Ironically, news.
Like TNG said... This is one of the reasons I like it here, and deleted my Reddit account over a year ago. Reddit is all flash of the moment news, current events, calls to action, politics, and outrage that lasts a week. It was frustrating and kind of unhealthy. There's SOME news here, and I've posted maybe 1 or 2 links of it, but for the most part it seems like mostly positive things get posted here. Me, for example, I mostly just post space/science articles I find interesting. There's a lot of long and in-depth reads that get posted here and I love that. I'd rather read 20 pages about economics and a post-work world theories, than 3 paragraphs about what some republican said about abortion/gays/rape that doesn't live in my state and doesn't matter to me and pretend to be mad. It's pointless. I like it here, specifically because it's not all "Obama did this, CISPA is back, Republicans are dumb, bad person does bad things to other people, the sky is falling", etc. I peak at Google news maybe once a day for like 15-30 minutes, but mine is mostly customized around science/technology/space, but at least I'll know if anything major happens in the news. Otherwise, I really prefer to distance myself from it. I used to think it matter, or that being well read on current events on news made me "smart", but in hindsight I don't feel that way anymore. It just made me a little less happy, and took up time that I could be doing more positive things with instead of reading about the 105th threatening statement from North Korea this month. I do however, absolutely LOVE my "Southern Suburbs Sun" that I get here where I live, it's literally just stuff from my local city and it's surrounding area, and mostly about new city codes, events, meetings going on, municipal politics, and things that might ACTUALLY effect me as a resident and tax payer. Otherwise, if anything REALLY important or groundbreaking or life threatening happens... I'm sure I'll find out about it somewhere without constantly hitting refresh on news sites all day... Also, I found the top comment on that article hilarious... Says the guy reading a news article on The Guardian... and follows it up with... Right...There's not a lot of "news" on Hubski.
As I have said several times, I read none of them. Too partisan. Better up to date news available electronically.
Radio, television, internet are better media than newspapers. That was my point.
Hmm. Remember there's news and then there's "news." I happen to hold the opinion that a citizen of America and the world to an extent owes it to themselves and to their government to be informed on what you dismiss as "current events." There are unique geo-political situations playing out in several different parts of the world that I like to post about because frankly, if you don't know what's going on in Syria or Japan or the Eurozone right now, I feel sorry for you. Etc. I get what you're saying about reddit current events as opposed to straight factual summaries of world happenings, though. And of course hubski's stated purpose is more about the discourse than it is about the articles.
I said I read Google news, and I know what's going on with Syria, Japan, the Eurozone, etc. I would consider those pretty major things, and like I said, those are pretty hard to miss. I'm talking about the petty stuff that I mentioned that I don't care to read or spend time digging through a new site for. Ten minutes on a news site tells me about the major things that are important. If I care to know more, I can find and research more in-depth articles about the subject elsewhere. I guess what I meant was I'm not a "news junky" in the sense that I go through article after article about the same subject or sit on news sites all day, or engage in online discussions about it (try to avoid anyway). So perhaps I worded it wrong. I definitely know what's going on in the world, but I guess, like the article said, "I can't influence those things, and those things have no effect on me". People do need to know what's going on, but I think some people become to obsessed and worked up about it.a citizen of America and the world to an extent owes it to themselves and to their government to be informed on what you dismiss as "current events."
Oh, I missed the Google News bit. That was the impersonal 'you' in my post, of course. I'm not your description of a news junky, I don't think, but I'm not you, either. Not sure where that leaves me. The world is a big, crazy place, and there's always something new to learn. Further, it's ridiculous to claim that world events have no effect on us. Some don't, most do, directly or indirectly.but I guess, like the article said, "I can't influence those things, and those things have no effect on me".
Most insane part of the article, I thought. You can't influence America's East Asia policy, no, but a) you can't influence anything if you don't know about it, and b) there are many parts of the news that citizens can and do influence every day. An informed populace is a dictator's worst nightmare for a reason. So I have no idea what he was talking about.
I don't watch the "news" and I don't often read it either. I read articles on topics I find interesting, most of which are sourced on hubski. There's not a lot of "news" on Hubski. I know people that watch the "news" religiously and they're definitely more bitter regarding the state of the world and where it is headed. Every generation thinks it's the end of the world and news certainly propels this.
Double "hmm." I keep up to date on news as a hobby (it sort of flows naturally from browsing the web looking for interesting articles anyway), and although I don't watch tv news I check some of the major online outlets every couple of days. This is some sort of vice, I now discover. Huh. I would call being informed an overwhelmingly positive trait, and any conclusions drawn for being informed a side effect that isn't relevant to whether keeping track of the news is a good idea.I know people that watch the "news" religiously and they're definitely more bitter regarding the state of the world and where it is headed.
It all depends on who is doing the "informing" I suppose. The large amount of news consumption comes via cable news, i.e. FOX News, MSNBC, CNN etc. All of which have the same goal -profit. This comes via viewers which comes via sensationalism. I know you're a smart guy and realize this but the majority of news-goers don't. There is also the question of what is and what is not "news." For example, when Whitney Houston died I heard an announcement of it on NPR. Same thing with Michael Jackson. That was all I allowed of those topics to consume of my time. But had I been a consumer of most popular news media it would have taken up far more of it. By and large, most news sources are extremely negative and focus on the atrocities of the day. -No thanks. I just did a "google news" search and there was one of 5 articles that appealed to me: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-bio... The rest wasn't "news" it was either pop-culture or not terribly interesting.
Fair points. I think the day we (or the press) started to confuse pop culture with news (or, indeed, any culture with news) was the beginning of the end. I guess my thing is, there's being informed, and then there's being deliberately combative and probably sociopolitically out of it, like the author of the article. What I mean by news is essentially "history of the present." What others might mean is certainly Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson. I get that.
Playing devils advocate here: What does your "history of the present" get you? Are you in control of any of the events being covered? Are you able to shape them? Because of your knowledge of current events are you able to make decisions for your life more effectively?
Let's see. It depends what you mean by "in control." Obviously not directly. But ... who do I know to vote for at all levels of government if I don't follow US politics? How do I know what to do with my money if I don't follow world finance? How do I know where to vacation and where not to vacation if I don't follow world news? Those are fundamental questions (and yes, you might respond that I could just "ask an expert" -- but come on). To go further -- how do I avoid looking like an idiot if someone wants to talk about the recession, Chechnya, the currency debates... How can I have any opinions at all without shame if I don't know what I'm talking about? It's human nature to have opinions on things; most of our opinions are frankly pretty stupid because we don't pay attention to the world around us. (I know you're playing devil's advocate, but to the thread at large: I can't even believe I'm having to argue for being informed over being not informed.) In the late 19th century, a bunch of northeastern farmers started a legitimate political movement, the Populist, because they were informed about what the gold standard, debt and inflation would do to their livelihoods. It led directly to one of the most famous debates of all time. They were farmers in the 1890s. They probably got news from the big cities once a week. They probably owned a Bible, an almanac and not a damn thing else. But because they cared about the politics of their country, they were able to contribute to it. There lies my biggest problem with this article; putting aside whether I can influence the news or not -- what I know is that if I am not aware of it, I definitely can't influence it. Saying goodbye to being informed is saying goodbye to activism and making an impact. (And yes, hell yes I can shape the events that happen. I can write my congressman, I can donate to organizations that I only know about because I spend time learning about such things. I can go to rallies, and when they start axing educational programs and firing teachers in the state of Texas, I can help reverse the trend. Or I can sit under a rock and one day when I get to first period the door will be locked and I won't have a Latin class anymore.) The history of the present is applicable history. Why does anyone study history? To learn. To be entertained. To understand the impacts of the names and places we've heard all our lives. Why do I read what we should no longer be calling the news in this discussion but rather "the state of the world" or something? To learn, to be entertained, and to understand ... as events are unfolding. That's a thousand times more interesting than reading about the 1450s, and I already find that pretty damn interesting.
A more fundamental question is what really constitutes knowledge. Haven't you ever found yourself talking to someone and quoting a news article only to find that they've got personal experience that invalidates it? Following US politics doesn't tell you much about which campaign promises will turn out to be lies, world news won't tell you how not to get mugged in your own town, and hell, the best financial forecasting in the world is still pretty close to 50/50. I believe this to be the fundamental reason why reading the news is sometimes bad for you: it can lead to a false sense of certainty about the world and then distress when that illusion is shattered. Even an understanding of the world that comes from direct experience is sort of a statistical inference that assumes that past behavior accurately represents what will happen in the future. Trusting other peoples' interpretations of interpretations of dispatches of firsthand accounts from across the world is just an aggregation and layering of somebody else's inferences. And on that topic: Life is easier with fewer expectations that you know exactly how things are going to play out.who do I know to vote for at all levels of government if I don't follow US politics? How do I know what to do with my money if I don't follow world finance? How do I know where to vacation and where not to vacation if I don't follow world news? Those are fundamental questions (and yes, you might respond that I could just "ask an expert" -- but come on).
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful
- George E. P. Box
As to that, I agree in general, but would counter that it completely depends what you read. Photoessays from journalists on the scene in Syria are news. Articles on the state of the bitcoin from experts are news. Hard not to benefit from knowledge if you know what you're doing. I follow US politics for many reasons, not least of which is that it makes election night very interesting when it otherwise would be confusing and pointless. But I would say that yes, having a general knowledge of politics does tell you what's going to be a lie in some cases -- various politicians have been promising to hit a budget surplus consistently for years now, and none of them have done it for very long ... now Paul Ryan wants to. Should I believe him? Nope. World news indeed will not tell me how not to get mugged in my own town. (I'm honestly not sure why I should expect it to?) Common sense will probably help me out there, though. The best financial forecasting in the world isn't really 50/50, either. There are plenty of ways to safely invest money longterm for a guaranteed small return -- but only not having your head in the sand and knowing a bit about economics would have told you not to invest in real estate in 2007. This is utterly and completely a personal problem (not your personal problem; a common problem that people have when attempting to separate fact and opinion). Bad proofs can lead to a false sense of certainty about math, but we don't swear off math as a result, usually.I believe this to be the fundamental reason why reading the news is sometimes bad for you: it can lead to a false sense of certainty about the world and then distress when that illusion is shattered.
I could tear this article to pieces paragraph by paragraph but it's the guardian and I probably fall victim to confirmation bias and something something Warren Buffet... it would be a passive, uncreative waste of my time! (See? I learned the error of my ways.) EDIT: no I didn't! I couldn't resist.I have now gone without news for four years, so I can see, feel and report the effects of this freedom first-hand: less disruption, less anxiety, deeper thinking, more time, more insights. It's not easy, but it's worth it.
I sure hope he's not considering vacationing in Syria for a lark. Or making any financial decisions at all. I hope he's not gay and planning to get married. I hope he actually lives in a cabin in the Yukon, because that's about the only place in the world he could get away with this shit.