I hate the news(aaronsw.com)
aaronsw.com
I hate the news
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
27 comments
Depends on the journalist and publication. I at least like to think I understood the topics I wrote about when I was writing stories a couple of years ago. But I wrote for a niche publication, not a general news site, so I wasn't required to write about "everything," just the subset I was familiar with.
Also The Economist is frequently not totally clueless about computer technology.
Completely agree. There are many great journalists out there. How easy it is to cherry pick or dismiss journalism based on examples of how bad it can be.
fwiw, I couldn't agree less with this article. In fact, it scares me that an educated person could think this way.
RS
fwiw, I couldn't agree less with this article. In fact, it scares me that an educated person could think this way.
RS
Thoreau: "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate. Either is in such a predicament as the man who was earnest to be introduced to a distinguished deaf woman, but when he was presented, and one end of her ear trumpet was put into his hand, had nothing to say. As if the main object were to talk fast and not to talk sensibly. We are eager to tunnel under the Atlantic and bring the Old World some weeks nearer to the New; but perchance the first news that will leak through into the broad, flapping American ear will be that the Princess Adelaide has the whooping cough."
Another Thoreau quote, also from Walden: "And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter -- we never need read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications? To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea."
It is a relevant quote, but it should be said that infrastructure facilitates commerce and that the New and Old World - despite Thoreau's humbuggary - had much to talk about. He would probably disapprove of the Internet in specific and modernity in general.
"I think following the news is a waste of time."
I'm sure this plaid a role in him being so productive.
But I do think its my obligation to read the news. Even if it makes me less productive. Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial. Of course, just knowing the news is not enough. One has to act. In the case of Aaron, we didn't act.
I'm sure this plaid a role in him being so productive.
But I do think its my obligation to read the news. Even if it makes me less productive. Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial. Of course, just knowing the news is not enough. One has to act. In the case of Aaron, we didn't act.
Without the news I would have never learned about Aarons hack and his trial.
Maybe it depends on how you define "news". Everything I know about Aaron Swartz, I know from following links I encountered here. True, this is a "news" site, but it's filtered news; I think that's an important point. The problem with "mainstream" news media is not just that they're bad at reporting; they're also bad at filtering, because their filter criterion is what will sell papers/get more viewers, rather than what information is genuinely of value to the most readers.
Maybe it depends on how you define "news". Everything I know about Aaron Swartz, I know from following links I encountered here. True, this is a "news" site, but it's filtered news; I think that's an important point. The problem with "mainstream" news media is not just that they're bad at reporting; they're also bad at filtering, because their filter criterion is what will sell papers/get more viewers, rather than what information is genuinely of value to the most readers.
I don't read "the news" (meaning mainstream media, if you may) all that often, but when I do - I do like that they're "bad at filtering", or rather, their sheer broadness of topics. It reminds me that there is people with other views of life and that there's more topics out there - than what my more like minded sphere care to interest themselfs with.
> The problem with "mainstream" news media is not just that they're bad at reporting; they're also bad at filtering, because their filter criterion is what will sell papers/get more viewers,
Here we filter for karma..
Here we filter for karma..
Maybe it is a question of what one considers news. I found out through HN, which I don't consider to be "news" in the sense portrayed by the post.
I don't think that it's a matter of productivity. I don;t read news because it presents me with a bunch of inactionable information-- I can't -do- anything about any of the stories that I read in the news and so there's no use building up impotent rage about those things.
I don't think that it's a matter of productivity. I don;t read news because it presents me with a bunch of inactionable information-- I can't -do- anything about any of the stories that I read in the news and so there's no use building up impotent rage about those things.
Well, there is a difference between reading "the news" and reading a specialized website about stuff you're interested in. I would have heard about this from the various blogs I read.
I'm actually pretty informed about "the news" but I don't read any newspaper sites unless I get links to them, and I certainly don't watch TV news.
Part of the problem with that is some people might end up getting all their news from websites that feature crazy conspiracy theory stuff, like Alex Jones or whatever.
I'm actually pretty informed about "the news" but I don't read any newspaper sites unless I get links to them, and I certainly don't watch TV news.
Part of the problem with that is some people might end up getting all their news from websites that feature crazy conspiracy theory stuff, like Alex Jones or whatever.
You missed the point of the article entirely.
Let's say you knew of Aaron's plight. Would this news have changed your life for the better by you getting this knowledge the day it happened?
Let's say you knew of Aaron's plight. Would this news have changed your life for the better by you getting this knowledge the day it happened?
And you missed the point as well: if you didn't know who Aaron was, and you didn't click any of the links on HN about him, would your life be any different?
I didn't know about Aaron until all the articles started popping up here. Only curiosity drove me to find out the story, no real need or purpose.
I didn't know about Aaron until all the articles started popping up here. Only curiosity drove me to find out the story, no real need or purpose.
I think it's funny that the article about the news being irrelevant ends with the cliched tagline: "You should follow me on Twitter."
Because that would be relevant.
Because that would be relevant.
...and then his Twitter is littered with Huffington, NPR, etc links.
Comparing aarons twitter feed to cnn in this context; to me it actually would be more relevant.
He added that line to all his blog posts when he redesigned his blog years after this was originally posted
This post is from October 20, 2006
Twitter did not exist then, so I think it is obvious to the people who read this website how a tag like that would be there now.
Twitter did not exist then, so I think it is obvious to the people who read this website how a tag like that would be there now.
I've found myself feeling the same way since 2008 about the news. After 9/11, I was consumed by talk radio, talking heads, blogs of varying opinions, but ultimately found that I wasn't being more useful and informed...I was becoming angry, quick to judge, and worst of all, less intelligent and analytical with my decisions.
Being in the tech field, we're trained daily to evaluate competing, languages, and technologies not only on their own merits, but how closely they relate to our way of thinking. Most importantly, we tend to be willing to accept this change.
Since no longer being immersed in news, I spend time reading thins of value that either make me feel good, or something that I can apply for the betterment of myself or others. When elections come about, I do my research, cast a vote, and perhaps contact the office of the elected when news trickles down to me about a bill I want input on.
Being in the tech field, we're trained daily to evaluate competing, languages, and technologies not only on their own merits, but how closely they relate to our way of thinking. Most importantly, we tend to be willing to accept this change.
Since no longer being immersed in news, I spend time reading thins of value that either make me feel good, or something that I can apply for the betterment of myself or others. When elections come about, I do my research, cast a vote, and perhaps contact the office of the elected when news trickles down to me about a bill I want input on.
I've avoided newspapers for a couple of years, for much the same reasons described here. I still read a monthly news magazine, sometimes a weekly one. I find reading an international edition helps a lot (whether of a foreign or domestic news source) - less of the ins and outs of day-to-day politics and crime, which really don't enhance my life.
What's left are two kinds of stories - actual "news", by which I mean events that are more unusual and important; the kind of content that will be history in the future. This... feels like it affects me; I would prefer to read the history books about it, but they're not written yet, and I want to know now while there's still time to do something about it. If I'm going to change the world, even at the very limited level of making a product that makes some people's lives easier, that will probably be made possible because of some new piece of information; waiting until it's accepted wisdom is too late.
The other kind is features that are "still true", that aren't particularly time-sensitive. Things I could just as well read a book about, indeed. But my experience is that short essays are much better than books, to the extent that many of my favourite "books" are nothing more than collections of essays or newspaper columns. Likewise in fiction (and one thing that drives my choice of magazine is that it includes fiction), short stories are often more compelling and impactful than long ones.
What's left are two kinds of stories - actual "news", by which I mean events that are more unusual and important; the kind of content that will be history in the future. This... feels like it affects me; I would prefer to read the history books about it, but they're not written yet, and I want to know now while there's still time to do something about it. If I'm going to change the world, even at the very limited level of making a product that makes some people's lives easier, that will probably be made possible because of some new piece of information; waiting until it's accepted wisdom is too late.
The other kind is features that are "still true", that aren't particularly time-sensitive. Things I could just as well read a book about, indeed. But my experience is that short essays are much better than books, to the extent that many of my favourite "books" are nothing more than collections of essays or newspaper columns. Likewise in fiction (and one thing that drives my choice of magazine is that it includes fiction), short stories are often more compelling and impactful than long ones.
Similar sentiments from a brother several thousand years ago:
"...I start up out of dreams and am disturbed, trembling at every message, with my own peace of mind depending upon letters not my own. Someone has arrived from Rome. 'If only there is no bad news!' But how can anything bad for you happen in a place, if you are not there? Someone arrives from Greece. 'If only there is no bad news!' In this way for you every place can cause misfortune. Isn't it enough for you to be miserable where you are? Must you needs be miserable even beyond the seas, and by letter?"
"...I start up out of dreams and am disturbed, trembling at every message, with my own peace of mind depending upon letters not my own. Someone has arrived from Rome. 'If only there is no bad news!' But how can anything bad for you happen in a place, if you are not there? Someone arrives from Greece. 'If only there is no bad news!' In this way for you every place can cause misfortune. Isn't it enough for you to be miserable where you are? Must you needs be miserable even beyond the seas, and by letter?"
I like this quote, only slightly newer, by Paul the hermit:
"Tell me, I pray, how fares the human race: if new roofs be risen in the ancient cities, whose empire it is that now holds sway in the world, if any still survive, snared in the error of demons."[1]
It epitomizes the futility of "news:" even if you live in a cave for many years (decades), as long as you know a bit about human nature and history, you know the news--just not the names. Like the OP, I find news pointless and go long periods without it.
[1] http://www.hermitary.com/articles/paul.html
"Tell me, I pray, how fares the human race: if new roofs be risen in the ancient cities, whose empire it is that now holds sway in the world, if any still survive, snared in the error of demons."[1]
It epitomizes the futility of "news:" even if you live in a cave for many years (decades), as long as you know a bit about human nature and history, you know the news--just not the names. Like the OP, I find news pointless and go long periods without it.
[1] http://www.hermitary.com/articles/paul.html
A large part of my day to day job involves summarizing political careers from thousands of pages of news articles.
As a general rule, I find that for every thousand pages of news copy, one can usually distill about thirty pages of useful facts (the rest being redundant, speculative, filler, or otherwise unimportant).
As a general rule, I find that for every thousand pages of news copy, one can usually distill about thirty pages of useful facts (the rest being redundant, speculative, filler, or otherwise unimportant).
Besides always having something to talk about when meeting with people, reading the news is an exercise in critical thinking and analysis. Distilling a narrative from various sources about remote subjects is a skill that is applicable to yourself. If you can understand the narratives you hear on you may gain the skills to understand your immediate circumstances.
tl;dr Critical thinking is good for you!
tl;dr Critical thinking is good for you!
Reading the news is an exercise in critical thinking, but is it a better one than reading books? If you want to practice distilling a narrative from various sources, why not read several different books about history or science or philosophy instead?
This is a hard question and in my initial post I wanted to write a paragraph rant about it.
I think there is a case for the similarity between the slow stream of aleatory snippets that characterize the websites like the New York Times and the way we receive information concerning our everyday lives. The way we get information in our lives is certainly granular, contains much noise, and is primarily observation. Novels are not granular with little noise. Philosophy is explanation and we may miss out on the initial gather steps. Although it would be fun to phrase this a testable hypothesis.
I think its a different kind of critical thinking.
I think there is a case for the similarity between the slow stream of aleatory snippets that characterize the websites like the New York Times and the way we receive information concerning our everyday lives. The way we get information in our lives is certainly granular, contains much noise, and is primarily observation. Novels are not granular with little noise. Philosophy is explanation and we may miss out on the initial gather steps. Although it would be fun to phrase this a testable hypothesis.
I think its a different kind of critical thinking.
I think this is the point I agree with the most on the topic. Though some - not "all"! - news may not be relevant to the reader (it's sheer impossibility to claim that absolutely nothing is relevant), I find it's important to apply analytical skills to situations which have widely local impact.
"Not about me." Richly ironic, that.
But he was right. I feel much better about life when I don't read the news - and I'm typically far more productive during those periods when I manage to abstain.
But he was right. I feel much better about life when I don't read the news - and I'm typically far more productive during those periods when I manage to abstain.
I think it's important to look at some events as they unfold, vs. in retrospect, even if only to train yourself.
Pick a historical event (say, the assassination which kicked off WW1). Read news in chronological order, as it came out. See how different things seem at any point in time vs. how they look retrospectively a century later.
Pick a historical event (say, the assassination which kicked off WW1). Read news in chronological order, as it came out. See how different things seem at any point in time vs. how they look retrospectively a century later.
Wow, great find. Thank you for sharing. This is why I love Hacker News, one of the best things on the front page right now! Something that takes me outside my comfort zone and makes me think. These past two days have been some of Hacker News' best.
I have to disagree with that. We've got largely the same story and the same discussion happening ten times over, but I would feel bad about flagging them under the circumstances. I wish HN would get back to normal - and social conventions make me feel bad about thinking that, even though I never knew the guy, he was one of thousands of strangers to die that day.
Are you being satirical?
Most likely, and I share the sentiment. I wouldn't mind having, say, the first thread on this story pinned for a week as the top post to let everyone grieve, protest, vent, ramble and whatnot. Filling up the HN front page for two days in a row though is just too much though and may lead to desensitization.
^ this is actually an important question.
I haven't watched television for like 10 years now and I only spend time on news sites. But recently I realised how much time I just waste on the news instead and how little I gain.
I could have learned more about python or read a good book about an important subject. News is like junkfood for the mind. Very short topics that are not relevant to my life.
Sometimes I read articles about rape or other injustice and those topics just infuriate me, but I'm totally powerless. News exhaust me.
It has no value for me whatsoever. I can't recall that I ever made any important decision based on it.
This article is so true. When journalist write about a topic you know a lot about, there are often so many errors, that you wonder how many errors there are in topics you don't know about.
If you read the news as a hobby, sure, be my guest. But that's something else.
I could have learned more about python or read a good book about an important subject. News is like junkfood for the mind. Very short topics that are not relevant to my life.
Sometimes I read articles about rape or other injustice and those topics just infuriate me, but I'm totally powerless. News exhaust me.
It has no value for me whatsoever. I can't recall that I ever made any important decision based on it.
This article is so true. When journalist write about a topic you know a lot about, there are often so many errors, that you wonder how many errors there are in topics you don't know about.
If you read the news as a hobby, sure, be my guest. But that's something else.
Let us look at the front page of today’s New
York Times....there is a story about
Republicans feuding among themselves.... a
photo of soldiers in Iraq. A stock exchange
chief must return $100M... a concern about
some doctors over-selling a nerve testing
system... a threat from China against North
Korea... a report that violence in Iraq is
rising. And there is concern about virtual
science classes replacing real ones.
None of these stories have relevance to my
life. Reading them may be enjoyable, but it’s
an enjoyable waste of time. They will have no
impact on my actions one way or another.
I absolutely agree that most news is immaterial. That said, having lived over twice Aaron's age when he wrote this essay, what I've found is that sometimes the news does affect me, occasionally directly. Not terribly often, but I've had bosses nominated to government office by presidents, companies I work for turn up in major fraud investigations, former colleagues sentenced to Federal prison, acquaintances convicted of murder. Understanding economic patterns can help guide decisions and actions. Even weather and traffic can be useful at times.
This doesn't mean that Fox News blaring in the corner is the best way to assimilate this information. Even selecting more fair and balanced (to say nothing of appropriate and informative) sources, I find myself switching from voice to music (increasingly classical) simply to avoid driving myself to distraction.
But a brief, well-curated, reliable news source can be both broadening and useful. Key is to let it serve, not drive you. It need not be a daily habit (though it often is).
I've also had numerous inspirations from "softer" programming via NPR and similar outlets -- culture, arts, and science programming can re-frame or contextualize problems I'm working on, and remind me that there are worlds outside my own experience (check your biases, always a first source of errors).
related, possibly of interest:
[1] R. Dobelli. Avoid News. Aug 2010. --> http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...
[2] C. A. Johnson. The Information Diet: A Case for Conscious Consumption. O’Reilly, 2012.
i myself am conflicted about the news. i agree with most of the negative points both by OP and the above; but i also feel i actually do learn something from the news, esp. as i have a relatively organized note-taking system, file and reference articles above a certain threshold of interest in bibdesk, etc.
i think the reason i learn something is that i take the 5 secs to take a screenshot or copy-paste the relevant snippets of information in my system. over time, you can see interesting patterns. sometimes, i run across a reference to some other, deeper source of information (presumably the background material the high-level news article was based on), and file a to-do to check it out in my task manager. usually i wouldn't have thought of this source or reference if i hadn't seen it cited in the news. last but not least, just scanning the headlines and summaries can give you a sense of what the hivemind of "the market" (or "the public") is preoccupied with at the moment.
so, at least to me, it's not all bad and yet i agree that it often feels like a waste of time and mental energy. i haven't figured out a solution yet but completely quitting the news is not going to cut it for me.
[1] R. Dobelli. Avoid News. Aug 2010. --> http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...
[2] C. A. Johnson. The Information Diet: A Case for Conscious Consumption. O’Reilly, 2012.
i myself am conflicted about the news. i agree with most of the negative points both by OP and the above; but i also feel i actually do learn something from the news, esp. as i have a relatively organized note-taking system, file and reference articles above a certain threshold of interest in bibdesk, etc.
i think the reason i learn something is that i take the 5 secs to take a screenshot or copy-paste the relevant snippets of information in my system. over time, you can see interesting patterns. sometimes, i run across a reference to some other, deeper source of information (presumably the background material the high-level news article was based on), and file a to-do to check it out in my task manager. usually i wouldn't have thought of this source or reference if i hadn't seen it cited in the news. last but not least, just scanning the headlines and summaries can give you a sense of what the hivemind of "the market" (or "the public") is preoccupied with at the moment.
so, at least to me, it's not all bad and yet i agree that it often feels like a waste of time and mental energy. i haven't figured out a solution yet but completely quitting the news is not going to cut it for me.
You're different though to the majority of people. It seems as if Aaron was making a case more so for the bland, mass news spewed out through the TV about wild stories and dirty things.
"There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election."
For one thing this places enormous trust in the guide-writers. For another it enormously oversimplifies the topics on which the guides would touch.
For one thing this places enormous trust in the guide-writers. For another it enormously oversimplifies the topics on which the guides would touch.
sure, but think back to the last election. 95% of the coverage was about stupid stuff like Mitt Romney's campaign manager talking about an "etch a sketch" or whatever.
Instead of looking into the details and explaining Romney's bogus tax plan, they just invite a republican and democrat on to yell at each-other to stay "ballanced"
Instead of looking into the details and explaining Romney's bogus tax plan, they just invite a republican and democrat on to yell at each-other to stay "ballanced"
And yet what alternative is there? If you follow the news you're placing the same trust in journalists.
To become a truly informed voter, not relying on others' summary explanations, would be more than a full-time career.
To become a truly informed voter, not relying on others' summary explanations, would be more than a full-time career.
I don't find it so. You do need a strong background in a variety of topics: economics, history, science, history (of several varieties, military history among them). You need some grasp of the importance of ideas and frameworks, and how human nature influences the way others think, speak and report.
Amassing that is lot of work and a number of years. But it's worth doing in its own right. And from there, yeah, you needn't rely on others' summaries.
Amassing that is lot of work and a number of years. But it's worth doing in its own right. And from there, yeah, you needn't rely on others' summaries.
How about people that are like-minded band together and dedicate one person to research all of the issues and present them, or an issue per person (or something else)?
people that are like-minded band together and dedicate one person to research all of the issues and present them
That sounds a lot like what FOX News does actually.
That sounds a lot like what FOX News does actually.
I'm talking about smaller groups of people that you know you can trust to present the issues with little bias / in a fair way. The scale of FOX News is obviously beyond that. I'm literally talking about groups of maybe 10-20 people. It allows you to all be more informed as a group, while sharing the workload of doing all the information gathering/compilation.
That sounds suspiciously like a meta-political party.
My thought was that if you kept it small, you could keep a better handle on whether to trust the person that was gathering the information for you. It's more difficult to scale this sort of solution without running into the same trust issues brought up. But there's not reason that a ton of small groups like this could dot the landscape.
I found this paper by Rolf Dobelli to be very insightful. It was a TED talk a long time ago, back when that meant a little more.
http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...
http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...
"[The news'] obsession with the criminal and the deviant makes us less trusting people. Its obsession with the hurry of the day-to-day makes us less reflective thinkers. Its obsession with surfaces makes us shallow."
A little OT, but seeing his posts end with "You should follow me on twitter here" makes me very sad. It's a constant reminder of what we'll miss.
I gave up main stream news 4 years ago and I pretty much only read tech news. However, I find that important news still bubble up to me quickly through other channels such as word of mouth and through the tech news feeds. And I find that none of my time is wasted by worthless news, such as partison bickering, the latest traffic accident on I-35 or celebrity gossip. You should try it.
I completely disagree with Aaron, but I respect his opinion. Reading the news is incredibly important, and it shapes your understanding of culture and circumstances outside your social bubble, which in turn affects your future social interactions.
I feel like your point was already covered in his essay though I could be missing something.
> Others say that sure, most of the stuff in the news isn’t of use, but occasionally you’ll come across some story that will lead you to actually change what you’ve been working on. But really, how plausible is this? Most people’s major life changes don’t come from reading an article in the newspaper; they come from reading longer-form essays or thoughtful books, which are much more convincing and detailed.
Most people I know who I would class as common, though I do not mean this in a demeaning or derogatory way, watch the unfiltered mass news daily or at least weekly—like Aaron described. They'll get home from work and turn on the 5PM news or have the radio going. Yet these people are common in that they work a 9-5 job they often complain about, they seek to buy a bigger TV and have a family holiday once a year or two.
They know a hell of a lot more than others about current events but effect little change, it seems, in their own lives or those around them. If the majority of people watch the news regularly, why isn't there more change? If the TV was off, perhaps people would be outside a little bit more? Maybe us Westerners would know more about our local area than we do about popular topic x in foreign country y.
Others who have agreed with you also seemed to have had their own comments already answered by Aaron and here have had others quote those parts back to them.
> Others say that sure, most of the stuff in the news isn’t of use, but occasionally you’ll come across some story that will lead you to actually change what you’ve been working on. But really, how plausible is this? Most people’s major life changes don’t come from reading an article in the newspaper; they come from reading longer-form essays or thoughtful books, which are much more convincing and detailed.
Most people I know who I would class as common, though I do not mean this in a demeaning or derogatory way, watch the unfiltered mass news daily or at least weekly—like Aaron described. They'll get home from work and turn on the 5PM news or have the radio going. Yet these people are common in that they work a 9-5 job they often complain about, they seek to buy a bigger TV and have a family holiday once a year or two.
They know a hell of a lot more than others about current events but effect little change, it seems, in their own lives or those around them. If the majority of people watch the news regularly, why isn't there more change? If the TV was off, perhaps people would be outside a little bit more? Maybe us Westerners would know more about our local area than we do about popular topic x in foreign country y.
Others who have agreed with you also seemed to have had their own comments already answered by Aaron and here have had others quote those parts back to them.
Does the news actually do that though? Does regularly and generally consuming the news do more than provide new topics for water cooler chat? I can understand the argument for being informed through selective reading/viewing (which the article makes), but not so much for being generally informed.
I think it does do more. It ads another degree of accountability to people with power. It might not be much, but it's something. One small anecdote; a development in a local suburb is hitting a brick wall because the media has revealed a relationship between the developer and the council. That development was going up on public land without proper oversight or tender.
Couple of bigger anecdotes;
- Watergate. A president's criminal behaviour was dug up by a newspaper, forcing him to resign.
- Vietnam war coverage forced the US to reconsider their attitudes to weapons with high collateral damage, conscription and large scale land wars in general.
Couple of bigger anecdotes;
- Watergate. A president's criminal behaviour was dug up by a newspaper, forcing him to resign.
- Vietnam war coverage forced the US to reconsider their attitudes to weapons with high collateral damage, conscription and large scale land wars in general.
I agree with you. It feels this defense is akin to saying, "Why bother reading history, it has nothing to do with me"
Did you read the whole article?
"With the time people waste reading a newspaper every day, they could have read an entire book about most subjects covered and thereby learned about it with far more detail and far more impact than the daily doses they get dribbled out by the paper. But people, of course, wouldn’t read a book about most subjects covered in the paper, because most of them are simply irrelevant."
"With the time people waste reading a newspaper every day, they could have read an entire book about most subjects covered and thereby learned about it with far more detail and far more impact than the daily doses they get dribbled out by the paper. But people, of course, wouldn’t read a book about most subjects covered in the paper, because most of them are simply irrelevant."
Events typically don't become book material until several years after they occur. You might say that by the time you read about an event in a book, it is already history.
News coverage is more immediate. And while 95% of all news is useless bullshit, there is still stuff in there that is useful and relevant for shaping one's understanding of the current times.
News coverage is more immediate. And while 95% of all news is useless bullshit, there is still stuff in there that is useful and relevant for shaping one's understanding of the current times.
>and it shapes your understanding of culture and circumstances outside your social bubble
This isn't really an argument against Aaron's position, because it is Aaron's position. News shapes your perception of culture and The World, which is a negative because it does so in a harmful way.
This isn't really an argument against Aaron's position, because it is Aaron's position. News shapes your perception of culture and The World, which is a negative because it does so in a harmful way.
I think this highly depends on the what you consider "news". Aaron mentioned things you find on the front page — those usually are short pieces of the latest information without much context or in-depth analysis. I don't think he wanted to condemn background articles, no matter if they are published in a newspaper or elsewhere (he mentions "longer-form essays or thoughtful books").
With this in mind, I agree with him — I benefit more from comprehensive articles describing long-term developments than from the latest events in some affair that affects me way too little for these details to matter to me. This is not to say that the happenings in faraway countries are something I ought not to know about, however, a short summary after the events have passed would usually suffice.
With this in mind, I agree with him — I benefit more from comprehensive articles describing long-term developments than from the latest events in some affair that affects me way too little for these details to matter to me. This is not to say that the happenings in faraway countries are something I ought not to know about, however, a short summary after the events have passed would usually suffice.
Well, I think it depends on whether you count only "news" or if you count stuff like blogs or "social media". I'm very up to date (I think) on politics, but I don't feel like I need to read the NYT every day.
In the Essay Aaron isn't talking about just the concept of being informed about the world, but rather the up to the minute 24/7 generalist news stuff.
It seems like most major events have books written about them later. There were good books written about the Iraq war, for example.
I also think you could learn a lot more about culture by reading non-fiction books then by watching the news. I don't think I learn anything about culture from the news, other then which celebrities people are paying attention too these days.
In the Essay Aaron isn't talking about just the concept of being informed about the world, but rather the up to the minute 24/7 generalist news stuff.
It seems like most major events have books written about them later. There were good books written about the Iraq war, for example.
I also think you could learn a lot more about culture by reading non-fiction books then by watching the news. I don't think I learn anything about culture from the news, other then which celebrities people are paying attention too these days.
You're right. Reading the New York Times isn't about news to me, as it a tool to generate ideas. Their magazine articles or in-depth coverage of topics made me re-evaluate many times my standings on various topics.
Maybe opinion pieces do. The news, I'm not so sure.
Felt the same way this morning when I caught a few minutes of This Week, covering the next "fiscal cliff", the lack of women in Obama's cabinet, and so on. What a waste of time.
I don't read news anymore (two years now), only watch tech shows in my "niche".
But some say perception is reality, so maybe it's smart to be in the know from time to time.
But some say perception is reality, so maybe it's smart to be in the know from time to time.
Years ago I saw Ray Bradbury give a talk at our city library, and he spent some of his time saying the same thing.
It is ironic that 'news' of his death has attracted attention to this article.
I wonder if Aaron would still agree that, in spending time reading coverage of this, we have not really changed our opinions or learned anything relevant to our lives? He sounds like a pragmatist, and I think he would.
Personally, as devil's advocate, reading the reports of yet another intelligent young person being pressured and victimized by the sickly allied commercial/government capitalist establishment (of their own country), it redoubles my stance that current era government lacks any honest sense of democracy; we desperately need to claw back the power of nations (and business) against the individual. (Assange is in some senses leading the charge here, and doing a good job!)
My point though is that sometimes news helps contribute to general impressions like this. I think that can be as valuable as the concrete relevant new life-actionable information that Aaron points out correctly is usually missing from news.
In short I agree with Aaron, but there are counter-points. (I haven't watched/read news regularly since pretty much ever... but consider myself reasonably informed on the issues behind the issues, ie. structure of government, general state of society in different parts of the world, methods of oppression. But that knowledge comes from the hacking community and travel (eg. Tunisia during revolution, many years living in China, some time in US&UK, Europe, most of Asia, etc.) not from mainstream news.)
Does anyone here still read news on a daily basis? If so, why?
Personally, as devil's advocate, reading the reports of yet another intelligent young person being pressured and victimized by the sickly allied commercial/government capitalist establishment (of their own country), it redoubles my stance that current era government lacks any honest sense of democracy; we desperately need to claw back the power of nations (and business) against the individual. (Assange is in some senses leading the charge here, and doing a good job!)
My point though is that sometimes news helps contribute to general impressions like this. I think that can be as valuable as the concrete relevant new life-actionable information that Aaron points out correctly is usually missing from news.
In short I agree with Aaron, but there are counter-points. (I haven't watched/read news regularly since pretty much ever... but consider myself reasonably informed on the issues behind the issues, ie. structure of government, general state of society in different parts of the world, methods of oppression. But that knowledge comes from the hacking community and travel (eg. Tunisia during revolution, many years living in China, some time in US&UK, Europe, most of Asia, etc.) not from mainstream news.)
Does anyone here still read news on a daily basis? If so, why?
The problem with this theory is that when a person who follows the news hears a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh or reads something from naturalnews.com they realize pretty quickly that it's bullshit.
The people who fall for that stuff always seem to be uninformed about current events or get it only from warped sources. You can extrapolate that to nazis or communism or wherever but the bottom line is an uninformed populace is easy pickings for ambitious bad guys.
The people who fall for that stuff always seem to be uninformed about current events or get it only from warped sources. You can extrapolate that to nazis or communism or wherever but the bottom line is an uninformed populace is easy pickings for ambitious bad guys.
The problem, though, is that Fox news actually backs up the kind of stuff Limbaugh says. So people can "watch the news" and still see their worldview validated.
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
Journalists are people who know little of anything writing about everything.