7 ms·

I find this richly ironic. One of the points of the article is that not everything is black and white, and we need to take a big picture view of things. This s

I find this richly ironic. One of the points of the article is that not everything is black and white, and we need to take a big picture view of things. This sentiment is... exactly the opposite. It is completely possible for there to be problems in the media, and for there also to be content it produces that is good and makes sense. Could the media be better? Sure. Does your almost comically negative comment really serve to help anyone? No.

rhacker 4y ago
Well it helped me quite a bit, I didn't have to type it myself!
P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
- jjulius 4y ago
  Except that it does. Life is nuanced. OP is trying to make a point based on a couple of headlines, but the actual content of the articles explain things a bit more clearly and nuanced, and are a lot less "THE SKY IS FALLING!", than OP seems to be insinuating they are based on their titles alone.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    This is nihilism at its finest. There are things that are knowable in this world, a website that claims A but does the opposite is one of those things. Trust means said website putting their money where their mouth is. The only defense here is that it's an opinion piece and doesn't represent the website as a whole, but the solution is to possibly trust the author but not the website. Since we're talking about nuance here, a counterexample doesn't invalidate the point being made, especially about media in general.
    - majormajor 4y ago
      You're performing a trick here in here of hiding the individual differences between two separate authors by referring to "a website" as a monolith. (And then you semi-walk-it-back, but treat that as somehow... a strange thing to do?) That's the sort of rhetorical subterfuge that helps promote a black-and-white us-and-them narrative. I generally don't even agree with Brooks on a lot of things, so I'd go even further and suggest that in many cases one should evaluate separate texts independently (this can lead to some problems at the extreme ends, but again, it's not a black and white rule). It's hard to see anything helpful coming from your sort of blanket dismissal response.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        This isn't reddit or HN where the content is purely user driven, this is a website that publishes what they themselves choose to publish, and we're free to judge them for that holistically. One suspects that if an author submitted an article denying the holocaust, the website in question would refuse to publish it. They can be judged by what they publish, and they acknowledge this by not publishing everything that's proffered to them.
    - msteffen 4y ago
      I mean the website isn't a monolith; some parts are good, some parts aren't. Different writers have different perspectives. I think TFA is trying to argue that it's possible to see the world as a basically safe place, despite the presence of this kind of inconsistency. The website's not perfect, but it seems like it has some things going for it, and anyway you're smart and can get by just fine in a world with imperfect media :-)
- amalcon 4y ago
  The point has more teeth since it is the same website. The point is that no individual or organization is perfectly good or perfectly bad, and we need to be able to recognize the good without it being treated as an endorsement of the bad.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
- z3c0 4y ago
  It may be a radical notion to some, but it's actually possible for an online publication to have multiple writers of differing qualities and opinions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Ironically enough, I think the author might actually agree with boomboomsubban. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/10/reading-too-much-political-news-bad-happiness/616651/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/10/reading-t... "Reading Too Much Political News Is Bad for Your Well-Being" > For example, Dutch researchers in 2017 conducted a study on how hard news that tends to provide a political perspective affects well-being. They found that on average, well-being falls 6.1 percent for every additional television hard news program watched a week. They explained this by noting the dominance of negative stories on such programs, and the powerlessness viewers might feel in the face of all that bad news. It’s difficult to imagine that stories about political news in America would have any less of a negative impact—especially given how fraught and contentious United States politics is now. Prescribed remedy is to avoid such media: > 2. Ration your consumption of politics and limit the time you spend discussing it. > 3. Turn off ultra-partisan news sources, especially on your own side.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Fear mongering about the fear mongering media boogeyman. Some people become truly obsessed with flamebait political news but there is more constructive criticism to be made about our free press that, though not perfect, is better than the alternatives. It should be respectfully criticized but cherished. The shallow drive-by bomb throwing is getting a bit much around here as of late.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Fear mongering about the fear mongering media boogeyman. This gave me a good chuckle. I can't rebut it. Anyway, I don't think this is best considered as a free vs nonfree press issue. The press in America are motivated by profit. If people are taught and encouraged to reduce their consumption of fear mongering media, the free press will adjust to suit the new demand.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Basically everything is motivated by profit but it is not zero-sum. You give me factual, well-written, relevant reporting and I give you money because I value that. We both win. If The Atlantic turns into a fear-mongering, low-quality, rag then they lose my money. I definitely agree that people need to reduce consumption of fear mongering media but I'm not holding my breath! Is this just established news media trying and failing to compete with social media where the sky is on fire and falling 24/7?
blondin 4y ago
and i want to add that the fear mongering article GP is talking about is the last thing i see on that page. i have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page. didn't see it the first time, and had to go back. GP's comment was impulsive.
halffaday 4y ago
Comically negative? It’s hardly negative enough. I’d change the link title to “Miserable, childless misanthrope and establishment propagandist chides you for concerns over your childrens’ safety and affirms that to be fashionable you must pretend not to notice the ruling strata has deliberately undermined public safety and social cohesion for decades for cynical personal financial gain and service to the progressive pseudo-religion” Now it’s comically negative in a “it’s funny because it’s true” kind of way.

rhacker 4y ago

Well it helped me quite a bit, I didn't have to type it myself!

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

jjulius 4y ago
Except that it does. Life is nuanced. OP is trying to make a point based on a couple of headlines, but the actual content of the articles explain things a bit more clearly and nuanced, and are a lot less "THE SKY IS FALLING!", than OP seems to be insinuating they are based on their titles alone.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  This is nihilism at its finest. There are things that are knowable in this world, a website that claims A but does the opposite is one of those things. Trust means said website putting their money where their mouth is. The only defense here is that it's an opinion piece and doesn't represent the website as a whole, but the solution is to possibly trust the author but not the website. Since we're talking about nuance here, a counterexample doesn't invalidate the point being made, especially about media in general.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    You're performing a trick here in here of hiding the individual differences between two separate authors by referring to "a website" as a monolith. (And then you semi-walk-it-back, but treat that as somehow... a strange thing to do?) That's the sort of rhetorical subterfuge that helps promote a black-and-white us-and-them narrative. I generally don't even agree with Brooks on a lot of things, so I'd go even further and suggest that in many cases one should evaluate separate texts independently (this can lead to some problems at the extreme ends, but again, it's not a black and white rule). It's hard to see anything helpful coming from your sort of blanket dismissal response.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      This isn't reddit or HN where the content is purely user driven, this is a website that publishes what they themselves choose to publish, and we're free to judge them for that holistically. One suspects that if an author submitted an article denying the holocaust, the website in question would refuse to publish it. They can be judged by what they publish, and they acknowledge this by not publishing everything that's proffered to them.
  - msteffen 4y ago
    I mean the website isn't a monolith; some parts are good, some parts aren't. Different writers have different perspectives. I think TFA is trying to argue that it's possible to see the world as a basically safe place, despite the presence of this kind of inconsistency. The website's not perfect, but it seems like it has some things going for it, and anyway you're smart and can get by just fine in a world with imperfect media :-)
amalcon 4y ago
The point has more teeth since it is the same website. The point is that no individual or organization is perfectly good or perfectly bad, and we need to be able to recognize the good without it being treated as an endorsement of the bad.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
z3c0 4y ago
It may be a radical notion to some, but it's actually possible for an online publication to have multiple writers of differing qualities and opinions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Ironically enough, I think the author might actually agree with boomboomsubban. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/10/reading-too-much-political-news-bad-happiness/616651/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/10/reading-t... "Reading Too Much Political News Is Bad for Your Well-Being" > For example, Dutch researchers in 2017 conducted a study on how hard news that tends to provide a political perspective affects well-being. They found that on average, well-being falls 6.1 percent for every additional television hard news program watched a week. They explained this by noting the dominance of negative stories on such programs, and the powerlessness viewers might feel in the face of all that bad news. It’s difficult to imagine that stories about political news in America would have any less of a negative impact—especially given how fraught and contentious United States politics is now. Prescribed remedy is to avoid such media: > 2. Ration your consumption of politics and limit the time you spend discussing it. > 3. Turn off ultra-partisan news sources, especially on your own side.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Fear mongering about the fear mongering media boogeyman. Some people become truly obsessed with flamebait political news but there is more constructive criticism to be made about our free press that, though not perfect, is better than the alternatives. It should be respectfully criticized but cherished. The shallow drive-by bomb throwing is getting a bit much around here as of late.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Fear mongering about the fear mongering media boogeyman. This gave me a good chuckle. I can't rebut it. Anyway, I don't think this is best considered as a free vs nonfree press issue. The press in America are motivated by profit. If people are taught and encouraged to reduce their consumption of fear mongering media, the free press will adjust to suit the new demand.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Basically everything is motivated by profit but it is not zero-sum. You give me factual, well-written, relevant reporting and I give you money because I value that. We both win. If The Atlantic turns into a fear-mongering, low-quality, rag then they lose my money. I definitely agree that people need to reduce consumption of fear mongering media but I'm not holding my breath! Is this just established news media trying and failing to compete with social media where the sky is on fire and falling 24/7?

blondin 4y ago

and i want to add that the fear mongering article GP is talking about is the last thing i see on that page. i have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page. didn't see it the first time, and had to go back. GP's comment was impulsive.

halffaday 4y ago

Comically negative? It’s hardly negative enough. I’d change the link title to “Miserable, childless misanthrope and establishment propagandist chides you for concerns over your childrens’ safety and affirms that to be fashionable you must pretend not to notice the ruling strata has deliberately undermined public safety and social cohesion for decades for cynical personal financial gain and service to the progressive pseudo-religion” Now it’s comically negative in a “it’s funny because it’s true” kind of way.