4 ms·

End of the day all journalism is trying to control how you feel to get you to do something. Just realize that the concept and worry about "staying informed" is

End of the day all journalism is trying to control how you feel to get you to do something. Just realize that the concept and worry about "staying informed" is something they're using so they can force you to listen to them. Just stop looking at it for a week or two, learn how suddenly you only really hear about things that actually affect you and how much better your mental health is for it.

derevaunseraun 4y ago
I always thought the point of "staying informed" wasn't to have the news inform our everyday decisions but just to have something to talk about. Imo "good news" is the kind that tells us stuff we hadn't known prior in a way that isn't overtly sensationalist. It's dry and informative, at the cost of being entertaining. There aren't many outlets that actually do this. It's also kind of ironic (and telling) seeing this type of article come out of Wired. You wouldn't see this kind of article in an outlet like the Economist
- the_sleaze9 4y ago
  I agree with you, it is interesting this came from Wired. But I have a strong personal bias against the Economist, and I feel like you used it as an example of a more serious journalist-y news. I feel that the Economist is resting on its historic good name but has become a simple liberal rag that people use as a virtue signal. It's a terrible news source, incredibly and unabashedly biased, and the only time I have ever heard of it has been in Washington DC where only the most insufferable people smugly declare they read it cover to cover. I would humbly submit better outlets like The Week, Barron's, or maybe Quanta.
  - ndm000 4y ago
    I’d like to understand more about the perception that the Economist is a liberal publication. I’ve heard this before and it’s hard for me to reconcile this view with the articles I read. In my opinion, the economist more often than not errs on the side of being comprehensive and including facts that may or may not be relevant. Some of those facts may point to liberal conclusions, sometimes not. I also know that they’ve taken a strong conservative stance on gender-specific sports. If they were “unabashedly biased” that would not fly.
    - rodelrod 4y ago
      "From its beginnings in 1843, when The Economist newspaper was founded by a Scottish hat manufacturer to further the cause of free trade [...]" [0] It is liberal in the classical sense and in my opinion this was quite transparent in the writing at least when I was a subscriber throughout the 2000s. [0] https://www.economistgroup.com/about-us https://www.economistgroup.com/about-us
  - derevaunseraun 4y ago
    > I feel that the Economist is resting on its historic good name but has become a simple liberal rag that people use as a virtue signal. You mean liberal as in economically liberal or liberal as in woke liberal? The magazine doesn't really publish a lot of the latter type of content, but I can definitely imagine people flexing the magazine out of snobbishness (kind of like the New Yorker). But that's a different kind of virtue signal
the_other 4y ago
This is how you end up a refugee, rather than an ex-pat.
- OJFord 4y ago
  That's quite extreme; maybe start to pay more attention as your home country deteriorates to (or if it starts off at) that sort of level?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > maybe start to pay more attention as your home country deteriorates The reasons for why countries deteriorate are vast and complicated. During such trying times, there’s always a group selling the line that deterioration is happening because some “other” is causing it, and those tends to be immigrants, refugees, Jews, or any of the other go-to scape goats. So by the time your country is so bad that you notice it at the local level (I believe that dysfunction really is trickle down), the dysfunction at all levels is so deep that it’s too late for you to find the cause if you haven’t been paying close attention all along. Because any such quest for knowledge is filled with so many land mines and sand traps that the truth is completely obscured. You’re liable to get sucked into the easy to understand and straightforward explanation with a simple solution; the others cause it, so get rid of the others to fix it. Problem solved right?
    - OJFord 4y ago
      I don't think anyone's advocating for sticking your head in the sand, there's a huge difference between not actively seeking/'keeping up to date with' the news, and not noticing deterioration in your country until there is 'deep dysfunction at all levels'. Other people mention things, or you overhear things, you notice things, you walk past a newspaper stand, something references something, etc. I mostly disengaged with the news (having previously been a newspaper subscriber), apart from via HN really, and yet I was still (not via HN) aware of Russia's impending (as it was at the time) invasion of Ukraine. (And I do not live in Ukraine. I imagine it was very much more obvious there. A country in Ukraine's position - the threat of Russia on the border - is the sort of thing I mean that perhaps should make you pay more attention anyway with regard to your ex-pat vs. refugee concern. I live in the UK, and say what you want about whatever, a lot of excrement would have to hit a lot of fans before I would have any concern about becoming an ex-pat before being made a refugee. I (fortunately) do not have to read the news everyday to prevent that.)
loudmax 4y ago
Not all journalism is created equal. If you reject all journalism equally disinformative, you're left with nothing to believe but conspiracy theories. You really should understand how the different news outlets function, what their business models and sources of funding are, and their biases. You should be realistic about news media, but not so cynical that you think everything is make believe and nothing matters.
- rapind 4y ago
  > You really should understand how the different news outlets function, what their business models and sources of funding are, and their biases. While I agree, I don’t think we can expect everyone to do this research themselves, and we can’t always trust others opinions on the matter either.

derevaunseraun 4y ago

I always thought the point of "staying informed" wasn't to have the news inform our everyday decisions but just to have something to talk about. Imo "good news" is the kind that tells us stuff we hadn't known prior in a way that isn't overtly sensationalist. It's dry and informative, at the cost of being entertaining. There aren't many outlets that actually do this. It's also kind of ironic (and telling) seeing this type of article come out of Wired. You wouldn't see this kind of article in an outlet like the Economist

the_sleaze9 4y ago
I agree with you, it is interesting this came from Wired. But I have a strong personal bias against the Economist, and I feel like you used it as an example of a more serious journalist-y news. I feel that the Economist is resting on its historic good name but has become a simple liberal rag that people use as a virtue signal. It's a terrible news source, incredibly and unabashedly biased, and the only time I have ever heard of it has been in Washington DC where only the most insufferable people smugly declare they read it cover to cover. I would humbly submit better outlets like The Week, Barron's, or maybe Quanta.
- ndm000 4y ago
  I’d like to understand more about the perception that the Economist is a liberal publication. I’ve heard this before and it’s hard for me to reconcile this view with the articles I read. In my opinion, the economist more often than not errs on the side of being comprehensive and including facts that may or may not be relevant. Some of those facts may point to liberal conclusions, sometimes not. I also know that they’ve taken a strong conservative stance on gender-specific sports. If they were “unabashedly biased” that would not fly.
  - rodelrod 4y ago
    "From its beginnings in 1843, when The Economist newspaper was founded by a Scottish hat manufacturer to further the cause of free trade [...]" [0] It is liberal in the classical sense and in my opinion this was quite transparent in the writing at least when I was a subscriber throughout the 2000s. [0] https://www.economistgroup.com/about-us https://www.economistgroup.com/about-us
- derevaunseraun 4y ago
  > I feel that the Economist is resting on its historic good name but has become a simple liberal rag that people use as a virtue signal. You mean liberal as in economically liberal or liberal as in woke liberal? The magazine doesn't really publish a lot of the latter type of content, but I can definitely imagine people flexing the magazine out of snobbishness (kind of like the New Yorker). But that's a different kind of virtue signal

the_other 4y ago

This is how you end up a refugee, rather than an ex-pat.

OJFord 4y ago
That's quite extreme; maybe start to pay more attention as your home country deteriorates to (or if it starts off at) that sort of level?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > maybe start to pay more attention as your home country deteriorates The reasons for why countries deteriorate are vast and complicated. During such trying times, there’s always a group selling the line that deterioration is happening because some “other” is causing it, and those tends to be immigrants, refugees, Jews, or any of the other go-to scape goats. So by the time your country is so bad that you notice it at the local level (I believe that dysfunction really is trickle down), the dysfunction at all levels is so deep that it’s too late for you to find the cause if you haven’t been paying close attention all along. Because any such quest for knowledge is filled with so many land mines and sand traps that the truth is completely obscured. You’re liable to get sucked into the easy to understand and straightforward explanation with a simple solution; the others cause it, so get rid of the others to fix it. Problem solved right?
  - OJFord 4y ago
    I don't think anyone's advocating for sticking your head in the sand, there's a huge difference between not actively seeking/'keeping up to date with' the news, and not noticing deterioration in your country until there is 'deep dysfunction at all levels'. Other people mention things, or you overhear things, you notice things, you walk past a newspaper stand, something references something, etc. I mostly disengaged with the news (having previously been a newspaper subscriber), apart from via HN really, and yet I was still (not via HN) aware of Russia's impending (as it was at the time) invasion of Ukraine. (And I do not live in Ukraine. I imagine it was very much more obvious there. A country in Ukraine's position - the threat of Russia on the border - is the sort of thing I mean that perhaps should make you pay more attention anyway with regard to your ex-pat vs. refugee concern. I live in the UK, and say what you want about whatever, a lot of excrement would have to hit a lot of fans before I would have any concern about becoming an ex-pat before being made a refugee. I (fortunately) do not have to read the news everyday to prevent that.)

loudmax 4y ago

Not all journalism is created equal. If you reject all journalism equally disinformative, you're left with nothing to believe but conspiracy theories. You really should understand how the different news outlets function, what their business models and sources of funding are, and their biases. You should be realistic about news media, but not so cynical that you think everything is make believe and nothing matters.

rapind 4y ago
> You really should understand how the different news outlets function, what their business models and sources of funding are, and their biases. While I agree, I don’t think we can expect everyone to do this research themselves, and we can’t always trust others opinions on the matter either.