12 ms·

Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet

Whether news is bad for you or not probably depends more than a little on what the source is. I don't watch television—for years our TV was in a box in a closet, brought out mostly just for watching the Olympics. But I do look at Google News and try to train it to give me mostly long-form suggestions about science and world issues from diverse sources with professional reporting and editing. That helps. The claim that giving up reading news will make you happier is a medical claim in the article that is not backed up by reliable medical sources,[1] so I call baloney on that. The newspaper opinion writer here (promoting his new book with excerpts from the book) doesn't report the issue the way a competent reporter would report it, but just makes a bunch of broad general statements with no nuance. In other words, the medical claims about happier human life in the article are just like the made-up opinions we can all easily find on the Internet, and the article stands as an example of how we can find blatantly misleading "information" inside or outside the professional news media. I have no reason to suppose that the full-length book is a medically reliable source (the publisher of the book is identified at the end of the article). Anecdote alert: I'm a curious person and I like to learn, and so one of the reasons I come here to Hacker NEWS is to find out new facts about the external world that I didn't know before, including facts about current events ("news" in the narrow sense). My personal experience—which, to be sure, may differ from yours—is that I am a happier and more productive person when I know, from good sources, what is going on all over the world and the broader context of expanding human knowledge. But I'm sure you can find an opinion column somewhere based on a popular book with a different opinion from mine. AFTER EDIT: Good catch! Another participant here on HN noticed that the author of the article kindly submitted here has credibly been accused of plagiarism by more than one published author who works harder than he does. I upvoted that comment for what it added to our understanding of the article's background. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS

marmaduke 13y ago
> Google News and try to train it Does this work? Does it work better than looking through TrueTrueReddit and hubski?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tokenadult 13y ago
  Google News is most definitely trainable. NO WAY would I visit Reddit for news (I was an early adopter of Reddit, and with Hacker News in my portfolio of news sources already, I don't see enough value-add in trying Reddit again.)
  - frankydp 13y ago
    It has gotten harder to train Google news due to the big uptick in the 300 word reprint practice that is playing out in media recently. Even if you manually block all the major outlets, so many sites reprint their stories that I still end up with Miley Cyrus news in my feed.
  - elboru 13y ago
    How do you do that? The only way I can think is discarding any story I'm not interested in, but how do I say, hey Google Now I liked this article? +1? Or how do I say: "this was a really bad article"?
- pavanred 13y ago
  Here is a Ted talk (2011) by Eli Pariser [1] about the "filter bubble" and its unintended consequences. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...
base698 13y ago
You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers. The medium is partly the problem.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. I think you've missed the point of my comment, which is that I actively disregard sources that have that defect, and look for sources that tell me about verified, actionable information. (I have been wondering about the pattern of upvotes and downvotes on my comment, and if this is what people think I am saying, that I like the sensational, they are badly misreading my comment.)
  - MoosePlissken 13y ago
    I think there's some misunderstanding over the meaning of the word "news" here. The author of the article uses the word "news" when referring to "sensational, bite sized news articles" (because it makes for a better headline). He doesn't think all journalism is bad. The article concludes with this thought: "Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too." You and the author seem to mostly agree in that respect.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  > Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. ... what if bitcoin, currently, _is_ only about the speculative aspect, and is not actually more useful with less friction?
  - base698 13y ago
scaphandre 13y ago
Why would you expect there to be medical evidence that speaks to being happier after giving up reading news? I don't think you are entitled to expect that. Medical studies don't tend to focus on the happiness of healthy people. Even if they did, I would be surprised if a good study giving us data on happiness on reading news already exist at a scale that would represent the range of population behaviour. I don't disagree with you wanting good scientific evidence - that's commendable. I disagree with calling baloney on a sensible hypothesis ('reading news as a typical Westerner does is detrimental to overall happiness for most people') just because that scientific evidence does not yet exist and this opinion piece does not yet provide it. Bias alert: I'm pretty sure I read to much news, and am solidifying this meme in my mind to try to improve that.
overgard 13y ago
That's sort of like saying "whether candy is bad for you depends on what candy you eat". Sort of true, but, you're still eating candy.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Which also ignores that point that not all candy is bad for you, and even candy that's not necessarily good for you in quantity might be perfectly fine in moderation. Chocolate, for example, decreases the risk of stroke, is good for your skin, improves vision, stimulates brain activity, etc. How much of and how often you eat it affects whether it's still beneficial compared to its negative effects, which include high cholesterol, diabetes, weight gain, etc. Someone eating candy isn't necessarily doing something bad, despite the stigma. Equally, they are not doing something necessarily good.
grellas 13y ago
Yes, indeed, heartily concur. "News" is nothing more than a report of events potentially affecting our lives: if a particular report is intelligent, trustworthy, and helpful to our understanding of what we need to do to better our lives, it is something to be valued and even on occasion treasured; if, in contrast, it is nothing more than what amounts to a reporter's trick for grabbing attention or an attempt to pass off what amounts to drivel as something that somehow should command our time, we have good reason to shun and even resent it. We do need to care about things beyond ourselves but who wants to endure the institutional barrage of worthless or semi-worthless reports that can impose upon us throughout a given day if we allow it in this age of instant and ubiquitous communication? I wouldn't go so far as to say "please turn it all off" because then you do lose the ability to get a minimum exposure each day as needed to stay meaningfully informed as a person and as a citizen but I would say "give me one giant filter" to be able to control and limit the flow. Who can realistically profit from a daily surfeit of junk-bond-quality reporting and especially about things such as a sensational car wreck (or whatever) having little or no affect on our lives? Since that is what "news" mostly is these days, it is best to apply that one great filter available to us all - that is, personal self-control. That is what I love most about your comment: it reminds us clearly that it is within our power to use such self-control and to thereby focus on quality while filtering what is junk. The article itself is somewhat dubious, as you note. Important note for those who would commend their views to others: scatter-gun assertions made in support of a point can leave one doubting how great is the author's grip on the topic at hand; if you have something to say, think it through and develop your points well before assuming that others will want to hear what you have to say. Not really well written at all.
- cconroy 13y ago
  A "giant filter" over google news still does not cut at the root. I think the problem is the perverse use of this medium (i.e. computer-web system). It is a medium that is not sufficiently understood by most, or perhaps any person yet. From reading (Englebart, et al) it seems this medium would be best used as a tool for collaboration. Unfortunately most people (including myself) don't deeply reflect on a new medium/technology, to figure how best to yield it to amplify human intelligence (or make human progress). I argue "cutting cord" for news via TV and the web may be the best thing to do now until more is understood of its affects on humans. People don't realize that it is the medium that is the problem and there is no amount of "filter" that will help them and they suffer unnecessarily.

marmaduke 13y ago

> Google News and try to train it Does this work? Does it work better than looking through TrueTrueReddit and hubski?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tokenadult 13y ago
Google News is most definitely trainable. NO WAY would I visit Reddit for news (I was an early adopter of Reddit, and with Hacker News in my portfolio of news sources already, I don't see enough value-add in trying Reddit again.)
- frankydp 13y ago
  It has gotten harder to train Google news due to the big uptick in the 300 word reprint practice that is playing out in media recently. Even if you manually block all the major outlets, so many sites reprint their stories that I still end up with Miley Cyrus news in my feed.
- elboru 13y ago
  How do you do that? The only way I can think is discarding any story I'm not interested in, but how do I say, hey Google Now I liked this article? +1? Or how do I say: "this was a really bad article"?
pavanred 13y ago
Here is a Ted talk (2011) by Eli Pariser [1] about the "filter bubble" and its unintended consequences. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...

base698 13y ago

You've entirely missed the point. News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. Business shows focus on day to day movement instead of broad sweeping trends that are game changers. The medium is partly the problem.

tokenadult 13y ago
News is bad because it focuses on the sensational and misses the actionable. I think you've missed the point of my comment, which is that I actively disregard sources that have that defect, and look for sources that tell me about verified, actionable information. (I have been wondering about the pattern of upvotes and downvotes on my comment, and if this is what people think I am saying, that I like the sensational, they are badly misreading my comment.)
- MoosePlissken 13y ago
  I think there's some misunderstanding over the meaning of the word "news" here. The author of the article uses the word "news" when referring to "sensational, bite sized news articles" (because it makes for a better headline). He doesn't think all journalism is bad. The article concludes with this thought: "Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too." You and the author seem to mostly agree in that respect.
steveklabnik 13y ago
> Ie bitcoin articles focus on the speculative aspect and not that it's a more useful, less friction method of payment. ... what if bitcoin, currently, _is_ only about the speculative aspect, and is not actually more useful with less friction?
- base698 13y ago

scaphandre 13y ago

Why would you expect there to be medical evidence that speaks to being happier after giving up reading news? I don't think you are entitled to expect that. Medical studies don't tend to focus on the happiness of healthy people. Even if they did, I would be surprised if a good study giving us data on happiness on reading news already exist at a scale that would represent the range of population behaviour. I don't disagree with you wanting good scientific evidence - that's commendable. I disagree with calling baloney on a sensible hypothesis ('reading news as a typical Westerner does is detrimental to overall happiness for most people') just because that scientific evidence does not yet exist and this opinion piece does not yet provide it. Bias alert: I'm pretty sure I read to much news, and am solidifying this meme in my mind to try to improve that.

overgard 13y ago

That's sort of like saying "whether candy is bad for you depends on what candy you eat". Sort of true, but, you're still eating candy.

bmelton 13y ago
Which also ignores that point that not all candy is bad for you, and even candy that's not necessarily good for you in quantity might be perfectly fine in moderation. Chocolate, for example, decreases the risk of stroke, is good for your skin, improves vision, stimulates brain activity, etc. How much of and how often you eat it affects whether it's still beneficial compared to its negative effects, which include high cholesterol, diabetes, weight gain, etc. Someone eating candy isn't necessarily doing something bad, despite the stigma. Equally, they are not doing something necessarily good.

grellas 13y ago

Yes, indeed, heartily concur. "News" is nothing more than a report of events potentially affecting our lives: if a particular report is intelligent, trustworthy, and helpful to our understanding of what we need to do to better our lives, it is something to be valued and even on occasion treasured; if, in contrast, it is nothing more than what amounts to a reporter's trick for grabbing attention or an attempt to pass off what amounts to drivel as something that somehow should command our time, we have good reason to shun and even resent it. We do need to care about things beyond ourselves but who wants to endure the institutional barrage of worthless or semi-worthless reports that can impose upon us throughout a given day if we allow it in this age of instant and ubiquitous communication? I wouldn't go so far as to say "please turn it all off" because then you do lose the ability to get a minimum exposure each day as needed to stay meaningfully informed as a person and as a citizen but I would say "give me one giant filter" to be able to control and limit the flow. Who can realistically profit from a daily surfeit of junk-bond-quality reporting and especially about things such as a sensational car wreck (or whatever) having little or no affect on our lives? Since that is what "news" mostly is these days, it is best to apply that one great filter available to us all - that is, personal self-control. That is what I love most about your comment: it reminds us clearly that it is within our power to use such self-control and to thereby focus on quality while filtering what is junk. The article itself is somewhat dubious, as you note. Important note for those who would commend their views to others: scatter-gun assertions made in support of a point can leave one doubting how great is the author's grip on the topic at hand; if you have something to say, think it through and develop your points well before assuming that others will want to hear what you have to say. Not really well written at all.

cconroy 13y ago
A "giant filter" over google news still does not cut at the root. I think the problem is the perverse use of this medium (i.e. computer-web system). It is a medium that is not sufficiently understood by most, or perhaps any person yet. From reading (Englebart, et al) it seems this medium would be best used as a tool for collaboration. Unfortunately most people (including myself) don't deeply reflect on a new medium/technology, to figure how best to yield it to amplify human intelligence (or make human progress). I argue "cutting cord" for news via TV and the web may be the best thing to do now until more is understood of its affects on humans. People don't realize that it is the medium that is the problem and there is no amount of "filter" that will help them and they suffer unnecessarily.