6 ms·

I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm sorry but there jus

I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm sorry but there just isn't any comparison. Have you ever read news about something you are an expert at? It's just laughable inaccurate. News is entertainment, not information. If you want information, read a book written by an expert at the field.

misterprime 4y ago
Also, if you engage with someone who consumes from a different news bubble than you do, it's incredibly irritating, while engaging with someone who consumes from the same news bubble as you is incredibly boring.
tootie 4y ago
News is as much about breadth as depth. There's relevant news on topics I'm never going to read a book about. And a lot of news is very much written by experts and a lot books written by biased cranks.
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
> I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm inclined to prefer the book-readers too, but the way this is phrased sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. And there is something moderately interesting (and educational) about following along, thinking about where the world will go and why, and seeing if you turn out to be right a few days/weeks later. For a while, my entire daily news consumption was just listening to the FT News Briefing [1] during my commute. It's about 10 minutes, and -- most days -- it was just the right amount of news. [1]: https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing
- koonsolo 4y ago
  > Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. Can you give an example?
ineedasername 4y ago
The world moves faster than experts write books. The US has an important election coming up in a few months. Regardless of which part of the political spectrum a person is on there are issues most will care about a great deal that will be extremely impacted by the outcomes of the elections. Issues that are way too recent to get coverage in books written by experts. Like it or not, engagement with civic society requires a person to be more current on what is going on in their towns, state and country than a book publishing schedule allows. Besides, there's a lot of room in between experts' books and passively consuming whatever the top headlines are on any given day. You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.
- briHass 4y ago
  Sure, but how many people are looking up congressional voting records, examining budgets, and reading thousands of pages of court decisions and the text of proposed legislation to form honest, independent opinions? It sure seems like most people use the internet and tv/cable news to reenforce their red/blue preference by watching shows or reading articles/posts that focus on how horrible blue/red is. Even for prominent sources, the depth of discussion is typically extremely shallow, appealing mostly to emotions, and highly biased towards the 'team' supported by the organization publishing it. In the voting booth, almost nobody will actually consider the candidates based on their individual merits or plans, regardless of team. The number of voters that dare to split the ticket is well below 10%, outright proving that there's little consideration of 'important issues' ; people pick a side and stick with it.
  - tootie 4y ago
    That's literally what journalists do. At least good ones. The entire point of this thread seems to be that a lot of journalism is low quality and pandering to emotional responses, which is certainly true. But the solution isn't to just shut yourself off. If you read the NY Times, Washington Post, maybe long-form stuff in the The Atlantic, New Yorker, Economist and listen/read to NPR and local public media you'd be well-informed and only feel outrage if something outrageous happens.
  - 4y ago

misterprime 4y ago

Also, if you engage with someone who consumes from a different news bubble than you do, it's incredibly irritating, while engaging with someone who consumes from the same news bubble as you is incredibly boring.

tootie 4y ago

News is as much about breadth as depth. There's relevant news on topics I'm never going to read a book about. And a lot of news is very much written by experts and a lot books written by biased cranks.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago

> I much rather want to talk to the person who reads books written by experts, than to talk to the person who watches the news every day. I'm inclined to prefer the book-readers too, but the way this is phrased sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. And there is something moderately interesting (and educational) about following along, thinking about where the world will go and why, and seeing if you turn out to be right a few days/weeks later. For a while, my entire daily news consumption was just listening to the FT News Briefing [1] during my commute. It's about 10 minutes, and -- most days -- it was just the right amount of news. [1]: https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing https://www.ft.com/ft-news-briefing

koonsolo 4y ago
> Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. Can you give an example?

ineedasername 4y ago

The world moves faster than experts write books. The US has an important election coming up in a few months. Regardless of which part of the political spectrum a person is on there are issues most will care about a great deal that will be extremely impacted by the outcomes of the elections. Issues that are way too recent to get coverage in books written by experts. Like it or not, engagement with civic society requires a person to be more current on what is going on in their towns, state and country than a book publishing schedule allows. Besides, there's a lot of room in between experts' books and passively consuming whatever the top headlines are on any given day. You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.

briHass 4y ago
Sure, but how many people are looking up congressional voting records, examining budgets, and reading thousands of pages of court decisions and the text of proposed legislation to form honest, independent opinions? It sure seems like most people use the internet and tv/cable news to reenforce their red/blue preference by watching shows or reading articles/posts that focus on how horrible blue/red is. Even for prominent sources, the depth of discussion is typically extremely shallow, appealing mostly to emotions, and highly biased towards the 'team' supported by the organization publishing it. In the voting booth, almost nobody will actually consider the candidates based on their individual merits or plans, regardless of team. The number of voters that dare to split the ticket is well below 10%, outright proving that there's little consideration of 'important issues' ; people pick a side and stick with it.
- tootie 4y ago
  That's literally what journalists do. At least good ones. The entire point of this thread seems to be that a lot of journalism is low quality and pandering to emotional responses, which is certainly true. But the solution isn't to just shut yourself off. If you read the NY Times, Washington Post, maybe long-form stuff in the The Atlantic, New Yorker, Economist and listen/read to NPR and local public media you'd be well-informed and only feel outrage if something outrageous happens.
- 4y ago