News engagement plummets as Americans tune out(axios.com)
axios.com
News engagement plummets as Americans tune out
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/12/news-media-readership-ratings-2022
196 comments
They are back to back sentences. Pretty bad attempt at obfuscating. The first sentence claims data “across” all channels, and the following sentence breaks it down.
But they included Foxnews in the first sentence where they claimed it was down "across the board".
Note that "across the board" is not actually a quote here (despite being in quotes).
[deleted]
No, they said it is down "on average." That is true, and immediately clarified in the following sentence.
The paragraph starts by saying viewership is down across the the three major news networks. That’s not exactly across the board, but means the same thing.
Cable viewership across the three major cable news networks is, on average, down 19%.
It's specifically not "across the board."
It's specifically not "across the board."
If Foxnews and Skynews were down 54% and 33% and CNN was up 19% how would they write it? Still on average? Or those mean right wing news outlets are doing terrible, but the good Left wing CNN is taking up the lead!
That's digging really hard to find a conspiracy. They didn't mince words, in two sentences they gave the full details. All in the same font, same paragraph.
I think you mean bias, not conspiracy.
They listed the top 3 cable networks. If Skynews was one of those, presumably it would be included...
Is that not what across the board means? There are 3 news channels, all of them have to be added together for an across the board measurement.
Not at all - in my opinion.
“Across the board” means something closer “true in every case”. Though as I type this, I realize some people my think of it as “in total.”
“Across the board” means something closer “true in every case”. Though as I type this, I realize some people my think of it as “in total.”
Note that "across the board" does not actually appear in the article.
N.b. indeed, cheers
You are right, that is what across the board means. I was mixing up what the person who replied to me wrote with what I wrote. Oops!
"Across the board" means "in every instance" not "in aggregate", at least in my experience.
Yes, that is correct. I was misremembering what I read. It was
“across the three major cable news networks”
Which I paraphrased as
“Across all the channels”
Which the person replying to me changed to
“Across the board”.
“across the three major cable news networks”
Which I paraphrased as
“Across all the channels”
Which the person replying to me changed to
“Across the board”.
When your team has control -> stick your head in the sand. When the other team has control -> bathe in outrage.
Similarly, if your political ideology gets their way, it's a "success of democracy", while if anyone else's ideas get traction, it's the "end of democracy". When, ironically, that very thought pattern is itself the end of democracy.
In the same lines : "judicial activism" and "judicial coup".
Outrage over 'populism' in 2016.
Where does the bias come in? You would have to stop reading literally mid-paragraph to be mislead.
Sounds like it comes in the first half of the paragraph then
The point of a paragraph is to thread together sentences into meaning beyond that contained in them individually.
I just started reading A Tale of Two Cities, I assume the book is just about "the best of times."
Otherwise the intro is written with incredible bias.
Otherwise the intro is written with incredible bias.
> I just started reading [...] with incredible bias.
wow how could you
wow how could you
It? That? The? What are you talking about? It seems hypocritical to imply that meanings ought to be understood divorced from context while your own post doesn't meet the standard.
That every given sentence, when extracted from context, should be totally free of bias, is a ridiculous expectation.
Post title repeats the same 'all together' bias, so it is likely the single strongest sentence in the article despite being wrong when viewed in detail
which, to be fair, is what most people do when skimming articles
Whenever the line inevitably gets quoted out of context.
CNN and MSNBC quote viewership. Fox quotes ratings. Not the same
thing.
Hmm, I just noticed that. Can you elucidate the difference?
The difference helps CNN look better. Ratings is all that matters to a broadcaster.
Nielsen reports viewership and ratings for all three networks. I know you're desperate here but at least don't play dumb.
From an outside perspective, I always have to chuckle when someone calls CNN, MSNBC left-leaning and FOX right-leaning. One is a full-blown conspiracy-theory right-wing "news" network, and the other two are just regular sensationalized news channels. Does the US even have left-leaning news?
American leftists have always shared the same view as you. The left-leaning news networks are simply straight news, unbiased, doing it right... and everything their ideological opponents watch is far-right propaganda.
As a leftist who feels the Democratic party is a center-right party, networks like CNN and MSNBC come across as deeply biased but not particularly "left". Maybe Liberal, but certainly not "Left".
Right and left have been rendered almost meaningless, especially in this context.
What is called "left" these days is more, "that which conforms to Democrat narratives" and lately quite illiberal, while pretty much anything else is called "right" or "far-right" even when it's attacking corporations or the military-industrial complex.
What is called "left" these days is more, "that which conforms to Democrat narratives" and lately quite illiberal, while pretty much anything else is called "right" or "far-right" even when it's attacking corporations or the military-industrial complex.
In the States, yes. It's unfortunate, I think, because it lumps together many different (and often opposing) ideologies under one label.
This is not my view at all. News can be biased/sensationalized, even when it's neither left nor right. CNN and MSNBC are (as far as I can tell) the tv equivalent of clickbait. They are just (compared to the extremes of FOX) centrist about it. The only thing I would call straight news in the US would be PBS.
Which is hilarious because that’s how everyone feels about their particular taste (taste for bias) in their news.
Self-identified conservatives understand that Fox News is intentionally aligned with their ideology.
Exactly, that’s a clearer way of wording what I was trying to point out.
Yes, I’m sorry if you don’t agree but there’s no reasonable way of characterizing MSNBC other than “left-leaning”.
Capital L Liberal leaning, maybe. Deeply biased and sensationalist, absolutely. Not particularly leftist.
A Left leaning news source would be much more interested in discussing the demands of workers, pushing for strong labor, nationalization of corporations, etc. When Slavoj Žižek becomes a newscaster somewhere, and the news is talking about how important it is to eliminate landlords then we can talk about left leaning news media.
A Left leaning news source would be much more interested in discussing the demands of workers, pushing for strong labor, nationalization of corporations, etc. When Slavoj Žižek becomes a newscaster somewhere, and the news is talking about how important it is to eliminate landlords then we can talk about left leaning news media.
I think your problem then is with the current state of progressive politics in the USA, because the lack of care for labor rights, etc. (you provided a good list) is lacking at every level of society and class. Ask a working class progressive what they care about right now and you probably won’t hear “worker’s rights.”
Obviously the Overton Window works in both directions. All I’m saying is that MSNBC seems to track generally the state of liberal-progressive political discourse, even if it isn’t the left-leaning progressive discourse you’d hope it would be.
Hopefully that makes sense. Appreciate your reply.
Obviously the Overton Window works in both directions. All I’m saying is that MSNBC seems to track generally the state of liberal-progressive political discourse, even if it isn’t the left-leaning progressive discourse you’d hope it would be.
Hopefully that makes sense. Appreciate your reply.
I would agree with carbadtraingood and your characterization and therefore agree that MSNBC is liberal leaning, which in the US might as well be left-leaning. I think it was a misunderstanding of definitions. Thank you both for your replies.
Cheers, and I agree. These sorts of conversations are most valuable in reminding us that these sorts of discussions do not need to devolve to stubborn disagreement. Happy days
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
I think I probably care more about defining "left" vs "liberal" then most here in the States.
And I'd agree, as much as I want it to be the case that we see more worker solidarity, it's not the thing most Americans seem to think about. Even if they have concerns about current policies. For instance, Americans could call for a general strike as a response to the Roe v Wade decision. But the idea of using worker power in that way seems quite alien here.
I think I probably care more about defining "left" vs "liberal" then most here in the States.
And I'd agree, as much as I want it to be the case that we see more worker solidarity, it's not the thing most Americans seem to think about. Even if they have concerns about current policies. For instance, Americans could call for a general strike as a response to the Roe v Wade decision. But the idea of using worker power in that way seems quite alien here.
[deleted]
From the little I know of US media, I would guess The Young Turks and Democracy Now! are probably the furthest left you can go.
Who told you that? Have you been paying attention the last 6-10 years?
I'm sorry, but the credibility of those networks has completely inverted.
That's not my opinion. The vast majority of media-fueled outrages that were blasted by MSNBC and CNN over the last 6-10 years have proven to be cynical distortions or extrapolation at best, and many times outright fabrication.
Meanwhile, "conspiracy theories" are consistently turning out to be relatively accurate, which is a double whammy as the MSM are the ones telling you they are conspiracy theories.
I'm sorry, but the credibility of those networks has completely inverted.
That's not my opinion. The vast majority of media-fueled outrages that were blasted by MSNBC and CNN over the last 6-10 years have proven to be cynical distortions or extrapolation at best, and many times outright fabrication.
Meanwhile, "conspiracy theories" are consistently turning out to be relatively accurate, which is a double whammy as the MSM are the ones telling you they are conspiracy theories.
> I'm sorry, but the credibility of those networks has completely inverted.
When I'm at my parents' house and Fox News is on (as it always is) I can google a pretty high percentage of things they're "covering" and find they're bullshit. The most-used, but not only, tactic is to report something ordinary as if it's new and sinister, omitting all context. They do it constantly.
To be fair, maybe you're right and CNN and MSNBC are even worse. Dunno, I've mostly known people from center-left to far-left (plus a few that defy categorization) in my social circles for most of my life, and none of them have ever thought either network was worth a damn.
When I'm at my parents' house and Fox News is on (as it always is) I can google a pretty high percentage of things they're "covering" and find they're bullshit. The most-used, but not only, tactic is to report something ordinary as if it's new and sinister, omitting all context. They do it constantly.
To be fair, maybe you're right and CNN and MSNBC are even worse. Dunno, I've mostly known people from center-left to far-left (plus a few that defy categorization) in my social circles for most of my life, and none of them have ever thought either network was worth a damn.
> That's not my opinion.
That is your opinion. There is no factual basis on which to claim that Fox (which is part of the MSM btw.) is somehow more factual or better news than the rest. This of course doesn't mean that the rest is good, just not as crazy bad.
> "conspiracy theories" are consistently turning out to be relatively accurate
Absolutely.. if you you are part of some right-wing-bubble.
Sincerely, your George Soros sponsored online shill.
That is your opinion. There is no factual basis on which to claim that Fox (which is part of the MSM btw.) is somehow more factual or better news than the rest. This of course doesn't mean that the rest is good, just not as crazy bad.
> "conspiracy theories" are consistently turning out to be relatively accurate
Absolutely.. if you you are part of some right-wing-bubble.
Sincerely, your George Soros sponsored online shill.
> Does the US even have left-leaning news?
Nothing mainstream. The right wing is fond of calling the other side communists, though in reality you could probably fit every actual communist American into a single stadium. America is a right-leaning country, there is no left to speak of.
Though I suppose it might be fair to say that such constructs only really matter within a single political system, so "left" and "right" don't automatically have to be a particular definition.
Nothing mainstream. The right wing is fond of calling the other side communists, though in reality you could probably fit every actual communist American into a single stadium. America is a right-leaning country, there is no left to speak of.
Though I suppose it might be fair to say that such constructs only really matter within a single political system, so "left" and "right" don't automatically have to be a particular definition.
How can you defend MSNBC for being anything other than left-leaning?
It’s not always as progressive as American progressives would like it to be, but not being progressive≠ not left leaning.
It’s not always as progressive as American progressives would like it to be, but not being progressive≠ not left leaning.
MSNBC fundamentally believes capitalism is good and right. They are absolutely left of the Republican party, but they are hardly left.
This is unfortunately a consequence of the two party system in the States. We equate Democrats with Left and Republicans with Right. Anything supportive of Democrats gets labeled "left" even if the policies are really centrist, pro capital ones. Because we don't really have the language here to differentiate the Left and Democrats in mainstream American parlance.
This is unfortunately a consequence of the two party system in the States. We equate Democrats with Left and Republicans with Right. Anything supportive of Democrats gets labeled "left" even if the policies are really centrist, pro capital ones. Because we don't really have the language here to differentiate the Left and Democrats in mainstream American parlance.
I’m confused, are you saying that any news outlet that doesn’t denounce capitalism isn’t truly left-biased?
I think your perspective is more radical than you realize. You sound like a revolutionary to me, not a progressive.
I think your perspective is more radical than you realize. You sound like a revolutionary to me, not a progressive.
This is actually a wider issue with political discussion in countries with two dominant parties. There are parties who frequently use “political description words” such as (regex notation to save on duplicates) “democra.?”, “republic.?”, “liberal”, “labour”, “social.?”, “conservative”, and many more. As a consequence of this people begin to develop associations with certain kinds of political views with the full or shorthand names of the political parties that promote them so we get discussions about “Republican/Labour/Liberal/Democrat/Conservative policies” that grow increasingly divorced (from the terms that are needed to discuss them like “liberal” and “conservative” … which generates confusion.
There are fundamentally, multiple axises upon which you can measure political policy, views, goals, parties, etc. A few examples of widely understood ones being “progressive/conservative”, “authoritarian/libertarian”, “collectivist/anarchist”, and some even cover similar things such as “socialist/capitalist” which has philosophical overlap “collectivist/individualist” but is not the same, being obviously more focused on the economic structures than basic political philosophies of collectivism vs individualism.
All of this is to say that boiling politics down to a simplistic “left/right” spectrum does nothing but confuse the issues.
There are fundamentally, multiple axises upon which you can measure political policy, views, goals, parties, etc. A few examples of widely understood ones being “progressive/conservative”, “authoritarian/libertarian”, “collectivist/anarchist”, and some even cover similar things such as “socialist/capitalist” which has philosophical overlap “collectivist/individualist” but is not the same, being obviously more focused on the economic structures than basic political philosophies of collectivism vs individualism.
All of this is to say that boiling politics down to a simplistic “left/right” spectrum does nothing but confuse the issues.
I actually very much agree with your characterization of the challenge.
That said, and I'm curious if you'd agree, I don't think that means that we cannot observe that MSNBC is left-biased. Both in a relative (definitely) and absolute sense. That said, if we are going to use such a reductive spectrum, we do lose a huge amount of important details that may keep individuals from agreeing with my perspective.
That said, and I'm curious if you'd agree, I don't think that means that we cannot observe that MSNBC is left-biased. Both in a relative (definitely) and absolute sense. That said, if we are going to use such a reductive spectrum, we do lose a huge amount of important details that may keep individuals from agreeing with my perspective.
I wrote that up because of how hard it is to even agree on what “left” means. I could agree with a characterisation of MSNBC as socially “progressive” but they’re fiscally “conservative” just like the majority of business focused news outlets. They push “individualist” views quite broadly along with the majority of business news by being (in general) anti-union, and they don’t really seem to have a fixed position on the authoritarian/libertarian axis (as in they don’t make the decision if it’s good or bad based on this axis)
Effectively I could agree with a characterisation of MSNBC as “left” if you want to define “left” as just “progressive”. Which feels like an oversimplification that hides the fact that when you look critically at the situation that broadly speaking news in the USA is tailored to instil fear as a mechanism to keep people watching because seeking information (to ensure our safety) on things our brain finds threatening is a basic human instinct that happens at a subconscious level. Effectively the only difference between the 24/7 news channels is what they think you’re afraid of.
Effectively I could agree with a characterisation of MSNBC as “left” if you want to define “left” as just “progressive”. Which feels like an oversimplification that hides the fact that when you look critically at the situation that broadly speaking news in the USA is tailored to instil fear as a mechanism to keep people watching because seeking information (to ensure our safety) on things our brain finds threatening is a basic human instinct that happens at a subconscious level. Effectively the only difference between the 24/7 news channels is what they think you’re afraid of.
No, i think he would be OK with mixed economy and more workers rights, as well as more worker-owned companies.
You can like some aspect of capitalism and think some industry/market should be protected from it (like inherently monopolistic markets?)
You can like some aspect of capitalism and think some industry/market should be protected from it (like inherently monopolistic markets?)
Yep, exactly. Worker coops in a market is fine.
Compare the difference between Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden. Warren and Biden fundamentally believe that capitalism is good and the natural law of the land. Sanders does not. Warren believes that we need to do more to address inequality between the owners and the workers, Biden does not.
I would (personally) consider Bernie to be Leftist, Warren to be Left Leaning, and Biden to be Centrist.
None of them I would consider to be revolutionary left. I've met plenty of tankies who believe in an authoritarian left seized through violence. (I am not one.)
Compare the difference between Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden. Warren and Biden fundamentally believe that capitalism is good and the natural law of the land. Sanders does not. Warren believes that we need to do more to address inequality between the owners and the workers, Biden does not.
I would (personally) consider Bernie to be Leftist, Warren to be Left Leaning, and Biden to be Centrist.
None of them I would consider to be revolutionary left. I've met plenty of tankies who believe in an authoritarian left seized through violence. (I am not one.)
Thanks for continuing this thread. Just to close out this discussion - because I think I might be able to pinpoint where we disagree: did you find the MSNBC was opposed to a Bernie candidacy? I didn't make the same observation, and my position does essentially hinge on "if Bernie is leftist, then MSNBC is leftist."
> Does the US even have left-leaning news?
Democracy Now! (radio)
The Nation (print)
Democracy Now! (radio)
The Nation (print)
The overwhelming power of rural voters in America forces us to pay respects to a lot of nonsense we could otherwise ignore…
Who defines what bias a news organization have, and what defines if that is a good call or a bad call?
[deleted]
I guess I am not the only one. I know it is ignorant and irresponsible, but I have to tend to my mental health. I can be of no help if I completely loose my mind. I now mostly get my news from word of mouth sources. Wikipedia front page has a decent low key summary of the news.
> I know it is ignorant and irresponsible
I am guessing you're just saying this so you don't get flamed by the concern trolls of the Internet who say you must be engaged, but in the case you actually feel this, it's not true at all. You don't owe your attention and reaction to the news to anyone.
Do any good in life for others less fortunate or in need and know that's more than thousands of hours of watching CNN coverage of Ukraine-Russia conflict or Roe v. Wade being rehashed the 76th time.
I am guessing you're just saying this so you don't get flamed by the concern trolls of the Internet who say you must be engaged, but in the case you actually feel this, it's not true at all. You don't owe your attention and reaction to the news to anyone.
Do any good in life for others less fortunate or in need and know that's more than thousands of hours of watching CNN coverage of Ukraine-Russia conflict or Roe v. Wade being rehashed the 76th time.
In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box. There are also other ways than voting to influence political decision making in a democracy, which requires citizens to be informed and educated.
This doesn't require checking the news daily, but maybe at least once a month?
This doesn't require checking the news daily, but maybe at least once a month?
> In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box.
Even if you accept this is true, I have a hard time believing that 'following the news' actually achieves this in any substantial way. If anything, it may have the opposite effect, as ad-driven sensationalism selects for disjointed, short-term stories with large emotional impacts over those which enable readers to form far-seeing, rational, coherent world-views.
Even if you accept this is true, I have a hard time believing that 'following the news' actually achieves this in any substantial way. If anything, it may have the opposite effect, as ad-driven sensationalism selects for disjointed, short-term stories with large emotional impacts over those which enable readers to form far-seeing, rational, coherent world-views.
Imagine a scenario where one the local officials you voted for is caught misusing city funds. I'd imagine you want to know this come election time. How else does democracy work, if voters don't know what happened?
I'm not saying that what currently passes for news is a good solution, but I feel like a lot of people sort of throw the baby with the bathwater and justify completely detaching themselves from what's happening because news are heavily flawed. They are, and I don't blame anyone person from taking a break, but it doesn't scale. If a large percentage of the population does it it causes problems.
I'm not saying that what currently passes for news is a good solution, but I feel like a lot of people sort of throw the baby with the bathwater and justify completely detaching themselves from what's happening because news are heavily flawed. They are, and I don't blame anyone person from taking a break, but it doesn't scale. If a large percentage of the population does it it causes problems.
> Imagine a scenario where one the local officials you voted for is caught misusing city funds.
When I was younger, two consecutive governors from opposite parties both ended up in prison for their activity as elected officials. The STOCK act was passed 10 years ago, but insider trading in congress remains rampant.
We have different expecations.
When I was younger, two consecutive governors from opposite parties both ended up in prison for their activity as elected officials. The STOCK act was passed 10 years ago, but insider trading in congress remains rampant.
We have different expecations.
It's also generally not how people vote anyway. People primarily vote based on their virtues, morals, and issues that they perceive to be important and correct. The news certainly has an impact, but not that much after they're adults.
At some point watching the news is purely entertainment at best, and a way to feel better than others by being more informed at worst.
At some point watching the news is purely entertainment at best, and a way to feel better than others by being more informed at worst.
> primarily vote based on their virtues, morals, and issues that they perceive to be important and correct.
You wish.
People have always voted with their guts and feelings, much less with their brain.
You wish.
People have always voted with their guts and feelings, much less with their brain.
People do everything with their guts and feelings, then use their brains to rationalize their decisions afterward.
Virtues are morals live not in the brain - they are not derived by reason - so we're in agreement.
Efficiency wise you could probably just put in a day or 2 of catch up before going to vote. Would probably actually get a more impartial view on candidates not tainted by whatever the latest controversy is that will be forgotten in a week.
Following some news is important, but nationally things are so ridiculously polarized that a majority of the population could get by with just checking in once a month or so.
Locally -- most people live in solid red or blue states, so if they want to go the extra mile, they could check if there's anyone worth voting for in their local red/blue party primaries.
Locally -- most people live in solid red or blue states, so if they want to go the extra mile, they could check if there's anyone worth voting for in their local red/blue party primaries.
> In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box.
Millions of people are ignoring that advice currently, and unlike action - say, giving to those in need or volunteering your help - a single vote doesn't spur any change; lost to the margins of error.
I personally think many people hide behind voting as their civic duty as a way to get out of action and helping those in need, especially those who are local.
Sure, voting is fine. I do it. It doesn't much matter given the city, county, and state I live in (Seattle, King County, Washington State) since you can guess how issues are quite easily litigated and voted upon, but I'll learn a little bit about the stuff on the ballot and cast my vote. I also don't really think it does much; I mostly do it to silence those who think not voting is some cardinal sin.
Helping those in your neighborhood with food security, transportation, or access to information/services makes an impact that day for that person. They don't much care who you voted for. Little Free Pantries and Little Free Libraries are a great way to get started with hyperlocal giving, if anyone is looking for a way to help locally and disconnect nationally/globally from events that you have vanishingly little (I'm being generous) control over.
Millions of people are ignoring that advice currently, and unlike action - say, giving to those in need or volunteering your help - a single vote doesn't spur any change; lost to the margins of error.
I personally think many people hide behind voting as their civic duty as a way to get out of action and helping those in need, especially those who are local.
Sure, voting is fine. I do it. It doesn't much matter given the city, county, and state I live in (Seattle, King County, Washington State) since you can guess how issues are quite easily litigated and voted upon, but I'll learn a little bit about the stuff on the ballot and cast my vote. I also don't really think it does much; I mostly do it to silence those who think not voting is some cardinal sin.
Helping those in your neighborhood with food security, transportation, or access to information/services makes an impact that day for that person. They don't much care who you voted for. Little Free Pantries and Little Free Libraries are a great way to get started with hyperlocal giving, if anyone is looking for a way to help locally and disconnect nationally/globally from events that you have vanishingly little (I'm being generous) control over.
There's many other ways to make an informed choice.
Books, develop a moral compass, talk with experts or even trusted friends, observe what is happening in your area and act in good faith to become involved.
IMO I'd trust the vote of someone who volunteers with the poor over someone who just watches $BIGNEWS each night
Making a good choice is more than having data, it's about having wisdom of what even matters in life and which data even matters for moving towards that good life. The news cannot tell you what is Good.
Books, develop a moral compass, talk with experts or even trusted friends, observe what is happening in your area and act in good faith to become involved.
IMO I'd trust the vote of someone who volunteers with the poor over someone who just watches $BIGNEWS each night
Making a good choice is more than having data, it's about having wisdom of what even matters in life and which data even matters for moving towards that good life. The news cannot tell you what is Good.
The only moral obligation a citizen has in a free republic is to not violate the rights of fellow citizens. Beyond that, you should be free to live your life as you choose, including being apolitical and ignoring the news. It may not be the smartest position to take for maintaining your freedoms, but it is a morally valid one.
I mean, maybe? What about our gerrymandered system (edit: in the US) is democratic? Senators and governors? Most of those have a lock on their votes, both among expected and registered.
I have voted every election that I can physically do so, but at some point you hit the margin described in the myth of the rational voter.
I have voted every election that I can physically do so, but at some point you hit the margin described in the myth of the rational voter.
I can’t think of anything useful I’ve ever learned from a major news outlet. I generally feel like they actively drain my IQ points.
NPR or a good magazine, yes. The news described in this article? No.
NPR or a good magazine, yes. The news described in this article? No.
You are probably better of spending two days before election day reading up on politicians actions on wikipedia. And even then your vote will get swamped by somebody who had 4 kids that are now of voting age.
The news usually only have one thing relevant to your life: the weather.
The news usually only have one thing relevant to your life: the weather.
Most of what's in the news isn't really news though. It's analyses of news, that turn out to very often just be speculation. Newsworthy events come around like, a couple of times a year. Most of the rest is just gossip.
Last couple of years, I've seen talking heads projecting among other things:
* Covid has a 10% mortality rate
* Covid will blow over by march 2020
* Covid is just a flu
* Covid will blow over by summer 2020
* Covid will blow over by fall 2020
* Trump will join the QAnon protesters
* Trump won the election by a landslide
* Trump will refuse to step down and become a dictator
* Covid will blow over by 2021 when the vaccinations get started
* Covid will blow over by summer 2021
* Covid will blow over by fall 2021
* Covid will blow over by winter 2021
* Putin is just saber rattling, he will not invade Ukraine
* Ukraine will fold like a house of cards
* The Russian convoy will be stuck in the mud forever and it's all Putin's got
* Sanctions will defeat Putin any moment now
* The Russians will turn on Putin
* The Russian Oligarchs will turn on Putin
* Putin will be defeated by April 2022
* Putin will be defeated by Summer 2022
If this is where you get your understanding of the world, I'm not even sure it's a net positive. You might just walk away with a less accurate understanding of things than if you simply weren't told about these things.
Last couple of years, I've seen talking heads projecting among other things:
* Covid has a 10% mortality rate
* Covid will blow over by march 2020
* Covid is just a flu
* Covid will blow over by summer 2020
* Covid will blow over by fall 2020
* Trump will join the QAnon protesters
* Trump won the election by a landslide
* Trump will refuse to step down and become a dictator
* Covid will blow over by 2021 when the vaccinations get started
* Covid will blow over by summer 2021
* Covid will blow over by fall 2021
* Covid will blow over by winter 2021
* Putin is just saber rattling, he will not invade Ukraine
* Ukraine will fold like a house of cards
* The Russian convoy will be stuck in the mud forever and it's all Putin's got
* Sanctions will defeat Putin any moment now
* The Russians will turn on Putin
* The Russian Oligarchs will turn on Putin
* Putin will be defeated by April 2022
* Putin will be defeated by Summer 2022
If this is where you get your understanding of the world, I'm not even sure it's a net positive. You might just walk away with a less accurate understanding of things than if you simply weren't told about these things.
I don’t think the point of democracy is to be moralizing and shaming everyone
Laudable, but being informed from any source is fraught.
> I know it is ignorant and irresponsible
It's impressive that, as a society, we've conditioned people to this. I don't read the news, I don't participate in social media outside of forums and IRC, I don't donate, and I don't vote. All things are things I used to do with regular frequency. I was constantly stressed, tired, and depressed. It was difficult to relate to people who had experiences outside of what I was being fed on social media, it was hard to even say I was happy at times because someone wanted to remind me that world was going to end.
All along the way you get these happy coaches who will tell you, "It's a marathon not a race", "empathy exhaustion is a thing", etc while also feeding you a machine of reactions to make sure none of that was true. Even when you're disengaged on purpose, there's societal pressure to stay engaged, and the system knows how to wield that pressure with some level of plausible deniability. It's far easier to tell someone who is saying, "This is too much" that their choices put them at fault; after all, they didn't have to read that next reactionary opinion.
These are all experiences with my hypothetical in-group, not even the categorical "threat". Yet, I wasn't ignorant. In fact, I would read on events - just not as they're happening, and not at a news website. You'd be surprised at the number of people who focus on writing thoughtful post-hoc analysis on actual collected facts - Wikipedia is one such source, as you mentioned. As for irresponsible, your ultimate responsibility is to keep yourself healthy. If you are not here, you cannot affect the world in any positive way - regardless of your level of input or listening. Anyone that tells you to do something detrimental to yourself on purpose is not actually looking out for your best interest.
It's impressive that, as a society, we've conditioned people to this. I don't read the news, I don't participate in social media outside of forums and IRC, I don't donate, and I don't vote. All things are things I used to do with regular frequency. I was constantly stressed, tired, and depressed. It was difficult to relate to people who had experiences outside of what I was being fed on social media, it was hard to even say I was happy at times because someone wanted to remind me that world was going to end.
All along the way you get these happy coaches who will tell you, "It's a marathon not a race", "empathy exhaustion is a thing", etc while also feeding you a machine of reactions to make sure none of that was true. Even when you're disengaged on purpose, there's societal pressure to stay engaged, and the system knows how to wield that pressure with some level of plausible deniability. It's far easier to tell someone who is saying, "This is too much" that their choices put them at fault; after all, they didn't have to read that next reactionary opinion.
These are all experiences with my hypothetical in-group, not even the categorical "threat". Yet, I wasn't ignorant. In fact, I would read on events - just not as they're happening, and not at a news website. You'd be surprised at the number of people who focus on writing thoughtful post-hoc analysis on actual collected facts - Wikipedia is one such source, as you mentioned. As for irresponsible, your ultimate responsibility is to keep yourself healthy. If you are not here, you cannot affect the world in any positive way - regardless of your level of input or listening. Anyone that tells you to do something detrimental to yourself on purpose is not actually looking out for your best interest.
Mathematically your vote on the national level has about as much chance of "doing something" as buying a lottery ticket does; but the first is widely deemed to be "super important" and the latter "super stupid".
Voting says more about you than it ever has or will about the candidates.
Once that realization sinks in, everything changes.
Voting says more about you than it ever has or will about the candidates.
Once that realization sinks in, everything changes.
> Voting says more about you than it ever has or will about the candidates.
> Once that realization sinks in, everything changes.
Maybe, but probably not.
For instance, I don't vote because the parties have failed to address things that I think are important, or have gone so grossly off the rails that they are no longer a useful investment of my time or energy. In this way, non-participation is valid feedback - so it says something about the party and the candidate. To me, not addressing things I need solved by the party is feedback to me - feedback that's as simple as "your issues are not a priority to me or my constituents".
People trying to moralize voting usually can't comprehend this because the party is doing something they want. The problem is that moralizing voting is never okay.
> Once that realization sinks in, everything changes.
Maybe, but probably not.
For instance, I don't vote because the parties have failed to address things that I think are important, or have gone so grossly off the rails that they are no longer a useful investment of my time or energy. In this way, non-participation is valid feedback - so it says something about the party and the candidate. To me, not addressing things I need solved by the party is feedback to me - feedback that's as simple as "your issues are not a priority to me or my constituents".
People trying to moralize voting usually can't comprehend this because the party is doing something they want. The problem is that moralizing voting is never okay.
Its certainly not ignorant or irresponsible and if you feel that way, I suggest its because that's the message the news dealers want you to feel.
Dobelli sums it up best:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf
Dobelli sums it up best:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf
Wikipedia's "Portal:Current events"[1] page is a relatively good source of news that is boring/balanced.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
We get the NYTimes weekend edition delivered, and that’s been a really healthy way to consume news. I read it over the course of the week, often with a nice cup of coffee.
> Wikipedia front page has a decent low key summary of the news.
Then you might like Legible News (https://legiblenews.com/), which uses Wikipedia’s Current Events portal.
Then you might like Legible News (https://legiblenews.com/), which uses Wikipedia’s Current Events portal.
If you think of world/local news simply as form of entertainment that you don't enjoy, you'll feel no moral pain from abstaining. I quit ~15 years ago and have no regrets.
However, I do think it's important to build a larger mental model of the world than you get by just sitting in a room by yourself. But I'd argue that the news is a terrible (biased, emotional, and inefficient) way of building such a model. Far better, for example, to spend a bit of time each month looking into the large scale trends that are shaping your world, country, and town.
However, I do think it's important to build a larger mental model of the world than you get by just sitting in a room by yourself. But I'd argue that the news is a terrible (biased, emotional, and inefficient) way of building such a model. Far better, for example, to spend a bit of time each month looking into the large scale trends that are shaping your world, country, and town.
> I know it is ignorant and irresponsible
It's really not. If you're spending even a little time reading relevant books (poli sci, political philosophy, economics, history, et c.) instead of following the news daily then you're doing a better job of being a good citizen than people who don't do that, but do follow the news closely.
Exception: local news, though even that you probably don't need to follow daily. Maybe check in once a week. That also happens to be the only level at which your, personal vote has enough statistical likelihood of affecting anything to have any actual value.
Caring and being a good citizen is consistently participating in politics that are closer to home, and participating in party politics. Earlier in the process = larger effect (so, party politics). Smaller pool of voters = larger effect (so, local). Not watching the news every day. Not voting in major elections (if you skip 100% of those but attend a corresponding number of local elections, you're doing your part much better than someone who does the inverse).
It's really not. If you're spending even a little time reading relevant books (poli sci, political philosophy, economics, history, et c.) instead of following the news daily then you're doing a better job of being a good citizen than people who don't do that, but do follow the news closely.
Exception: local news, though even that you probably don't need to follow daily. Maybe check in once a week. That also happens to be the only level at which your, personal vote has enough statistical likelihood of affecting anything to have any actual value.
Caring and being a good citizen is consistently participating in politics that are closer to home, and participating in party politics. Earlier in the process = larger effect (so, party politics). Smaller pool of voters = larger effect (so, local). Not watching the news every day. Not voting in major elections (if you skip 100% of those but attend a corresponding number of local elections, you're doing your part much better than someone who does the inverse).
There's a high correlation between following news and feelings of anxiety and depression.
At the beginning of 2022 I decided to quit reading news, I realized that it took between 3 and 7% of non-sleeping time and added nothing to my life.
Spent two great months, then Russia invaded Ukraine and I went back to norm.
At the beginning of 2022 I decided to quit reading news, I realized that it took between 3 and 7% of non-sleeping time and added nothing to my life.
Spent two great months, then Russia invaded Ukraine and I went back to norm.
I really like Tangle News. I get a 10 minute summary of political happenings in the US every day. Reading through that keeps me in the loop but doesn’t try and pull you down the outrage rabbit hole.
A great low key summary of the news is Quartz Daily Brief. A daily e-mail with hand picked world news that are informative. I find it very useful.
I follow the news but don't get it from social media or read or engage in comment sections (except here).
nope. you are most certainly not the only one. the constant 24/7 hysteria around covid-19 has completely burnt me out on the news. It felt like everywhere I went I couldn't escape it and it nearly broke me mentally.
Tuning out and away from the news was the best thing I could have done for myself.
Tuning out and away from the news was the best thing I could have done for myself.
I'm doing exactly the same.
There are few news stories I find worthy to open. "If it bleeds it leads". For the most part, if isn't someone I know bleeding, I'm skipping it. Also the share of so called news posing as editorials makes it unworthy to open the vast lot of them. Also, editorial or not, Its often about how unfair the left is treated and I'm not interested in that any more. Tech wizz bang stories aren't as interesting to me as it was in the past, mainly because I've heard of it all (almost). Not interested in scandals of the so called elite anymore because nothing ever comes from it, usually.
Other so called news stories like that about inflation, isn't news at all, we all know already. The stuff that is really news, and really important, and really imminent, isn't covered because it embarrasses the establishment. Should you point that out, you are censored.
Funny how a business can survive without customers.
But that is just me.
Other so called news stories like that about inflation, isn't news at all, we all know already. The stuff that is really news, and really important, and really imminent, isn't covered because it embarrasses the establishment. Should you point that out, you are censored.
Funny how a business can survive without customers.
But that is just me.
> "If it bleeds it leads".
Post-2016, the updated version is "If it bleeds and doesn't make Democrats look bad, it leads".
See for example, the near-absolute muteness about the recent Hunter Biden iCloud leak[1]. This is the son of a sitting POTUS - who was just last week at the White House - demonstrably putting himself in positions that are ripe for blackmailing and corruption.
The same son sitting on Boards of private companies with huge international exposure, and directly benefiting from the terrible decisions being made at the White House.
It would be scandalous even in the most Banana of Republics - but not in the US when its about the Democrats.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_iCloud_leak
Post-2016, the updated version is "If it bleeds and doesn't make Democrats look bad, it leads".
See for example, the near-absolute muteness about the recent Hunter Biden iCloud leak[1]. This is the son of a sitting POTUS - who was just last week at the White House - demonstrably putting himself in positions that are ripe for blackmailing and corruption.
The same son sitting on Boards of private companies with huge international exposure, and directly benefiting from the terrible decisions being made at the White House.
It would be scandalous even in the most Banana of Republics - but not in the US when its about the Democrats.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_iCloud_leak
The alleged hack is reported by all major US news outlets
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/secret-service-sa...
It's just that a 4chan post isn't much to go on.
Kind of like when they all reported on his hacked laptop, but all they had was a hard drive Giuliani refused to share.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/secret-service-sa...
It's just that a 4chan post isn't much to go on.
Kind of like when they all reported on his hacked laptop, but all they had was a hard drive Giuliani refused to share.
I wouldn't have voted for Biden if I knew the full picture. One part of that picture is a video of him saying he wishes to eliminate, totally, fossil fuel consumption in his term. Then the laptop issue, which was real, and was important, I never heard anything about it other than its fake news conspiracy theory. If anyone wants to double back on this post and reiterate some opinion that says that indeed it was all conspiracy theory nonsense, are you happy with an angry geriatric president that reads note cards when he's about to do something? There are a hell of a lot of people unhappy with Biden. Not all of them voted for Trump.
There were videos of Johny Carson pointing out Biden lying his ass off in the 1980s. Had I known that I would have a much better picture of the president we have now.
The media has failed us and they don't realize it. I am suspicious these big companies are not being funded through the ways people think, like advertising or subscription revenue. How does this trash stay in business? I say trash because Biden is a 29% approval rating disaster and he was elected 100% at the behest of the media. When the media loses objectivity to satisfy power behind the scenes, what can really be said about it? If anyone wants to call me dirty words because of this, go ahead. I won't reply.
There were videos of Johny Carson pointing out Biden lying his ass off in the 1980s. Had I known that I would have a much better picture of the president we have now.
The media has failed us and they don't realize it. I am suspicious these big companies are not being funded through the ways people think, like advertising or subscription revenue. How does this trash stay in business? I say trash because Biden is a 29% approval rating disaster and he was elected 100% at the behest of the media. When the media loses objectivity to satisfy power behind the scenes, what can really be said about it? If anyone wants to call me dirty words because of this, go ahead. I won't reply.
Do you honestly think that the news should give more attention to the current president's son fucking up in an as-of-yet-to-be-determined-importance way versus an actual congressional hearing about our former president inciting an insurrection against the capitol?
What is considered a scandal now has been forever skewed by the insanity that was the previous presidency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What is considered a scandal now has been forever skewed by the insanity that was the previous presidency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're reinforcing his point. Major news media acts as if they can't report on Hunter Biden because there's only room for one story in the news cycle: Jan 6th.
All major news outlets reported on both so...that disproves the point?
A senior trainer for a method of dealing with trauma once said he didn't think the human nervous system has evolved to be able to deal with the quantity of bad news that is pushed at us.
Thinking about it, evolutionarily we probably dealt with bad news from within a 20 or 40 mile radius (two day's walk...). We are inherently disposed to pay attention to bad news (the creature that ate or mauled a guy in the next village may come this way). Put stronger, it's an evolutionary advantage to pay attention to bad news. But here in 2022, the bad news from thousands of miles away is 99% irrelevant to my life or survival, but my eyeballs get pulled in, and my nervous system gets overwhelmed unless I make a conscious choice to pull away, which I personally do.
Thinking about it, evolutionarily we probably dealt with bad news from within a 20 or 40 mile radius (two day's walk...). We are inherently disposed to pay attention to bad news (the creature that ate or mauled a guy in the next village may come this way). Put stronger, it's an evolutionary advantage to pay attention to bad news. But here in 2022, the bad news from thousands of miles away is 99% irrelevant to my life or survival, but my eyeballs get pulled in, and my nervous system gets overwhelmed unless I make a conscious choice to pull away, which I personally do.
> the bad news from thousands of miles away is 99% irrelevant to my life or survival
You reminded me of something. Before the latest US elections me, an Italian, found myself in few discussions about Trump, Biden at dinners with friends and family.
I then realized I've never found myself in a discussion about elections of our city's mayor or province governor which were infinitely more relevant to my daily life. Some of my friends didn't even knew who the candidates were or the ideas they had.
Quite telling.
You reminded me of something. Before the latest US elections me, an Italian, found myself in few discussions about Trump, Biden at dinners with friends and family.
I then realized I've never found myself in a discussion about elections of our city's mayor or province governor which were infinitely more relevant to my daily life. Some of my friends didn't even knew who the candidates were or the ideas they had.
Quite telling.
It is no exaggeration to say that the average Canadian knows more about US politics and how the US government works than he does about his own country's equivalents.
(Or "thinks they know", at least. The same average Canadian thinks, thanks to an avalanche of misleading "news", that "the Supreme Court[1] banned abortion throughout the US". Since the Supreme Court of Canada has never found a Charter right to abortion, the repeal of Roe v. Wade means that federally speaking abortion has the exact same standing in both countries: No law prohibits it.)
[1] No "US" qualifier needed, which is itself telling
(Or "thinks they know", at least. The same average Canadian thinks, thanks to an avalanche of misleading "news", that "the Supreme Court[1] banned abortion throughout the US". Since the Supreme Court of Canada has never found a Charter right to abortion, the repeal of Roe v. Wade means that federally speaking abortion has the exact same standing in both countries: No law prohibits it.)
[1] No "US" qualifier needed, which is itself telling
> We are inherently disposed to pay attention to bad news
Most of us, sure, but not all of us. Some people don’t care about bad news. You might argue that’s not who we want to select for, but in a noisy information environment, apathy is a fitness function.
Most of us, sure, but not all of us. Some people don’t care about bad news. You might argue that’s not who we want to select for, but in a noisy information environment, apathy is a fitness function.
A senior commentator at Hacker News (me) does not believe that false beliefs are more prevalent today than in the past.
Once you realise that the "bad news" is not current events, but rather a poor experience driven by chasing clicks instead of quality, the reasonable response is to disengage from the machine and go elsewhere.
A simple example is the number of new orgs still running daily live blogs of current events trying to generate hype.
I expect if we looked elsewhere, there would be an uptick in engagement in moderated, thoughtful sources such as podcasts, substacks, etc (and of course plain social).
A simple example is the number of new orgs still running daily live blogs of current events trying to generate hype.
I expect if we looked elsewhere, there would be an uptick in engagement in moderated, thoughtful sources such as podcasts, substacks, etc (and of course plain social).
How many of the “news” articles are just worthless manipulative clickbait and people have figured that out?
Check out r/savedyouaclick to see the nonsense headlines that often have nothing to do with the story, which is then spread out over 50 pages to show more ads.
Check out r/savedyouaclick to see the nonsense headlines that often have nothing to do with the story, which is then spread out over 50 pages to show more ads.
I feel like "r/saved your lick" is more likely to be run by deer who have opinions on where to find the best salt licks...
whoops, autocorrect had a field day with that, thanks.
Yes, some of us have had enough, and we decided to walk away from it. Enough people now realize that it's all BS for clicks.
Nature is healing!
And by that I mean everyone is just done with it all.
And by that I mean everyone is just done with it all.
It's almost like people no longer trust the mainstream news outlets and its not tough to see why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
Excellent point: conservative television empire Sinclair Broadcast Group writes a lot of talking points for local affiliates.
No wonder Trump loved them so much:
> So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.
— Trump (Twitter) April 2, 2018
talking heads on daytime talk shows != the news
No wonder Trump loved them so much:
> So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.
— Trump (Twitter) April 2, 2018
talking heads on daytime talk shows != the news
News isn’t news anymore. What you get most often is activism, propaganda, and doomsday blackpill bullshit. I don’t need that in my life.
It is pretty easy to keep on top of news, just occasionally browse the headlines and pickup more narrow interest stuff via social media.
Most things are just part of the 24 hour news cycle and don't mean much of anything, certainly not worth sitting there with CNN or similar on to get fed to you at a very slow pace and full of ads.
Most things are just part of the 24 hour news cycle and don't mean much of anything, certainly not worth sitting there with CNN or similar on to get fed to you at a very slow pace and full of ads.
I stopped reading the news starting this week, and created another Twitter handle for all politics and news related follows... And I don't read it. The news is all depressing. The options are either focus on daily life & donate to Dems/Ukraine or... go out marching with antifa? There's no middle ground I can see.
I can't listen to this but will just leave it here:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-307...
I can't listen to this but will just leave it here:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-307...
We placed trust in News outlets, and they abused that trust to a criminal, near civil war. Let them all go bankrupt.
Glad to hear you don't read any news, presumably including the link to CNBC you submitted.
What's your alternative?
What's your alternative?
Not who you're asking, but my alternative is simply interacting with people around me. I'll hear about basically everything from someone running their mouth, half the time it's their biases and bullshit spewing out, the other half it's actual pertinent information. That's significantly less biases and bullshit than if I followed news, and much less time spent pretending to care, so it's a win for me.
Oh, so hearsay. It's much less efficient to have to ask multiple people for their summaries of the news every day instead of reading a newspaper.
The news is hearsay with a veneer of officialness.
I don't ask. You don't have to. If it's important you'll hear about it passively. You'll also hear about unimportant things, but far fewer unimportant things than if you actively looked for pertinent information.
I don't ask. You don't have to. If it's important you'll hear about it passively. You'll also hear about unimportant things, but far fewer unimportant things than if you actively looked for pertinent information.
I decide what to learn about, you let others decide for you.
> The news is hearsay with a veneer of officialness [sic]
(I'm guessing you meant officiality?) So "the news is hearsay," and you just get hearsay of that hearsay? Not seeing the benefit.
> The news is hearsay with a veneer of officialness [sic]
(I'm guessing you meant officiality?) So "the news is hearsay," and you just get hearsay of that hearsay? Not seeing the benefit.
You don't decide shit. You're consuming what some executive wants you to.
I choose what to care about. I hear about what's happening, same as you, except I don't sit anxiously in front of a box to do it, and I don't get told what to think and feel about it.
I choose what to care about. I hear about what's happening, same as you, except I don't sit anxiously in front of a box to do it, and I don't get told what to think and feel about it.
I decided what to read. You passively wait for someone else to tell you what's newsworthy. I guess you sitting anxiously in front of your laptop doesn't count?
Does the news you're looking at reddit and Twitter for come with any commentary by chance? If so you're getting told what to think and feel about it.
Does the news you're looking at reddit and Twitter for come with any commentary by chance? If so you're getting told what to think and feel about it.
> presumably including the link to CNBC you submitted.
Not sure who you're talking to here. I've never submitted any CNBC anything anywhere.
Alternatives are Hacker News, Reddit's /r/news & r/worldnews, and then my network of friends that includes working political/economics journalists, ACLU & NGO attorneys and friends that became congress people. Plus my wife has a stellar curated twitter feed.
Not sure who you're talking to here. I've never submitted any CNBC anything anywhere.
Alternatives are Hacker News, Reddit's /r/news & r/worldnews, and then my network of friends that includes working political/economics journalists, ACLU & NGO attorneys and friends that became congress people. Plus my wife has a stellar curated twitter feed.
Yes you have https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28480214
I thought your alternative was "interacting with people around me," but now you're listing websites? Websites that link to NEWS articles?! That's just reading the news with extra steps.
I thought your alternative was "interacting with people around me," but now you're listing websites? Websites that link to NEWS articles?! That's just reading the news with extra steps.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else, or your posting style attributes things to people and you're connecting the wrong people.
Nope, you're the listed submitter of this link to CNBC, see the part that says "by bsenftner 10 months ago?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28480214
Here's your original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076299
It says "let them all go bankrupt," but then you say you read news sites that you find on reddit and Twitter regularly. Wouldn't that be harder if they all went bankrupt?
Here's your original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076299
It says "let them all go bankrupt," but then you say you read news sites that you find on reddit and Twitter regularly. Wouldn't that be harder if they all went bankrupt?
Oh, you got me. 10 months ago I submitted a news link. Do you have an issue with secondary thinking? When I say "let them all go bankrupt" I and stating I'd like to see market forces stress them to stop their poor reporting practices or go bankrupt." does this need to be explained explicitly to you?
Agreed, "I've never submitted any CNBC anything anywhere" is not true, and you don't want to "let them all go bankrupt."
So why do you visit aggregators to find links to and read these news articles, when their reporting practices are so poor? I asked you for an alternative to them.
You are a market force, your engagement with CNBC and other mainstream media via reddit and Twitter encourages whatever reporting practices they use.
So why do you visit aggregators to find links to and read these news articles, when their reporting practices are so poor? I asked you for an alternative to them.
You are a market force, your engagement with CNBC and other mainstream media via reddit and Twitter encourages whatever reporting practices they use.
> So why do you visit aggregators to find links to and read these news articles, when their reporting practices are so poor?
I read the comments first, assess if the article is worth reading. And why read them at all? There is nothing else to learn what is happening outside my sphere without disrupting my life to find out.
I read the comments first, assess if the article is worth reading. And why read them at all? There is nothing else to learn what is happening outside my sphere without disrupting my life to find out.
So that's not an alternative. You're reading news from the places you claimed "abused that trust to a criminal, near civil war!"
Abolish 24/7 news networks to start. They provide 0 benefit to society.
Who do you trust instead?
NPR and PBS
I second this. I don't understand why you were down-voted. Somebody asked a question about who you trust and you answered it directly. You didn't ask, but I too trust NPR & PBS.
Generally long form content
I resent news media relying heavily on clicks. Simultaneously, I understand that news organizations must generate profit somehow, and that many people are unwilling to pay for news.
The problem, as I see it: I pay for a news subscription. News Organization continues to produce low-quality content because they continue to rely on advertising. So, I am paying for the same quality of content as when I did not pay; I am wasting money.
Theoretically, if everyone paid for a news subscription, then News Organization could afford to produce content that relies less, or ideally not at all, on advertising. However, as it stands, I do not trust the quality of News Organization, because it currently relies on advertising, and consequently does not optimize for quality: accuracy, timeliness, transparency and newsworthiness.
The problem, as I see it: I pay for a news subscription. News Organization continues to produce low-quality content because they continue to rely on advertising. So, I am paying for the same quality of content as when I did not pay; I am wasting money.
Theoretically, if everyone paid for a news subscription, then News Organization could afford to produce content that relies less, or ideally not at all, on advertising. However, as it stands, I do not trust the quality of News Organization, because it currently relies on advertising, and consequently does not optimize for quality: accuracy, timeliness, transparency and newsworthiness.
If it’s important enough it’ll reach you.
Yes this is really true. One time a friend told me 3G was being eliminated. 4 days later my phone stopped working.
Exactly, why check for cars before crossing the road?
If it's dangerous enough, it'll hit you.
If it's dangerous enough, it'll hit you.
Ironically, crossing roads is an example of a time where people tend to feel checking the news is stupid and reckless. The reason being that it calls into stark attention how a lack of awareness of your actual surroundings impacts your safety.
...and a lack of understanding that your phone won't work tomorrow can impact your safety. Presumably the phone was near GP's actual surroundings.
You can't cite his example as evidence that the news is required - his example contradicts the thesis. He was informed without needing to pay attention to the news via a friend prior to the event happening.
I get what you're trying to say though - not paying attention to your surroundings and so not knowing what is happening is potentially dangerous. The problem, of course, is that no one was arguing that being uninformed was ideal.
They were implying that the news wasn't optimal and stating outright that even without it you will be informed of the important things.
I'm assuming you understood that - maybe we are talking past each other - but if you did and you still disagree with the thrust of their points I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I find that it is an incredibly bad conflation to think paying attention to what a monetization of attention corporation thinks you should pay attention to is necessarily going to translate into being aware of your surroundings; I'm quite certain that, very very often, it not only doesn't do that, but accomplishes the opposite. The reason why I'm so certain is because of how poor the information quality is. News has perverse incentives, like being fast, rather than right. Generally you would be better off having been informed through slower channels - for example, by taking a course or reading a book or getting first hand accounts - rather than having gotten a watered down, distorted, and in many ways wrong interpretation from a non-expert optimizing for engagement.
I get what you're trying to say though - not paying attention to your surroundings and so not knowing what is happening is potentially dangerous. The problem, of course, is that no one was arguing that being uninformed was ideal.
They were implying that the news wasn't optimal and stating outright that even without it you will be informed of the important things.
I'm assuming you understood that - maybe we are talking past each other - but if you did and you still disagree with the thrust of their points I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I find that it is an incredibly bad conflation to think paying attention to what a monetization of attention corporation thinks you should pay attention to is necessarily going to translate into being aware of your surroundings; I'm quite certain that, very very often, it not only doesn't do that, but accomplishes the opposite. The reason why I'm so certain is because of how poor the information quality is. News has perverse incentives, like being fast, rather than right. Generally you would be better off having been informed through slower channels - for example, by taking a course or reading a book or getting first hand accounts - rather than having gotten a watered down, distorted, and in many ways wrong interpretation from a non-expert optimizing for engagement.
Seems like something the phone company should have alerted you about rather than hoping you hear it on the news.
Gosh, if only the phone company had some way to contact you ...
Gosh, if only the phone company had some way to contact you ...
>In some cases, engagement has fallen below pre-pandemic levels
In other words, in many cases it is back to normal levels.
In other words, in many cases it is back to normal levels.
> News Engagement crashing 50% on Social
Thank the gods is all I can say. You could replace that headline with "News Enragement crashing 50% on Social" and still be close to the truth.
Anything that shows that we might someday be able to communicate without toxicity is a positive sign.
Thank the gods is all I can say. You could replace that headline with "News Enragement crashing 50% on Social" and still be close to the truth.
Anything that shows that we might someday be able to communicate without toxicity is a positive sign.
> The war in Ukraine, a series of deadly mass shootings, the Jan. 6 hearings and the Supreme Court's revocation of abortion rights haven't been able to capture the same level of attention spurred by the onset of the pandemic and the 2020 election.
Did anyone see those comedy sketches on Instagram/TikTok about the fake army draft guy standing around NYC recruiting people?
He got some pretty honest opinions from people about the idea of going to the Ukraine, that mostly matches all of our representatives actions.
Basically "fuck that"
Did anyone see those comedy sketches on Instagram/TikTok about the fake army draft guy standing around NYC recruiting people?
He got some pretty honest opinions from people about the idea of going to the Ukraine, that mostly matches all of our representatives actions.
Basically "fuck that"
Just a casual heads-up - https://time.com/12597/the-ukraine-or-ukraine/
its a post about broad apathy, but yes I'm aware and its largely reflexive
How much of this is just TikTok eating everyone else's lunch? You don't post articles on TT as much as 15-60 second soundbites, so presumably it wouldn't be included here. There's also more "alternative" solo players as opposed to the big newspapers and channels, since TT has better discoverability than YT and FB.
I like this simplified format that Axios has. Reading this article I actually thought "This is good, I should check out more from Axios." I then went to their homepage and by scrolling down counted 11 out of their top 20 articles were about the January 6th riots and an additional 2 or 3 were about Trump. Maybe this is a problem the news has?
My neighborhood experienced rioters. They burned cars near my house, broke windows, ransacked stores, vandalism, looting, attacked people, my neighbors were on the streets with drawn guns, the national guard was deployed, and on the same day our police chief was literally kneeling in solidarity with the rioters. Yet this incident, and countless like it across the country, receded into the far distance almost immediately as far as the media is concerned. An hours long protest turned riot at the Capitol, where the only people killed were protesters by the police? This dominates media coverage more than a year later?
What I'm really getting at is that media coverage seems politically and ideologically driven to me. They want to shape the opinion of their readers to match the political agenda. That seems like a turn off to me.
My neighborhood experienced rioters. They burned cars near my house, broke windows, ransacked stores, vandalism, looting, attacked people, my neighbors were on the streets with drawn guns, the national guard was deployed, and on the same day our police chief was literally kneeling in solidarity with the rioters. Yet this incident, and countless like it across the country, receded into the far distance almost immediately as far as the media is concerned. An hours long protest turned riot at the Capitol, where the only people killed were protesters by the police? This dominates media coverage more than a year later?
What I'm really getting at is that media coverage seems politically and ideologically driven to me. They want to shape the opinion of their readers to match the political agenda. That seems like a turn off to me.
The seventh Jan 6 select hearing committee was hours ago, why wouldn't a US-focused news site be running stories about it today? It's the hero story for Newsmax, is that because of their "ideology?"
It's all over Fox News too (granted they're also covering 'The View' Hosts React to First Lady Jill Biden's Taco Comments which sounds very important).
It's all over Fox News too (granted they're also covering 'The View' Hosts React to First Lady Jill Biden's Taco Comments which sounds very important).
When I look at Fox's website, whatever commentary one might have about the editorial selection, it is not dominated by January 6th.
I mentioned that: they're also covering Jill Biden's Taco Comments.
Thanks for not even trying to challenge the point about Newsmax!
Thanks for not even trying to challenge the point about Newsmax!
I wasn't aware your point about Newsmax needed to be challenged. Going to newsmax.com, of their top 20 stories 2 are about January 6th and they both seem to be the same article (that is the headline story and the ~18th are the same story). So - on the one hand, the majority of axios stories are about this and ~5% of newsmax stories are about it. What was I supposed to be challenging again?
Agreed, Newsmax's cover story is the hearing. Other than that not a blip :)
Maybe far-right news sources are covering it because...it's news? Instead of because conspiracy.
Fox News notably didn't air the Jan 6 hearings, they cater what they cover to what brings them most views. For Fox News viewers, that isn't the hearings. https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-hearings-fox-news-ratings-c...
Maybe far-right news sources are covering it because...it's news? Instead of because conspiracy.
Fox News notably didn't air the Jan 6 hearings, they cater what they cover to what brings them most views. For Fox News viewers, that isn't the hearings. https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-hearings-fox-news-ratings-c...
Did you actually see the people kneeling with the police chief actively rioting?
Tracking individuals across the day would have been difficult. I was walking around that day, the event lasted all day and into the night, people were wearing masks, and I didn't know any of the participants before hand. So, it's like asking "Are any of the strangers you saw at 10 am the same as the ones you saw at 10 pm?" Hard to answer.
That said, within an hour or two of the meeting with the police chief protesters did enter an intersection and block it. A squad of riot police tried to disburse them and failed. So, if you want to count blocking intersections and ignoring police commands as rioting, then yes.
That said, within an hour or two of the meeting with the police chief protesters did enter an intersection and block it. A squad of riot police tried to disburse them and failed. So, if you want to count blocking intersections and ignoring police commands as rioting, then yes.
> So, it's like asking "Are any of the strangers you saw at 10 am the same as the ones you saw at 10 pm?" Hard to answer.
Exactly why I was questioning the veracity of your accusation.
Exactly why I was questioning the veracity of your accusation.
So you didn't actually see the people kneeling with the police chief actively rioting?
Again, if you count blocking traffic and refusing police directions as rioting, then yes I did.
Even if you don't, then it's not really meaningful to make this point. I mean, sure, maybe it was coincidence and maybe the protesters of the morning just teleported away as the rioting happened, but there's absolutely no reason to think that.
Even if you don't, then it's not really meaningful to make this point. I mean, sure, maybe it was coincidence and maybe the protesters of the morning just teleported away as the rioting happened, but there's absolutely no reason to think that.
Oh, I define rioters as people participating in a riot. The Trump voters that were destroying property, beating police officers, etc.
So you didn't see "our police chief literally kneeling in solidarity with the rioters" at all then.
So you didn't see "our police chief literally kneeling in solidarity with the rioters" at all then.
You realize that it’s possible for people to be in the vicinity of other people who are committing crimes while not committing those same crimes themselves?
I wonder if this is the beginning of the post crisis “high” using the terminology of the fourth turning book. Perhaps the generational shift are having people looking to be self-reliant until those strong communities are rebuilt on trust.
Those bars should have been left aligned. Right-aligning them made them hard to read, due to convention.
Headline: News engagement plummets
Story: CNN and MSNBC down 33%, Fox up 12%
Story: CNN and MSNBC down 33%, Fox up 12%
Someone already tried this gambit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076447
Engagement is down across 1. Cable viewership, 2. News app sessions, 3. Website visits , and 4. Engagement on social media.
What you have after "Story:" only deals with cable viewership (1/4 of the metrics).
Cable viewership is, on average, down 19%, and the story makes explicitly clear: "Those losses skew heavily toward CNN and MSNBC"
Engagement is down across 1. Cable viewership, 2. News app sessions, 3. Website visits , and 4. Engagement on social media.
What you have after "Story:" only deals with cable viewership (1/4 of the metrics).
Cable viewership is, on average, down 19%, and the story makes explicitly clear: "Those losses skew heavily toward CNN and MSNBC"
all I see on news twitter is journalists engaging with each other. no civilians are getting involved/harmed
While I prefer boring politicians, Trump made for some spectacular news headlines. I guess we're getting back to normal.
I'm legitimately worried about how news sources are going to respond to the realization that crazier politicians in high office = way better ratings/sales/views. They already disproportionately covered Trump in 2016 on account of how there was a new insane thing out of his camp every day to report, likely helping him get elected. Forget the actual election: will they bother to cover any "boring" primary candidates at all from here on? Or only ones that have a nutty angle they can work for views?
itqwertz(3)
That's a very weird, biased way of phrasing that. The two left leaning news organizations are down quite a bit, but the right leaning organization is actually up, but we're going to lump them all together and make it look like they're all down at first glance.