7 ms·

So little of the news is actionable, as the article points out. The only remotely actionable news for me is what’s happening in my local community; but the grad

So little of the news is actionable, as the article points out. The only remotely actionable news for me is what’s happening in my local community; but the gradual demise of our local newspaper has made that difficult to track. Yes, the news - national and international- shows trends that an ordinary person could act on; but not in the rapid cycles that define modern news presentation. I believe Tyler Cowen once remarked we’d be better off reading far more history than about current events. As an experiment in mental health, I gave up tracking the news nearly three months ago; in my n=1 highly biased unblinded study, it works. Yes, I know that a janky submarine sank near the Titanic and I heard there was some thwarted military coup in Russia. But every performative utterance of political types, current and past is lost on me. I don’t go around tweaked into mild cyclical agitation or outrage.

samwillis 3y ago
For the last few years I vary rarely followed the national news, I'm certainly happier for it. When I do, I have noticed a decline in mood. On "actionable" news, the only thing that really impacts me is interest rates. But even then I'm three years out from having to consider that, so happily remaining as ignorant as possible - which I suppose isn't massively so due to the volume. There is so much truth to "ignorance is bliss".
- jbs55 3y ago
  [flagged]
colpabar 3y ago
Do people ever call you privileged? A common response I see to experiments like yours is that "it must be nice to be able to not care".
- phito 3y ago
  They're trying to make their problem yours. If they can't stop caring about pointless things, it's their problem, not yours.
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    Or hypothetically they think it's very much not pointless. I imagine most of us would have some current events that we think is not only worth listening to, but acting on. Which isn't an argument to watch news/etc, as it may be exceptionally rare. Just that i imagine we could all say quite similar things. To me, if anything, it really goes to show up important "yelling with appropriate volume" is. So many of those "with a cause" as is being discussed here are pretty widely ignored, as it seems they're always yelling. I can't tell what is meaningful from them when it's almost always of equal volume, fear, etc.
- BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
  >” Do people ever call you privileged? A common response I see to experiments like yours is that "it must be nice to be able to not care".” I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause. Exactly. There's almost nothing in the daily news that someone must have "privilege" not to care about. They have some articles about social issues that might fit that description, but that's a totally different thing than the news itself.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - scarecrowbob 3y ago
      I understand that impulse. One thing I've observed, though, is that "the news" generally isn't how I get information about what fun, brave, new world people would like to make for us. "The news", qua the comercially-produced mass media doings of the day, generally has never talked about issues important to me and mine and when they do it's largely Fox punditry or it's reaction. I get a lot of information about the things I care about via various instagram folks and then following up by cursory searches to gt the larger picture. But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume.
      - pjc50 3y ago
        > But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume. Oh certainly. There was a survey a while ago (which I can't find) that found that reading UK rightwing press was correlated with being less informed about issues than simply not reading news at all - i.e. readers would underperform random guessing on multiple choice questions.
- batch12 3y ago
  I have a hard time following that logic. To me, the opposite seems true. It's a privilege to habitually consume media that has no direct bearing on one's day-to-day life.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  The news coming out of establishments like The New York Times is aimed at the upper-middle class. People who have enough power to “matter”. The news (at least some of it) is useful for them since it’s aimed at their interests and from their perspective. Who’s the privileged one? Hard to say.
- spacebacon 3y ago
  The mind can be self controlled. Everyone has a choice to consume or be unconsumed. Privilege to consume is easier to control than privilege to not consume. Limits can be placed on consumption. Limiting the choice not to consume is harder to limit. Imagine a scenario involving a protest within a prison population where the prisoners hunger strike. Force feeding with sedation and a pipe is the only choice in a total control environment. The choice to not consume is less privilege than the choice to over consume.
  - spacebacon 3y ago
    In terms of logical analysis, the statements present a mixture of subjective claims, hypothetical scenarios, and value judgments. Some of the statements are opinion-based and lack objective evidence or logical proofs. Additionally, the argumentation is not entirely coherent, as there are shifts in the discussion from personal control over consumption to the scenario of a prison hunger strike. Overall, the logic within this statement is subjective and reliant on hypothetical scenarios and personal judgments, making it difficult to evaluate the validity of the argument objectively.
    - spacebacon 3y ago
      In programming the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. A program can exist with near zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourself.
      - spacebacon 3y ago
        Let's analyze the logic of the given statement: 1. In programming, the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This statement asserts that in programming, there are fewer permissions or privileges needed to restrict or avoid consumption compared to the permissions required for actual consumption. It suggests that it is easier to control or limit consumption in the context of programming. 2. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. This statement introduces the concept of dissonance regarding the meme (a cultural symbol or idea) of a programmer. It implies that there is a contradiction or inconsistency when it comes to the behavior or perception of programmers in relation to consumption. 3. A program can exist with near-zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. This statement compares the ability of a program and a human to exist with minimal consumption. It suggests that a program can operate with very low resource usage (represented as a few neurons) while a human cannot function without some level of consumption. 4. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourselves. This statement makes a broader philosophical point. It suggests that every act of breathing or consumption signifies a participation in something larger or more significant than oneself. It implies that consumption is not just a personal action but has broader implications. The logic in these statements contains a mix of objective claims and subjective philosophical assertions. The first statement is based on the premise that permissions in programming can be differentiated between consumption and non-consumption, although it lacks specific evidence or context. The second and third statements introduce a comparison between programming and human existence, implying that programs require less consumption than humans. However, it's important to note that the analogy between programming and human biology is not straightforward, and the comparison may be oversimplified or metaphorical. The final statement offers a philosophical perspective, suggesting that consumption, represented by every breath, carries a symbolic meaning of participation in something greater. This statement relies on subjective interpretation and personal philosophy rather than objective logic. Overall, while the statements touch on different aspects related to consumption, programming, and human existence, the logical coherence is weakened by subjective interpretations and philosophical assertions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
batch12 3y ago
> I don’t go around tweaked into mild cyclical agitation or outrage. Taking a break also makes it easier for me to identify those that are steeped in the rhetoric of the day. It's educational and a little unnerving.
tivert 3y ago
> So little of the news is actionable, as the article points out. The only remotely actionable news for me is what’s happening in my local community; but the gradual demise of our local newspaper has made that difficult to track. > Yes, the news - national and international- shows trends that an ordinary person could act on; but not in the rapid cycles that define modern news presentation. I believe Tyler Cowen once remarked we’d be better off reading far more history than about current events. Honestly, I chafe a little bit at expecting the news to be "actionable" by a regular person, because I think there's some general value to being informed about your environment (especially in a democracy). However so much of modern news is neither, it's more akin to feelings-based political advertising. It's so bad that it's obvious even on the news pages of prestige outlines like the New York Times. I subscribe to their app, but I have to do a fair bit of eye rolling as I'm searching for informative things, and they're just making it harder. They've been pushing their "Opinion" section even more heavily: in the last few months they moved it up to the 2nd section after "Most Popular, knocking World News down to 3rd (or more accurately 3rd/4th since they've also stuck "Games" of all things in the 2nd slot). One sad casualty of modern times is the weekly news magazine. The slower pace and longer deadlines meant they were much better at keeping a regular person informed without all the noise of daily updates. They were also more accurate than daily news, since they weren't as rushed they could do better fact checking and research.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Honestly, I chafe a little bit at expecting the news to be "actionable" by a regular person, because I think there's some general value to being informed about your environment (especially in a democracy). What democracy? The News is kind of like so-called democracy: something that every serious person needs to do but that has very little impact on anything. The most exaggerated example is the US presidential election which in fact has a very, very long media coverage (News) up until the election itself. And what does a person who can vote get back from that? They only have two parties that they can vote for if they don’t want to “waste” their vote, and the nomination is filled with a mix of serious candidates and people who want to boost their careers (Buttigieg) and then eventually the party itself circle the wagons and boosts one anointed candidate (that was the case for the Dems but I’m not sure about the Reps since I didn’t pay much attention). One counter-example though to the News not being actionable was Covid. I felt that a lot of the news about Covid was actionable. And it was useful to know what people/experts thought about the current threat-level day-to-day.
francisofascii 3y ago
> So little of the news is actionable I think the news affects people's behaviors more than we realize. Although it tends to be around NOT doing something. Smoky air...don't go outside. Flight delays... don't fly anytime soon. Food shortages...think of a substitute. Submersible news...don't go in submersibles, beware of overconfident charismatic people, etc.
mrtksn 3y ago
It doesn't need to be actionable to have value though, is it? Good quality news can make you understand what's going on in the world so you can be at the edge when you plan for your future. It doesn't necessarily have to be impartial too, when done properly you can gain media literacy and benefit of having a reach to the discussions. The problem with the news lately is mostly about the way they make their money. Simply because they keep the lights on by displaying as much content as possible, they design and curate the content for improving the metrics they can objectively measure(like revenue and view counts). The second kind of problem is that sometimes they don't look in making money, but influence you and that kind of news may seem a little bit of higher quality. However, due to the sinister motives, it's actually even worse. Not reading the news at all, can make you seriously misguided because things are actually happen in this world for this reason or another and eventually something will impact you too. If you don't have any idea on what's going on in the grand scheme of things, your decisions and opinions are likely to be shortsighted.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  > Good quality news can make you understand what's going on in the world so you can be at the edge when you plan for your future. So much FOMO. I subscribed to and read a once-a-week article which summarizes the world events that week. Focus of the article is important catasthropes to avoid, kind of. That's enough for me.
- schrectacular 3y ago
  >Good quality news can make you understand what's going on in the world so you can be at the edge when you plan for your future. Nicholas Nassim Taleb makes the point that this is largely a fallacy insofar as paying attention to news doesn't really help one predict the more important events; his extremely well informed friends were blindsided by the coup in Lebanon. I do think it biases one toward believing that since they know what happened yesterday, they are better able to predict tomorrow, but I don't see that this is obviously the case. > Not reading the news at all, can make you seriously misguided ... If you don't have any idea on what's going on in the grand scheme of things, your decisions and opinions are likely to be shortsighted. I agree it can make you misguided, but I would also posit that paying too much attention to the news can also make you misguided. The news doesn't seem to me to pay all that much attention to the long-term and is very focused on recency (hence "new" in the name). I know you have qualified with "may" and "can" and I think I agree with the possibility, but in my experience the actual effect is the opposite. I like to say that I enjoy _history_ but despise news; it's very hard to know what in the news will be important historically and it often misses the big events. The news told us Hillary would win the election against Trump, say.
DeathArrow 3y ago
Choose quality over quantity and don't waste much time even on the quality news outlets, just enough to keep you in the loop with what happens in the world. Quality means doesn't use clickbait, doesn't try to build outrage, doesn't try to present all kinds of horrors and very rare events like being trivial happening daily, doesn't try to shock.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Sounds like a unicorn. I'm only slightly jesting. I know of some sources that probably qualify, but I seldom check them, or they require a subscription.
bnralt 3y ago
> So little of the news is actionable, as the article points out. The only remotely actionable news for me is what’s happening in my local community; but the gradual demise of our local newspaper has made that difficult to track. A hyper-focus on the national news also makes people feel like they're being a good citizen, while they completely ignore the things that actually make them a good citizen. I see it here all the time. People spend hours a week - often hours a day - following news about politicians they've already made their mind up about, or even politicians from other jurisdictions they'll never have a chance to vote for or against. Yet they spend almost no attention on local leaders, and keep voting back in the same group of people with poor track records who ignore constituents. It's not a simple difference of opinion about these people - I've had numerous conversations with the people around, and the vast majority of people don't know many of their local elected officials, and those they do know the name of they couldn't tell you anything about. Yet they could quickly tell you all the outrageous things a governor in another state did. Most national news is like junk food, where people feel like they're satiating themselves but they aren't getting any of the news they actually need.
5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
If my Russian friends ignored the news as much as you did, at least some of them would be feeding worms right now. Most left the country when the news made it obvious that a mobilization order is to be declared — it was confirmed a couple of days thereafter.
- is_true 3y ago
  I think that's the kind of news you cannot ignore, except if you avoid human contact and don't use any social media.
lewdev 3y ago
> Tyler Cowen once remarked we’d be better off reading far more history than about current events. Makes me wonder if there's a market for news that's only based on events that happened 3-6 months ago, so that we have some conclusiveness and perhaps something actionable or relevance to what happened.
ctrlp 3y ago
News is the machine that manufactures opinion. If you don't read the news you will still be subject to mainline opinion and its policy consequences. It's probably more accurate, if no less unhappy, to read the news as primarily propaganda (for specific political interests or for ideological consensus building). You can, of course, "daff the world aside, And bid it pass" but the news is history in the sense that whoever wins the news cycle, wins the commanding heights of the historical record. Think of reading the news as like the spectators taking a picnic to watch 19th century battles, but today, it's a war for peoples' minds.

samwillis 3y ago

For the last few years I vary rarely followed the national news, I'm certainly happier for it. When I do, I have noticed a decline in mood. On "actionable" news, the only thing that really impacts me is interest rates. But even then I'm three years out from having to consider that, so happily remaining as ignorant as possible - which I suppose isn't massively so due to the volume. There is so much truth to "ignorance is bliss".

jbs55 3y ago
[flagged]

colpabar 3y ago

Do people ever call you privileged? A common response I see to experiments like yours is that "it must be nice to be able to not care".

phito 3y ago
They're trying to make their problem yours. If they can't stop caring about pointless things, it's their problem, not yours.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Or hypothetically they think it's very much not pointless. I imagine most of us would have some current events that we think is not only worth listening to, but acting on. Which isn't an argument to watch news/etc, as it may be exceptionally rare. Just that i imagine we could all say quite similar things. To me, if anything, it really goes to show up important "yelling with appropriate volume" is. So many of those "with a cause" as is being discussed here are pretty widely ignored, as it seems they're always yelling. I can't tell what is meaningful from them when it's almost always of equal volume, fear, etc.
BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
>” Do people ever call you privileged? A common response I see to experiments like yours is that "it must be nice to be able to not care".” I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause. Exactly. There's almost nothing in the daily news that someone must have "privilege" not to care about. They have some articles about social issues that might fit that description, but that's a totally different thing than the news itself.
- pjc50 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - scarecrowbob 3y ago
    I understand that impulse. One thing I've observed, though, is that "the news" generally isn't how I get information about what fun, brave, new world people would like to make for us. "The news", qua the comercially-produced mass media doings of the day, generally has never talked about issues important to me and mine and when they do it's largely Fox punditry or it's reaction. I get a lot of information about the things I care about via various instagram folks and then following up by cursory searches to gt the larger picture. But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      > But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume. Oh certainly. There was a survey a while ago (which I can't find) that found that reading UK rightwing press was correlated with being less informed about issues than simply not reading news at all - i.e. readers would underperform random guessing on multiple choice questions.
batch12 3y ago
I have a hard time following that logic. To me, the opposite seems true. It's a privilege to habitually consume media that has no direct bearing on one's day-to-day life.
avgcorrection 3y ago
The news coming out of establishments like The New York Times is aimed at the upper-middle class. People who have enough power to “matter”. The news (at least some of it) is useful for them since it’s aimed at their interests and from their perspective. Who’s the privileged one? Hard to say.
spacebacon 3y ago
The mind can be self controlled. Everyone has a choice to consume or be unconsumed. Privilege to consume is easier to control than privilege to not consume. Limits can be placed on consumption. Limiting the choice not to consume is harder to limit. Imagine a scenario involving a protest within a prison population where the prisoners hunger strike. Force feeding with sedation and a pipe is the only choice in a total control environment. The choice to not consume is less privilege than the choice to over consume.
- spacebacon 3y ago
  In terms of logical analysis, the statements present a mixture of subjective claims, hypothetical scenarios, and value judgments. Some of the statements are opinion-based and lack objective evidence or logical proofs. Additionally, the argumentation is not entirely coherent, as there are shifts in the discussion from personal control over consumption to the scenario of a prison hunger strike. Overall, the logic within this statement is subjective and reliant on hypothetical scenarios and personal judgments, making it difficult to evaluate the validity of the argument objectively.
  - spacebacon 3y ago
    In programming the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. A program can exist with near zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourself.
    - spacebacon 3y ago
      Let's analyze the logic of the given statement: 1. In programming, the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This statement asserts that in programming, there are fewer permissions or privileges needed to restrict or avoid consumption compared to the permissions required for actual consumption. It suggests that it is easier to control or limit consumption in the context of programming. 2. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. This statement introduces the concept of dissonance regarding the meme (a cultural symbol or idea) of a programmer. It implies that there is a contradiction or inconsistency when it comes to the behavior or perception of programmers in relation to consumption. 3. A program can exist with near-zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. This statement compares the ability of a program and a human to exist with minimal consumption. It suggests that a program can operate with very low resource usage (represented as a few neurons) while a human cannot function without some level of consumption. 4. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourselves. This statement makes a broader philosophical point. It suggests that every act of breathing or consumption signifies a participation in something larger or more significant than oneself. It implies that consumption is not just a personal action but has broader implications. The logic in these statements contains a mix of objective claims and subjective philosophical assertions. The first statement is based on the premise that permissions in programming can be differentiated between consumption and non-consumption, although it lacks specific evidence or context. The second and third statements introduce a comparison between programming and human existence, implying that programs require less consumption than humans. However, it's important to note that the analogy between programming and human biology is not straightforward, and the comparison may be oversimplified or metaphorical. The final statement offers a philosophical perspective, suggesting that consumption, represented by every breath, carries a symbolic meaning of participation in something greater. This statement relies on subjective interpretation and personal philosophy rather than objective logic. Overall, while the statements touch on different aspects related to consumption, programming, and human existence, the logical coherence is weakened by subjective interpretations and philosophical assertions.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

batch12 3y ago

> I don’t go around tweaked into mild cyclical agitation or outrage. Taking a break also makes it easier for me to identify those that are steeped in the rhetoric of the day. It's educational and a little unnerving.

tivert 3y ago

> So little of the news is actionable, as the article points out. The only remotely actionable news for me is what’s happening in my local community; but the gradual demise of our local newspaper has made that difficult to track. > Yes, the news - national and international- shows trends that an ordinary person could act on; but not in the rapid cycles that define modern news presentation. I believe Tyler Cowen once remarked we’d be better off reading far more history than about current events. Honestly, I chafe a little bit at expecting the news to be "actionable" by a regular person, because I think there's some general value to being informed about your environment (especially in a democracy). However so much of modern news is neither, it's more akin to feelings-based political advertising. It's so bad that it's obvious even on the news pages of prestige outlines like the New York Times. I subscribe to their app, but I have to do a fair bit of eye rolling as I'm searching for informative things, and they're just making it harder. They've been pushing their "Opinion" section even more heavily: in the last few months they moved it up to the 2nd section after "Most Popular, knocking World News down to 3rd (or more accurately 3rd/4th since they've also stuck "Games" of all things in the 2nd slot). One sad casualty of modern times is the weekly news magazine. The slower pace and longer deadlines meant they were much better at keeping a regular person informed without all the noise of daily updates. They were also more accurate than daily news, since they weren't as rushed they could do better fact checking and research.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Honestly, I chafe a little bit at expecting the news to be "actionable" by a regular person, because I think there's some general value to being informed about your environment (especially in a democracy). What democracy? The News is kind of like so-called democracy: something that every serious person needs to do but that has very little impact on anything. The most exaggerated example is the US presidential election which in fact has a very, very long media coverage (News) up until the election itself. And what does a person who can vote get back from that? They only have two parties that they can vote for if they don’t want to “waste” their vote, and the nomination is filled with a mix of serious candidates and people who want to boost their careers (Buttigieg) and then eventually the party itself circle the wagons and boosts one anointed candidate (that was the case for the Dems but I’m not sure about the Reps since I didn’t pay much attention). One counter-example though to the News not being actionable was Covid. I felt that a lot of the news about Covid was actionable. And it was useful to know what people/experts thought about the current threat-level day-to-day.

francisofascii 3y ago

> So little of the news is actionable I think the news affects people's behaviors more than we realize. Although it tends to be around NOT doing something. Smoky air...don't go outside. Flight delays... don't fly anytime soon. Food shortages...think of a substitute. Submersible news...don't go in submersibles, beware of overconfident charismatic people, etc.

mrtksn 3y ago

It doesn't need to be actionable to have value though, is it? Good quality news can make you understand what's going on in the world so you can be at the edge when you plan for your future. It doesn't necessarily have to be impartial too, when done properly you can gain media literacy and benefit of having a reach to the discussions. The problem with the news lately is mostly about the way they make their money. Simply because they keep the lights on by displaying as much content as possible, they design and curate the content for improving the metrics they can objectively measure(like revenue and view counts). The second kind of problem is that sometimes they don't look in making money, but influence you and that kind of news may seem a little bit of higher quality. However, due to the sinister motives, it's actually even worse. Not reading the news at all, can make you seriously misguided because things are actually happen in this world for this reason or another and eventually something will impact you too. If you don't have any idea on what's going on in the grand scheme of things, your decisions and opinions are likely to be shortsighted.

Aerbil313 3y ago
> Good quality news can make you understand what's going on in the world so you can be at the edge when you plan for your future. So much FOMO. I subscribed to and read a once-a-week article which summarizes the world events that week. Focus of the article is important catasthropes to avoid, kind of. That's enough for me.
schrectacular 3y ago
>Good quality news can make you understand what's going on in the world so you can be at the edge when you plan for your future. Nicholas Nassim Taleb makes the point that this is largely a fallacy insofar as paying attention to news doesn't really help one predict the more important events; his extremely well informed friends were blindsided by the coup in Lebanon. I do think it biases one toward believing that since they know what happened yesterday, they are better able to predict tomorrow, but I don't see that this is obviously the case. > Not reading the news at all, can make you seriously misguided ... If you don't have any idea on what's going on in the grand scheme of things, your decisions and opinions are likely to be shortsighted. I agree it can make you misguided, but I would also posit that paying too much attention to the news can also make you misguided. The news doesn't seem to me to pay all that much attention to the long-term and is very focused on recency (hence "new" in the name). I know you have qualified with "may" and "can" and I think I agree with the possibility, but in my experience the actual effect is the opposite. I like to say that I enjoy _history_ but despise news; it's very hard to know what in the news will be important historically and it often misses the big events. The news told us Hillary would win the election against Trump, say.

DeathArrow 3y ago

Choose quality over quantity and don't waste much time even on the quality news outlets, just enough to keep you in the loop with what happens in the world. Quality means doesn't use clickbait, doesn't try to build outrage, doesn't try to present all kinds of horrors and very rare events like being trivial happening daily, doesn't try to shock.

slothtrop 3y ago
Sounds like a unicorn. I'm only slightly jesting. I know of some sources that probably qualify, but I seldom check them, or they require a subscription.

bnralt 3y ago

> So little of the news is actionable, as the article points out. The only remotely actionable news for me is what’s happening in my local community; but the gradual demise of our local newspaper has made that difficult to track. A hyper-focus on the national news also makes people feel like they're being a good citizen, while they completely ignore the things that actually make them a good citizen. I see it here all the time. People spend hours a week - often hours a day - following news about politicians they've already made their mind up about, or even politicians from other jurisdictions they'll never have a chance to vote for or against. Yet they spend almost no attention on local leaders, and keep voting back in the same group of people with poor track records who ignore constituents. It's not a simple difference of opinion about these people - I've had numerous conversations with the people around, and the vast majority of people don't know many of their local elected officials, and those they do know the name of they couldn't tell you anything about. Yet they could quickly tell you all the outrageous things a governor in another state did. Most national news is like junk food, where people feel like they're satiating themselves but they aren't getting any of the news they actually need.

5e92cb50239222b 3y ago

If my Russian friends ignored the news as much as you did, at least some of them would be feeding worms right now. Most left the country when the news made it obvious that a mobilization order is to be declared — it was confirmed a couple of days thereafter.

is_true 3y ago
I think that's the kind of news you cannot ignore, except if you avoid human contact and don't use any social media.

lewdev 3y ago

> Tyler Cowen once remarked we’d be better off reading far more history than about current events. Makes me wonder if there's a market for news that's only based on events that happened 3-6 months ago, so that we have some conclusiveness and perhaps something actionable or relevance to what happened.

ctrlp 3y ago

News is the machine that manufactures opinion. If you don't read the news you will still be subject to mainline opinion and its policy consequences. It's probably more accurate, if no less unhappy, to read the news as primarily propaganda (for specific political interests or for ideological consensus building). You can, of course, "daff the world aside, And bid it pass" but the news is history in the sense that whoever wins the news cycle, wins the commanding heights of the historical record. Think of reading the news as like the spectators taking a picnic to watch 19th century battles, but today, it's a war for peoples' minds.