home or cash out their retirement, then by all means, pay close attention to financial news. If not, they would be better off ignoring it entirely.
      - giobox 5y ago
        The list of things that can affect me and many others and appear in the news is pretty much limitless; new legislation, interest rate changes, changes to my school district, tax rate adjustments, rebanding of my property, changes to what animals are allowed on a leash in local parks, road or business closures, the list goes on and on. We do not exist in a vacuum of one and decisions of others will from time to time affect even the most introverted of individuals. All of these things can be actionable, and all of them require paying attention to a news source of some kind to take that action in time. That is the value! And yes, it means very often I have to flick through a paper that doesn't entertain or inform me at all, but that has always been the reality of the news. There are even really positive things that enter my life too, it's not all misery; news of exhibitions or bands coming to town that I love for one. There are huge interests and hobbies I have only discovered because I read about them in a news article - there can be a "discovery cost" for many people to reading no news at all too. "Value" is a tricky concept and benefits are often indirect.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >The list of things that can affect me and many others and appear in the news is pretty much limitless; new legislation, interest rate changes, changes to my school district, tax rate adjustments, rebanding of my property, changes to what animals are allowed on a leash in local parks, road or business closures, the list goes on and on. We do not exist in a vacuum of one and decisions of others will from time to time affect even the most introverted of individuals 100% agree. As I said, many things can have an impact on you, but that doesn't mean they are worth paying attention to proactively unless you are even slightly likely to do something about them. >All of these things can be actionable, and all of them require paying attention to a news source of some kind to take that action in time. Again, 100% agree, assuming you might actually take action. I think most people are not honest with themselves about what might actually lead to action. My point is not that news cant be actionable, but that for most people it rarely is. People would be better served if they curate their news consumption based on what may actually be relevant and likely to lead to action, and gasp perhaps spend some more time actually taking actions. If you feel you already do that, then great. Based on my experience, the vast majority of people don't. They spend dozens of hours following local elections for states they will never visit, building "informed opinions" about protests while never attending one themselves. They track stocks they don't own and will never buy and read crime exposes for locations they will never visit.

giobox 5y ago

This is demonstrably nonsense. People make investment decisions for one, based on events in the news. The news every day is not required to be relevant specifically to you alone, that's an absurd notion, but it will from time to time be relevant to you, as it will be for anyone who exists in a given polity.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
It is a signal to noise issue. If you are a day trader, daily financial news may be relevant. 99.9% of news isn't relevant or actionable for most people. If I can't answer the question "how will this inform a decision I have to make?" the news is purely entertainment. If entertainment doesn't make your life better, don't consume it. There is no value in having an "informed opinion" about topics that don't change your life.
- giobox 5y ago
  > 99.9% of news isn't relevant or actionable for most people. This is what news is supposed to be though! To expect otherwise is the problem. Just because something isn't immediately actionable or entertaining that day in some measurable outcome is a poor test of "value" too, and would eliminate many other things people consider of "value". Continuing my previous single example, financial news can affect anyone who owns a home or has retirement savings, whether they want to admit it or not, the scope is vastly beyond financial professionals and day traders. If I know interest rates are likely due to rise in March (I do! Thanks news!), I can take steps to lock a low rate now for any debts I have, like a mortgage...
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >This is what news is supposed to be though! To expect otherwise is the problem. Just because something isn't immediately actionable or entertaining that day in some measurable outcome is a poor test of "value" too, and would eliminate many other things people consider of "value". Where do you think the value of news comes from, if not helping people take better actions to navigate their lives? >Continuing my previous single example, financial news can affect anyone who owns a home or has retirement savings, Whether they want to admit it or not, the scope is vastly beyond financial professionals and day traders. My point is that information doesn't matter even if it will or could affect you, unless you will take some action based on it. If someone realistically thinks they might sell their family home or cash out their retirement, then by all means, pay close attention to financial news. If not, they would be better off ignoring it entirely.
    - giobox 5y ago
      The list of things that can affect me and many others and appear in the news is pretty much limitless; new legislation, interest rate changes, changes to my school district, tax rate adjustments, rebanding of my property, changes to what animals are allowed on a leash in local parks, road or business closures, the list goes on and on. We do not exist in a vacuum of one and decisions of others will from time to time affect even the most introverted of individuals. All of these things can be actionable, and all of them require paying attention to a news source of some kind to take that action in time. That is the value! And yes, it means very often I have to flick through a paper that doesn't entertain or inform me at all, but that has always been the reality of the news. There are even really positive things that enter my life too, it's not all misery; news of exhibitions or bands coming to town that I love for one. There are huge interests and hobbies I have only discovered because I read about them in a news article - there can be a "discovery cost" for many people to reading no news at all too. "Value" is a tricky concept and benefits are often indirect.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >The list of things that can affect me and many others and appear in the news is pretty much limitless; new legislation, interest rate changes, changes to my school district, tax rate adjustments, rebanding of my property, changes to what animals are allowed on a leash in local parks, road or business closures, the list goes on and on. We do not exist in a vacuum of one and decisions of others will from time to time affect even the most introverted of individuals 100% agree. As I said, many things can have an impact on you, but that doesn't mean they are worth paying attention to proactively unless you are even slightly likely to do something about them. >All of these things can be actionable, and all of them require paying attention to a news source of some kind to take that action in time. Again, 100% agree, assuming you might actually take action. I think most people are not honest with themselves about what might actually lead to action. My point is not that news cant be actionable, but that for most people it rarely is. People would be better served if they curate their news consumption based on what may actually be relevant and likely to lead to action, and gasp perhaps spend some more time actually taking actions. If you feel you already do that, then great. Based on my experience, the vast majority of people don't. They spend dozens of hours following local elections for states they will never visit, building "informed opinions" about protests while never attending one themselves. They track stocks they don't own and will never buy and read crime exposes for locations they will never visit.