6 ms·

I've come to a similar conclusion. Because news emphasizes the dramatic over the contextual, they're always providing me poor information in an even poorer cont

I've come to a similar conclusion. Because news emphasizes the dramatic over the contextual, they're always providing me poor information in an even poorer context. That's just the way the business works. I've done something weird, though: I switched to plaintext commentary. So each day I scan my personal news site, http://newspaper23.com http://newspaper23.com. It only does commentary. I find that by scanning the titles I can see what news items are hot in the world without getting so wrapped up in them. If I like, I can always read commentaries with opposing views on a particular issue. But the kicker is, somehow once the material is slanted, once I know it's spin, it no longer has the high level of emotional engagement. Writing an Op-Ed along the lines of "We must do X!" is simply a different art form than news fearmongering. Seriously, if you haven't given up MSM news, you need to. That shit will rot your brain. It's crisis-of-the-hour stuff over there. And the pundits just make it worse.

Osiris 14y ago
http://newspaper23.com http://newspaper23.com looks like a great site. I've been looking for something that just shows headlines and doesn't require launching into an image-heavy site just to read the article. However, the JavaScript appears to be broken in Chrome. Switching categories doesn't work, for example.
- mayank 14y ago
  You can try my news side project: http://newstandoff.com http://newstandoff.com
- brador 14y ago
  Try http://skimfeed.com http://skimfeed.com. 60 news sources, 10 titles each, one page, all text.
  - verygoodyear 14y ago
    I like this, great on my iPad. Any plans for a mobile version? Also, what do you the stars signify? And I think Lifehacker is showing double links.
    - brador 14y ago
      Thanks! Still working the kinks out of the design before building out a mobile version. Soon. Stars mean it's new (last x hours, x is adaptive). Checked and yes lifehacker is showing double links...should fix itself...no idea why... :) Drop some feedback in the box under the title if you want anything added/removed/changed.
      - verygoodyear 14y ago
        Ahhhh, I get ya. Makes sense. I think the design is why it works. Nice and simple - a lot of this stuff is over designed I find. Will get using it and provide feedback if I have it!
- jobigoud 14y ago
  http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/ http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/
stephenhacking 14y ago
I'm not certain if the analogy that news is bad for you is true. I've heard this multiple times from multiple people and practiced going on a news diet (temporarily) even though I'm used to being on top of what's happening. What I ended up realizing was that the news wasn't really affecting me, because, what I was reading was not the crap about celebs, gossip and other nonsense, but actual stuff around me that was having an impact on the world. I don't know if I could go on without reading about the Arab Spring, or the Nuclear tests in North Korea, even though they don't directly impact me or my daily life.
- spc476 14y ago
  I've found that if anything is truly important, I'll hear about through non-news channels (friends, family, cow-orkers, personal blogs, etc.). It works remarkably well.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    And Hacker News. If anything really significant is happening on this planet, it will end up here. HN replaced news in 100% for me.
  - mpclark 14y ago
    That's just free riding, though. If everyone gives up news, this approach will no longer work.
    - chiaro 14y ago
      Tragedy of the commons. Though that will never happen, so we're more or less free to choose the course of action that suits us best, without it having any overarching effects.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      But news itself propagates naturally through social networks. MSM was an efficiency gain, not a novelty. Journalism would suffer, though.
PakG1 14y ago
This is amazing. Just glancing through that newspaper23.com site for a few seconds, I am amazed at how many headlines are written to be panic-inducing or inflammatory, rather than simply calm reporting. That was more an eyeopener to me about the status of today's news than anything else.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Headline-writing has always been an art, and grabbing attention a significant aspect of it. The eyeball / viral / advertising / pageview economy of the web has really taken it several stages too far. I read The New York Times (which generally stays away from this) and the Economist. I've all but given up on several local news sites which, as their economic underpinnings continue to be knocked out from under them, have devolved into ever more shrill (and banal) headlines. Up until the past year or so they were still somewhat relevant, but I've noticed a marked downturn in quality even in the past few months.
oinksoft 14y ago
Your argument rests on the flawed premise that the reader is a passive fool waiting to be spoon-fed their morning panic ration. An article may be the top story of the day, but that doesn't mean it is important or relevant to me. Clearly there is a "news cycle" and every day there must be some top story. The reader is not compelled to pay heed. The discriminating reader does not perceive a newspaper to be some distilled briefing of matters important to them personally. As with anything else, you must research your news if you hope to understand it, and you must seek out the truly pertinent things. I truly fear that the research culture fostered by Google searches, etc. is greatly damaging our own ability to parse sources. It is a wonderful convenience to have indexing machines working in concert with query engines, allowing the researcher to skip the 300pp of drivel to unearth some crucial paragraph by asking the question in their own words. It troubles me greatly that the solution always is to find a better indexing engine or aggregator (or sharpen one's skills with the software), rather than refining one's own ability to parse sources. Yes, these engines expose an impossible amount of information, and this is tremendously valuable technology. It will never be a full substitute for the pain of manual research.
- harlanlewis 14y ago
  We have a real problem if the masochistic few who have historically embraced hard questions by parsing original sources either choose not to or never discover their interest when regularly presented with an easy way out. Can the self-interested pursuit of real knowledge & understanding exist in a world of algorithmically generated bite-sized morsels? I believe it can. People have bemoaned society's advancements negatively impacting the dissemination of information to a thoughtful populace since before paper boys shouted headlines from corners. It happened with radio, it happened with television, it happened with dotcom portals. Smart people aren't so easily distracted from learning. The pain of manual research means most people don't bother to do it. Improved indexers, aggregators, and summarizers improve access to those with attention which only affords the surface.
- late2part 14y ago
  I think you covered 99% of America here: "Your argument rests on the flawed premise that the reader is a passive fool waiting to be spoon-fed their morning panic ration."
elvisds 14y ago
The stuff I read in the morning is very different from the stuff I read through the day. The morning is all about news - where I am playing catch up to what the world's editors think is important for me. I hardly look back at yesterdays news. In contrast, what I read through the day is largely intent/search driven, suggested by a friend or colleague, discovered through email etc. This content typically has longer shelf life, and is more valuable to me. This is why I think, what I read as "News" should be largely driven by what I'm doing throughout the day. I'm working on Pugmarks.me [1] with this exact premise. Here are some design principles we're using: 1. What I read should be greatly influenced by my professional interests, as opposed to what is popular 2. My colleagues often have an overlap with my interests, and their experiences should help me discover great content 3. If have a set of sources that I trust, and this is continually evolving. A system should attempt to help me discover content from these sources (and potential new sources) before reaching out to the larger web 4. When I discover great content, I should be able to hold on to it, and rediscover it when I'm in a similar context again in the future With these principles in action at Pugmarks.me, I've been able to significantly improve the quality of my reading. [1]: http://pugmarks.me http://pugmarks.me
Jplenbrook 14y ago
I wish this article would have presented some empirical evidence.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- amouat 14y ago
  Fri 12th April?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
kmfrk 14y ago
... this is the top-voted comment, and Summly's tl;dr system is still treated with scorn and mockery?

Osiris 14y ago

http://newspaper23.com http://newspaper23.com looks like a great site. I've been looking for something that just shows headlines and doesn't require launching into an image-heavy site just to read the article. However, the JavaScript appears to be broken in Chrome. Switching categories doesn't work, for example.

mayank 14y ago
You can try my news side project: http://newstandoff.com http://newstandoff.com
brador 14y ago
Try http://skimfeed.com http://skimfeed.com. 60 news sources, 10 titles each, one page, all text.
- verygoodyear 14y ago
  I like this, great on my iPad. Any plans for a mobile version? Also, what do you the stars signify? And I think Lifehacker is showing double links.
  - brador 14y ago
    Thanks! Still working the kinks out of the design before building out a mobile version. Soon. Stars mean it's new (last x hours, x is adaptive). Checked and yes lifehacker is showing double links...should fix itself...no idea why... :) Drop some feedback in the box under the title if you want anything added/removed/changed.
    - verygoodyear 14y ago
      Ahhhh, I get ya. Makes sense. I think the design is why it works. Nice and simple - a lot of this stuff is over designed I find. Will get using it and provide feedback if I have it!
jobigoud 14y ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/ http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/

stephenhacking 14y ago

I'm not certain if the analogy that news is bad for you is true. I've heard this multiple times from multiple people and practiced going on a news diet (temporarily) even though I'm used to being on top of what's happening. What I ended up realizing was that the news wasn't really affecting me, because, what I was reading was not the crap about celebs, gossip and other nonsense, but actual stuff around me that was having an impact on the world. I don't know if I could go on without reading about the Arab Spring, or the Nuclear tests in North Korea, even though they don't directly impact me or my daily life.

spc476 14y ago
I've found that if anything is truly important, I'll hear about through non-news channels (friends, family, cow-orkers, personal blogs, etc.). It works remarkably well.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  And Hacker News. If anything really significant is happening on this planet, it will end up here. HN replaced news in 100% for me.
- mpclark 14y ago
  That's just free riding, though. If everyone gives up news, this approach will no longer work.
  - chiaro 14y ago
    Tragedy of the commons. Though that will never happen, so we're more or less free to choose the course of action that suits us best, without it having any overarching effects.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    But news itself propagates naturally through social networks. MSM was an efficiency gain, not a novelty. Journalism would suffer, though.

PakG1 14y ago

This is amazing. Just glancing through that newspaper23.com site for a few seconds, I am amazed at how many headlines are written to be panic-inducing or inflammatory, rather than simply calm reporting. That was more an eyeopener to me about the status of today's news than anything else.

dredmorbius 14y ago
Headline-writing has always been an art, and grabbing attention a significant aspect of it. The eyeball / viral / advertising / pageview economy of the web has really taken it several stages too far. I read The New York Times (which generally stays away from this) and the Economist. I've all but given up on several local news sites which, as their economic underpinnings continue to be knocked out from under them, have devolved into ever more shrill (and banal) headlines. Up until the past year or so they were still somewhat relevant, but I've noticed a marked downturn in quality even in the past few months.

oinksoft 14y ago

Your argument rests on the flawed premise that the reader is a passive fool waiting to be spoon-fed their morning panic ration. An article may be the top story of the day, but that doesn't mean it is important or relevant to me. Clearly there is a "news cycle" and every day there must be some top story. The reader is not compelled to pay heed. The discriminating reader does not perceive a newspaper to be some distilled briefing of matters important to them personally. As with anything else, you must research your news if you hope to understand it, and you must seek out the truly pertinent things. I truly fear that the research culture fostered by Google searches, etc. is greatly damaging our own ability to parse sources. It is a wonderful convenience to have indexing machines working in concert with query engines, allowing the researcher to skip the 300pp of drivel to unearth some crucial paragraph by asking the question in their own words. It troubles me greatly that the solution always is to find a better indexing engine or aggregator (or sharpen one's skills with the software), rather than refining one's own ability to parse sources. Yes, these engines expose an impossible amount of information, and this is tremendously valuable technology. It will never be a full substitute for the pain of manual research.

harlanlewis 14y ago
We have a real problem if the masochistic few who have historically embraced hard questions by parsing original sources either choose not to or never discover their interest when regularly presented with an easy way out. Can the self-interested pursuit of real knowledge & understanding exist in a world of algorithmically generated bite-sized morsels? I believe it can. People have bemoaned society's advancements negatively impacting the dissemination of information to a thoughtful populace since before paper boys shouted headlines from corners. It happened with radio, it happened with television, it happened with dotcom portals. Smart people aren't so easily distracted from learning. The pain of manual research means most people don't bother to do it. Improved indexers, aggregators, and summarizers improve access to those with attention which only affords the surface.
late2part 14y ago
I think you covered 99% of America here: "Your argument rests on the flawed premise that the reader is a passive fool waiting to be spoon-fed their morning panic ration."

elvisds 14y ago

The stuff I read in the morning is very different from the stuff I read through the day. The morning is all about news - where I am playing catch up to what the world's editors think is important for me. I hardly look back at yesterdays news. In contrast, what I read through the day is largely intent/search driven, suggested by a friend or colleague, discovered through email etc. This content typically has longer shelf life, and is more valuable to me. This is why I think, what I read as "News" should be largely driven by what I'm doing throughout the day. I'm working on Pugmarks.me [1] with this exact premise. Here are some design principles we're using: 1. What I read should be greatly influenced by my professional interests, as opposed to what is popular 2. My colleagues often have an overlap with my interests, and their experiences should help me discover great content 3. If have a set of sources that I trust, and this is continually evolving. A system should attempt to help me discover content from these sources (and potential new sources) before reaching out to the larger web 4. When I discover great content, I should be able to hold on to it, and rediscover it when I'm in a similar context again in the future With these principles in action at Pugmarks.me, I've been able to significantly improve the quality of my reading. [1]: http://pugmarks.me http://pugmarks.me

Jplenbrook 14y ago

I wish this article would have presented some empirical evidence.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

amouat 14y ago
Fri 12th April?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

kmfrk 14y ago

... this is the top-voted comment, and Summly's tl;dr system is still treated with scorn and mockery?