6 ms·

> news Following news, especially outside the very-local, has very nearly zero value for most people. It's a hobby with about the same value as watching a dail

by bamfly 3y ago

> news Following news, especially outside the very-local, has very nearly zero value for most people. It's a hobby with about the same value as watching a daily soap opera, that we fool ourselves into thinking is important. "But, informed voters!" the voter who spends a few minutes a day reading relevant non-fiction books—history, poli-sci, statistics, marketing/PR, political philosophy, economics, and so on—rather than the news, and just pokes their head up to look at the news & candidates' messages for a few minutes right before each election, is going to be a way better voter than one who puts the same amount of time into mass news media, and skips the books. Wildly better. Incomparably better. Hell, someone who does neither might well be better than the one immersed in mass news media daily or weekly. It. Is. Not. Important. Or. Valuable. (separately, having a strong news media is important... so, IDK, pay for a paper that does good investigative journalism, but rarely read it? This part's tricky, and arguably one of the great problems of democracy) FYI everyone also votes backwards from how they should. If you're going to ignore elections, ignore the big ones, and attend the ones for local candidates and issues and school boards and such—the more local, the more your vote matters, and the effect is large. If you want to make a difference in a Presidential election, it's far more effective to participate in the primary or caucus and stay home on election day, than to do the opposite. Yet voter behavior is reversed on all this.

azinman2 3y ago
My friend was mentioning exactly this. Does a child murder somewhere in the country affect his life? No. Keeping it all in and being angry all the time with no recourse was affecting him. I think it’s still important to be informed, so there’s a middle ground. It seems to me who is president does affect a lot of my life, from abortion, to Supreme Court rules that have majorly affected my life, to war, trade and the economy.
- bamfly 3y ago
  > It seems to me who is president does affect a lot of my life, from abortion, to Supreme Court rules that have majorly affected my life, to war, trade and the economy. It does—the problem is the value of a single vote. Odds are very poor—like, single-powerball-ticket-poor—that if you cast a vote for every single presidential election you can in your lifetime, anything about your life or anyone else's will be even slightly different. It's the least effective vote you can cast—yet seems like the only one people go out of their way to shame people over, if they don't vote. The smaller the vote (and, in the special case of presidential elections in the US, the less stupid and disenfranchising the rules) the greater the effect. Even narrowing a close vote by one, if you don't quite put it over the top, can make a difference at the very-local level.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    If you don't vote for yourself, somebody else will. Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. You do not vote to "sway the election" with your grandiose opinion. You do so in order to inform society of your position. It's not about "winning over the other side". That's already a ridiculous misrepresentation of society. There is no "other side" to begin with. Yes, the current incarnation of "democracy" is wildly lacking. But the point is to improve on it, not to throw away what countless generations strived to achieve just because it's not perfect yet.
    - humanrebar 3y ago
      > You [vote] in order to inform society of your position. Except my position isn't well captured by the available candidates most of the time. Sure, I can write in a candidate, but how do I signal why that candidate is acceptable when the other options aren't?
    - bamfly 3y ago
      > Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. Most of my positions on the relative efficacy of various voter behaviors in the US system of government are heavily informed by my having been a poli-sci major in the US, and spending a fair amount of time studying those directly and absorbing expert analyses of them. Admittedly, some of those are unpopular—people love voting for the President (and then ignoring school board, city, and county elections, and not participating in any political parties). shrug
      - Loquebantur 3y ago
        Your idea of being an expert because you majored in a related topic is amusingly misinformed as well. You are kidding yourself. You need to critically look at how politics in real life works. On the level of presidential elections, the US is no "democracy" in any sensible meaning of the word to begin with. But that doesn't mean, votes there would be unimportant. The last few elections should make that exceedingly obvious. In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential. Presidential elections are quite the opposite really.
civilitty 3y ago
Anyone who really wants to stay informed need only to glance at the Wikipedia current events portal [1] once a week. Any global event of any note will show up there with very little sensationalism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
- jebarker 3y ago
  Thanks - this is a great suggestion
- dv35z 3y ago
  Great suggestion. I use this as my default news page.
65 3y ago
I wonder... would it matter if I didn't know who the president of the United States was? Would that affect my life in any way?
- temphnacct 3y ago
  I watched a YT video [0] where a man gets to record his time in a Swartzentruber Amish home and they didn't know who the president was. It didn't seem to impact their lives at all. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJKKkETuI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJKKkETuI4
pharrington 3y ago
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you're not a woman.
- bamfly 3y ago
  It's not about the scope of the power of the elected official, it's that the effect of a presidential vote may as well be zero—it's about the power of the vote. A vote for, say, school board may also have near-zero power, but is nonetheless thousands of times greater. A vote in a presidential primary is also far more likely to have any effect whatsoever, than a vote in the general, both because it's smaller and because decisions there determine the entire course of the rest of the campaign, and of the general election. I care plenty about reproductive rights, FWIW, if that's what you're getting at. It's nonetheless the case that a person who votes (only) in one local or state election every four years is doing their civic duty better than someone who votes (only) in every presidential election—but voter participation patterns treat the presidential vote like it's the very most important one to get to. Most people stay home for some elections, and from a how-best-to-spend-my-limited-time-and-effort perspective, most of them are getting it wrong (unless you factor in other things, like how much social pressure there is to go to vote for president vs. how much there is to get to the polls for other elections).
  - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
    You present voting in federal/local elections as one or the other — why not seek to participate in both as an informed citizen? I’m confused why one seems to preclude the other in your statement.
    - bamfly 3y ago
      A whole lot of people in-fact only turn out for the "big" votes, is the problem.
      - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
        I get that, but a solution to that problem — on my mind — doesn’t involve people voting less regularly in Federal elections, but rather getting folks to vote more regularly in local elections. Separating the two seems arbitrary — federal elections have more money behind them than local, so awareness is greater. That’s a solvable problem, and one we’ve seen tremendous gains on in the last 15 years. Which is to say, I think the “pay less attention” advice, while popular and relaxing a decade ago for certain demographics, inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise.
Thoeu388 3y ago
Maybe you are just reading garbage sources. News I read, are somehow magically able to predict future 4 years ahead. Predicting future has a huge value.
- bamfly 3y ago
  > > for most people If you're able to e.g. turn the news into money or other real advantages, or desirable (to you, at least) outcomes that wouldn't have been possible otherwise, you're one of ones who aren't covered by "most".
- garrickvanburen 3y ago
  Can you recommend some sources?
  - classified 3y ago
    A crystal ball?
jen729w 3y ago
After doom-scrolling Covid through all of 2020, I decided to quit the news. As of 1 Jan 2021 I haven’t visited a news website. I never watched TV news anyway (I don’t have broadcast/cable). Sometimes the news drifts through from the radio, and if someone sends me a thing I’m not religious about not opening it. But, basically, no news. I haven’t missed it at all, and I do feel better. I have little clue what’s going on in the world and I don’t really care. What was I going to do about it anyway? I still browse social media. I’ve 90% switched to Mastodon from Twitter, which is just nicer. Simpler. More personal. HN is my main ‘browsing to kill time’ site, and I’m looking forward to an upcoming holiday so I can break this habit a little. Though I do now realise it’s all or nothing. You’re either in, in which case you are in, or you’re out. That’s why making it a resolution-style quitting — I remember the date — really helps. I’m on a run now, and I’d ruin that by visiting one news site even once. All temptation has now gone, thanks to time. The news cycle is relentless and mostly pointless. Ditching it has absolutely been a benefit to my mental state.
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  You're presently on a run and pinged HN? No judgment, but that strikes me as notable.
  - jen729w 3y ago
    On a run as in an unbroken streak. Of not visiting news sites. I am not jogging, no. That would be weird.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  Any authoritarian regime would love a populace with such self-absorbed opinions devoid of any regard for consequences in the long run. Awareness of events with geopolitical consequences might not immediately affect your diet or whatever you "truly" care about. It sure as hell is a world of difference when it comes to making judgements that span more than a couple weeks. Living in a state of relative decadence, when circumstances allow for life to become seemingy routine and change a scarcity precipitates times when that is very different.

by bamfly 3y ago

azinman2 3y ago

My friend was mentioning exactly this. Does a child murder somewhere in the country affect his life? No. Keeping it all in and being angry all the time with no recourse was affecting him. I think it’s still important to be informed, so there’s a middle ground. It seems to me who is president does affect a lot of my life, from abortion, to Supreme Court rules that have majorly affected my life, to war, trade and the economy.

bamfly 3y ago
> It seems to me who is president does affect a lot of my life, from abortion, to Supreme Court rules that have majorly affected my life, to war, trade and the economy. It does—the problem is the value of a single vote. Odds are very poor—like, single-powerball-ticket-poor—that if you cast a vote for every single presidential election you can in your lifetime, anything about your life or anyone else's will be even slightly different. It's the least effective vote you can cast—yet seems like the only one people go out of their way to shame people over, if they don't vote. The smaller the vote (and, in the special case of presidential elections in the US, the less stupid and disenfranchising the rules) the greater the effect. Even narrowing a close vote by one, if you don't quite put it over the top, can make a difference at the very-local level.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  If you don't vote for yourself, somebody else will. Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. You do not vote to "sway the election" with your grandiose opinion. You do so in order to inform society of your position. It's not about "winning over the other side". That's already a ridiculous misrepresentation of society. There is no "other side" to begin with. Yes, the current incarnation of "democracy" is wildly lacking. But the point is to improve on it, not to throw away what countless generations strived to achieve just because it's not perfect yet.
  - humanrebar 3y ago
    > You [vote] in order to inform society of your position. Except my position isn't well captured by the available candidates most of the time. Sure, I can write in a candidate, but how do I signal why that candidate is acceptable when the other options aren't?
  - bamfly 3y ago
    > Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. Most of my positions on the relative efficacy of various voter behaviors in the US system of government are heavily informed by my having been a poli-sci major in the US, and spending a fair amount of time studying those directly and absorbing expert analyses of them. Admittedly, some of those are unpopular—people love voting for the President (and then ignoring school board, city, and county elections, and not participating in any political parties). shrug
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      Your idea of being an expert because you majored in a related topic is amusingly misinformed as well. You are kidding yourself. You need to critically look at how politics in real life works. On the level of presidential elections, the US is no "democracy" in any sensible meaning of the word to begin with. But that doesn't mean, votes there would be unimportant. The last few elections should make that exceedingly obvious. In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential. Presidential elections are quite the opposite really.

civilitty 3y ago

Anyone who really wants to stay informed need only to glance at the Wikipedia current events portal [1] once a week. Any global event of any note will show up there with very little sensationalism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

jebarker 3y ago
Thanks - this is a great suggestion
dv35z 3y ago
Great suggestion. I use this as my default news page.

65 3y ago

I wonder... would it matter if I didn't know who the president of the United States was? Would that affect my life in any way?

temphnacct 3y ago
I watched a YT video [0] where a man gets to record his time in a Swartzentruber Amish home and they didn't know who the president was. It didn't seem to impact their lives at all. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJKKkETuI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJKKkETuI4

pharrington 3y ago

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you're not a woman.

bamfly 3y ago
It's not about the scope of the power of the elected official, it's that the effect of a presidential vote may as well be zero—it's about the power of the vote. A vote for, say, school board may also have near-zero power, but is nonetheless thousands of times greater. A vote in a presidential primary is also far more likely to have any effect whatsoever, than a vote in the general, both because it's smaller and because decisions there determine the entire course of the rest of the campaign, and of the general election. I care plenty about reproductive rights, FWIW, if that's what you're getting at. It's nonetheless the case that a person who votes (only) in one local or state election every four years is doing their civic duty better than someone who votes (only) in every presidential election—but voter participation patterns treat the presidential vote like it's the very most important one to get to. Most people stay home for some elections, and from a how-best-to-spend-my-limited-time-and-effort perspective, most of them are getting it wrong (unless you factor in other things, like how much social pressure there is to go to vote for president vs. how much there is to get to the polls for other elections).
- voltaireodactyl 3y ago
  You present voting in federal/local elections as one or the other — why not seek to participate in both as an informed citizen? I’m confused why one seems to preclude the other in your statement.
  - bamfly 3y ago
    A whole lot of people in-fact only turn out for the "big" votes, is the problem.
    - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
      I get that, but a solution to that problem — on my mind — doesn’t involve people voting less regularly in Federal elections, but rather getting folks to vote more regularly in local elections. Separating the two seems arbitrary — federal elections have more money behind them than local, so awareness is greater. That’s a solvable problem, and one we’ve seen tremendous gains on in the last 15 years. Which is to say, I think the “pay less attention” advice, while popular and relaxing a decade ago for certain demographics, inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise.

Thoeu388 3y ago

Maybe you are just reading garbage sources. News I read, are somehow magically able to predict future 4 years ahead. Predicting future has a huge value.

bamfly 3y ago
> > for most people If you're able to e.g. turn the news into money or other real advantages, or desirable (to you, at least) outcomes that wouldn't have been possible otherwise, you're one of ones who aren't covered by "most".
garrickvanburen 3y ago
Can you recommend some sources?
- classified 3y ago
  A crystal ball?

jen729w 3y ago

After doom-scrolling Covid through all of 2020, I decided to quit the news. As of 1 Jan 2021 I haven’t visited a news website. I never watched TV news anyway (I don’t have broadcast/cable). Sometimes the news drifts through from the radio, and if someone sends me a thing I’m not religious about not opening it. But, basically, no news. I haven’t missed it at all, and I do feel better. I have little clue what’s going on in the world and I don’t really care. What was I going to do about it anyway? I still browse social media. I’ve 90% switched to Mastodon from Twitter, which is just nicer. Simpler. More personal. HN is my main ‘browsing to kill time’ site, and I’m looking forward to an upcoming holiday so I can break this habit a little. Though I do now realise it’s all or nothing. You’re either in, in which case you are in, or you’re out. That’s why making it a resolution-style quitting — I remember the date — really helps. I’m on a run now, and I’d ruin that by visiting one news site even once. All temptation has now gone, thanks to time. The news cycle is relentless and mostly pointless. Ditching it has absolutely been a benefit to my mental state.

hcurtiss 3y ago
You're presently on a run and pinged HN? No judgment, but that strikes me as notable.
- jen729w 3y ago
  On a run as in an unbroken streak. Of not visiting news sites. I am not jogging, no. That would be weird.
Loquebantur 3y ago
Any authoritarian regime would love a populace with such self-absorbed opinions devoid of any regard for consequences in the long run. Awareness of events with geopolitical consequences might not immediately affect your diet or whatever you "truly" care about. It sure as hell is a world of difference when it comes to making judgements that span more than a couple weeks. Living in a state of relative decadence, when circumstances allow for life to become seemingy routine and change a scarcity precipitates times when that is very different.