This article makes me think about the alt-right trying to keep people off news and "MSM", I don't think spending all your time reading news is good, but staying off it completely? Probably a...
This article makes me think about the alt-right trying to keep people off news and "MSM", I don't think spending all your time reading news is good, but staying off it completely? Probably a really bad decision. The article suggest: "Read books that has stood the test of time". While it's good to have history to understand what's going on in the world, only having the history is not going to work either, you need both.
The article was written in 2013, so I don't think it's part of any such agenda, only misguided. But it does play into the hands off those that rather have you uninformed.
I don’t follow the news. Not directly at least. If I really need to know something, my roommate or my mom will tell me about it. I read some links from Reddit and Tildes that I find interesting....
I don’t follow the news. Not directly at least. If I really need to know something, my roommate or my mom will tell me about it. I read some links from Reddit and Tildes that I find interesting. Everything else is of no consequence.
I do read and watch articles, analysis and summaries that are released after the news.
I enjoyed reading Brazilian print newspapers when they were less polarized (or at least when they used to hide their polarization better). Even then it was just the Sunday edition.
Thanks for offering this perspective so succinctly, I started writing a similar response yesterday and gave up because it became too wordy. I'm the same. For "important" news, I'll naturally find...
I don’t follow the news. Not directly at least. If I really need to know something, my roommate or my mom will tell me about it. I read some links from Reddit and Tildes that I find interesting. Everything else is of no consequence.
Thanks for offering this perspective so succinctly, I started writing a similar response yesterday and gave up because it became too wordy.
I'm the same. For "important" news, I'll naturally find out about it from the people around me. But I find that most news that people consider "important" doesn't affect my day-to-day, and really isn't that important to me. On the rare occasion that it is, it's not hard to pull up google and find more info about it.
So yeah, I really don't see the need to "read" or otherwise seek out the news, either. At the same time, I'm sure those that read it do genuinely find it valuable, and can see why they might have a negative reaction to the article.
Not all books are history books. Some books provide fundamental theories for reasoning about reality regardless of time period. I think you need "both" in the sense that you need 9 hours of good...
While it's good to have history to understand what's going on in the world, only having the history is not going to work either, you need both.
Not all books are history books. Some books provide fundamental theories for reasoning about reality regardless of time period.
I think you need "both" in the sense that you need 9 hours of good book reading to 1 hour of reading the newspapers. If you've read enough books you can parse current affairs very quickly and realise that 95% of what's in the newspaper is total bullshit or cotton candy ephemera.
I don't necessarily disagree with the argument being presented in this article, I think most of us would benefit from slowing our news consumption down. And I do think that there's a fair amount...
I don't necessarily disagree with the argument being presented in this article, I think most of us would benefit from slowing our news consumption down. And I do think that there's a fair amount of shoddy "journalism" out there that is just looking for something to stir people up (how many "X slams Y" articles have you seen in the last few years that are mostly just pictures of angry tweets reacting to something stupid a politician said?).
However, somewhat ironically, I think this article is guilty of some of the same sins that it is condemning. It seems long on unsupported assertions and pretty short on sourcing or any attempt at supporting its core arguments. Its a short opinion piece that seems to be attempting to get you to righteously agree that trad news media is bad these days, and that some people read too much news and get sucked into the outrage cycle. It seems to me to be exactly what it is decrying.
Indeed. I like their conclusion with that in mind: I wonder if that was the meta joke the author was going for.
Indeed. I like their conclusion with that in mind:
If I’m not adding value to your life on a consistent basis, you should unsubscribe. Although the irony is that if you unsubscribe, you’ve just proven that I am adding value.
I wonder if that was the meta joke the author was going for.
Its funny you are correct in that this seems to be very "obvious" and not original take and almost condescending with the obviousness of it all, with offering very little to meat to back it up....
Its funny you are correct in that this seems to be very "obvious" and not original take and almost condescending with the obviousness of it all, with offering very little to meat to back it up.
But then you look at the date of the article, and realize this was written in 2013... and it sinks in.
I like the framing in this article. In the last year, I've been careful not to consume as much news (and I can probably scale down even more this year). I feel like I'm generally happier and more...
I like the framing in this article. In the last year, I've been careful not to consume as much news (and I can probably scale down even more this year). I feel like I'm generally happier and more productive on my own projects.
Reading this, I'm wondering if it would be a nice feature on Tildes to be able to browse the site as if we were on a different day (for example one week delayed).
What I am looking for is a thoughtful recap of the weekly news that has been thoroughly sourced. So I can use it as a firm footing to go into the next week. Example: The breathless discussion...
What I am looking for is a thoughtful recap of the weekly news that has been thoroughly sourced. So I can use it as a firm footing to go into the next week.
I don't need to follow each individual thread, but the tapestry that it creates is important to see at the end of the week, as we head into the next one. I also believe that this will give a more thoughtful understanding of the news.
Does the author mean everybody all the time? Or just "Here's why you should stop for now?" I totally get taking a break, I've had to his past year having little to no distraction from the literal...
Does the author mean everybody all the time? Or just "Here's why you should stop for now?" I totally get taking a break, I've had to his past year having little to no distraction from the literal firehose of news I've been exposing myself to staying at home. I finally managed to reach a point where I can stay up to date without completely losing it, but I had a couple of rough weeks. I'm mostly saying this as an example: Sometimes you've got to step away.
There were a couple of salient points in there. In particular the description of the mechanisms that keep you locked in reminded me of The Guardians flashing "live" threads that I genuinely feel...
There were a couple of salient points in there. In particular the description of the mechanisms that keep you locked in reminded me of The Guardians flashing "live" threads that I genuinely feel are tuned to pull me in.
However I had already come to the conclusion that I was going to stop going to The Guardian and had settled on my local Australian public broadcaster, the ABC for news as it's much less cynically tuned and presents much more straight forward reporting (although the right wing here would say otherwise).
So although this article makes some good points I think they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and presenting the wrong conclusion.
Be aware of the news you consume and the patterns it's using to keep you coming back. Same as social media like Twitter and Facebook - are you reading for that little kick of thrill when you read something outrageous or are you reading to be connected to the world and your community?
This article makes me think about the alt-right trying to keep people off news and "MSM", I don't think spending all your time reading news is good, but staying off it completely? Probably a really bad decision. The article suggest: "Read books that has stood the test of time". While it's good to have history to understand what's going on in the world, only having the history is not going to work either, you need both.
The article was written in 2013, so I don't think it's part of any such agenda, only misguided. But it does play into the hands off those that rather have you uninformed.
I don’t follow the news. Not directly at least. If I really need to know something, my roommate or my mom will tell me about it. I read some links from Reddit and Tildes that I find interesting. Everything else is of no consequence.
I do read and watch articles, analysis and summaries that are released after the news.
I enjoyed reading Brazilian print newspapers when they were less polarized (or at least when they used to hide their polarization better). Even then it was just the Sunday edition.
Thanks for offering this perspective so succinctly, I started writing a similar response yesterday and gave up because it became too wordy.
I'm the same. For "important" news, I'll naturally find out about it from the people around me. But I find that most news that people consider "important" doesn't affect my day-to-day, and really isn't that important to me. On the rare occasion that it is, it's not hard to pull up google and find more info about it.
So yeah, I really don't see the need to "read" or otherwise seek out the news, either. At the same time, I'm sure those that read it do genuinely find it valuable, and can see why they might have a negative reaction to the article.
Not all books are history books. Some books provide fundamental theories for reasoning about reality regardless of time period.
I think you need "both" in the sense that you need 9 hours of good book reading to 1 hour of reading the newspapers. If you've read enough books you can parse current affairs very quickly and realise that 95% of what's in the newspaper is total bullshit or cotton candy ephemera.
I don't necessarily disagree with the argument being presented in this article, I think most of us would benefit from slowing our news consumption down. And I do think that there's a fair amount of shoddy "journalism" out there that is just looking for something to stir people up (how many "X slams Y" articles have you seen in the last few years that are mostly just pictures of angry tweets reacting to something stupid a politician said?).
However, somewhat ironically, I think this article is guilty of some of the same sins that it is condemning. It seems long on unsupported assertions and pretty short on sourcing or any attempt at supporting its core arguments. Its a short opinion piece that seems to be attempting to get you to righteously agree that trad news media is bad these days, and that some people read too much news and get sucked into the outrage cycle. It seems to me to be exactly what it is decrying.
Indeed. I like their conclusion with that in mind:
I wonder if that was the meta joke the author was going for.
Its funny you are correct in that this seems to be very "obvious" and not original take and almost condescending with the obviousness of it all, with offering very little to meat to back it up.
But then you look at the date of the article, and realize this was written in 2013... and it sinks in.
I like the framing in this article. In the last year, I've been careful not to consume as much news (and I can probably scale down even more this year). I feel like I'm generally happier and more productive on my own projects.
Reading this, I'm wondering if it would be a nice feature on Tildes to be able to browse the site as if we were on a different day (for example one week delayed).
What I am looking for is a thoughtful recap of the weekly news that has been thoroughly sourced. So I can use it as a firm footing to go into the next week.
Example: The breathless discussion about the sedition this past week and all the fallout has a lot of half reported information that I am not sure what is actually going on. Missing Panic Buttons, Lindsey Graham Hosting the Proud Boys at dinner, The Line of Succession (2,3,4) was directly threaten by a motivated sub group and who is responsible, Why was Lauren Boebert live tweeting Nany Pelosi's movements.
I don't need to follow each individual thread, but the tapestry that it creates is important to see at the end of the week, as we head into the next one. I also believe that this will give a more thoughtful understanding of the news.
I've seen The Economist Weekly Edition often being suggested. I have never read it, though.
I sometimes think I'd want a router that only worked one day a week - if I wanted to read things the other days, I should download them.
I would finish reading way too many books.
Does the author mean everybody all the time? Or just "Here's why you should stop for now?" I totally get taking a break, I've had to his past year having little to no distraction from the literal firehose of news I've been exposing myself to staying at home. I finally managed to reach a point where I can stay up to date without completely losing it, but I had a couple of rough weeks. I'm mostly saying this as an example: Sometimes you've got to step away.
There were a couple of salient points in there. In particular the description of the mechanisms that keep you locked in reminded me of The Guardians flashing "live" threads that I genuinely feel are tuned to pull me in.
However I had already come to the conclusion that I was going to stop going to The Guardian and had settled on my local Australian public broadcaster, the ABC for news as it's much less cynically tuned and presents much more straight forward reporting (although the right wing here would say otherwise).
So although this article makes some good points I think they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and presenting the wrong conclusion.
Be aware of the news you consume and the patterns it's using to keep you coming back. Same as social media like Twitter and Facebook - are you reading for that little kick of thrill when you read something outrageous or are you reading to be connected to the world and your community?