5 ms·
So I browsed the comment thread, and you are the first "disagree" I found. I am going to join you here. I think one of the most wrong thing in the article is t
by vinhboy 12y ago
So I browsed the comment thread, and you are the first "disagree" I found. I am going to join you here.
I think one of the most wrong thing in the article is this statement.
> Indeed, reading a voter’s guide is much better: there’s no recency bias (where you only remember the crimes reported in the past couple months), you get to hear both sides of the story after the investigation has died down, you can actually think about the issues instead of worrying about the politics.
Yea, no... A big fat screaming no. A voter guide is a propaganda piece that has ZERO substance. Maybe for the propositions they give a little bit of pros and cons, but for the candidates, they give you nothing. The only way you can discern who is a lying asshole is by following the news. Maybe the conclusion will be they are all lying assholes, but at least you'll be informed of that.
I also think that saying I don't follow the news because it does not personally affect me is short-sighted and self-fish.
For example, those Christians minorities getting slaughtered by ISIS has nothing to do with me. But hearing their stories and learning about them through the news will certainly teach me a bit of compassion that I will need in some random tangential decisions I make later.
- xnull6guest 12y agoI had originally meant to include an argument about voters' pamphlets - I am glad that I did not as you covered it well. The pamphlet summaries, which issues are used for the face of a campaign and how these issues are carefully written about is all carefully crafted PR and not representative of the interests of the candidate, their constituents and investors or of their track record of fulfilling campaign promises. The information you get from a voter pamphlet is what a candidate wants to appear like and which voters they are trying to appeal to. This can help to understand their publicity campaign but it is not enough (alone) to understand their platform agenda. Similarly, seeing the high coverage of Coptic Christians where coverage of attacks on Muslim minorities (which are much more frequent and equally horrifying) by ISIS and sometimes America, allies or contractors (or of similar atrocities by Mexican drug cartels in the Americas) is missing helps to understand how media and state moral narrative diverges from more universally applied and internally consistent humanitarian compassion - and how and when this and these narratives may align with broad geostrategic policy goals. Insofar as Coptic Christian moral narrative may be used, as an example, as justification for some activity or funding, one will know to look to see if that activity or funding has been a long-standing objective or has been proposed and denied before due to a lack of public support.