SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This story might be helpful to those tearing their hair out about the news lately:
I grew up believing that following the news makes you a better citizen. Eight years after having quit, that idea now seems ridiculous—that consuming a particularly unimaginative information product on a daily basis somehow makes you thoughtful and informed in a way that benefits society.
But I still encounter people who balk at the possibility of a smart, engaged adult quitting the daily news.
...
A few things you might notice, if you take a break:1) You feel better
A common symptom of quitting the news is an improvement in mood. News junkies will say it's because you've stuck your head in the sand.
But that assumes the news is the equivalent of having your head out in the fresh, clear air. They don't realize that what you can glean about the world from the news isn't even close to a representative sample of what is happening in the world.
...
2) You were never actually accomplishing anything by watching the newsIf you ask someone what they accomplish by watching the news, you'll hear vague notions like, "It's our civic duty to stay informed!" or "I need to know what's going on in the world," or "We can't just ignore these issues," none of which answer the question.
...
A month after you've quit the news, it's hard to name anything useful that's been lost. It becomes clear that those years of news-watching amounted to virtually nothing in terms of improvement to your quality of life, lasting knowledge, or your ability to help others. And that's to say nothing of the opportunity cost. Imagine if you spent that time learning a language, or reading books and essays about some of the issues they mention on the news.
Read on for the rest of the list.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:59PM
Fox "News" created the journalistic echo chamber, everyone else is just trying to catch up to their innovation of only feeding their viewers bullshit opinions they wanted to hear disguised as news, with a few facts sprinkled in here and there.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:21PM
FNC would never have gotten any ratings if every other television news station and every program thereon were not severely tilted to the left. You lot that lurve to hate on FNC for its bias are the ones who made its existence inevitable.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:19PM
To be honest, I try to read the news presented by Fox and then something more left wing (I stopped even visiting CNN's website after the redesign--and then I made sure I didnt visit it on accident after I read the privacy policy. Maybe they are just being honest, but it scared me away more than their biases).
That is sort of reading between the lines -- if both sides of the spectrum agree on something or disagree vehemently on something -- then that's the news. (Well, I guess any agreement would be the newsworthy thing. The rest is just politics.)
I try to be a moderate, but not neutral. It can be really hard to be a moderate these days, and I can only hope I am able to read between the lines and spot propaganda pieces without being unduly influenced. (To that end, I can find something I disagree with in nearly all the options provided, helping me stay moderate!)
(Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:15PM
Could you explain the virtues of this "moderate" thing? I hear it a lot, nobody ever manages to explain why it is a good idea. We live in a society on the verge of Civil War 2.0, divided over real and deep philosophical questions such that it is hard to imagine one nation state containing both ideas peacefully. Pretending the problem don't exist and that some sort of middle path exists doesn't sound reality based, but a lot of people insist on it.
Progressives want Socialism and then Communism. Their only difference from revolutionary Marxists is the belief they can attain the goal through slow Progress, without the bloodbath of a Revolution.
Americans want the country defined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights and clarified in The Federalist.
How can both of these groups peacefully co-exist without a breakup of the U.S.? That is the question that drives every political debate, whether stated or left unstated, whether the speaker even realizes it themselves. The Progressives hold that it isn't solvable and have spent the last Century working to eradicate their opponents. I agree that peaceful coexistence isn't possible and believe it is they who should be driven out of all positions of responsibility and influence, both civic and cultural and seek the means to implement that goal. The moderate position is?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:44AM
Hmmm well this will almost certainly do no good, but i'll give it a shot.
I'm beginning to think you're actually sincere in your beliefs, beliefs which I consider to be mostly horrendous, but thats by the by.
I think sometimes, with questions like "The moderate position is?" you'd actually like to here the opposing point of view, I think you'd like the discussion, I think you're genuinely intrigued. And in truth it would be interesting to have that discussion, I've read moldbug et al (you're neo-rx right?) and whilst I dont agree at all, they do have some interesting points of view, some questions that are worth exploring.
But (you knew that was coming) the problem is that as long as you continue to troll so hard, venemously and obviously, the people who could have that thoughtful, respectful discussion with you (eg me) are just not going to bother.
So how about you ease up a little, let some air in and maybe fruitful discussion can be had?
Or you can continue to stoke the hate and get short shrift in return.
Your move.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:22PM
Well said.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:21PM
I agree we're on the verge of Civil War 2.0. But the sides in that coming war are not the sides you think they are. Your grasp of political reality are frozen in Cold War amber, unable and unwilling to adjust to what the world is today. "Left vs. Right," "Liberal vs. Conservative," "Communist vs. Fascist," etc, etc. They are terribly hackneyed, threadbare labels that don't fit anymore.
The real divisions are the ones that Occupy Wall Street framed as "1% vs. 99%." In the Drudge universe, they were all the countless comments rooting for Trump at the expense of the elites in the Republican party and in the country. Many of them borrowed Occupy's language to frame the conflict. The people who drove this election see themselves as part of the 99% and they come from both sides of the discursive divide you're obsessed with, and which you perpetuate. That's why your divisive labels have been emptied of meaning and truly impede progress in America as a society (that's "progress" as measured by greater opportunity, economic prosperity, and rising standard of living).
In terms of what "moderation" means, it means giving every man his due and listening to what he has to say rather than sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting nah nah nah nah nah, interspersed with slogans supplied by puppetmasters perched in seats of power. It does not mean that moderates believe in nothing or are wishy-washy.
If you really want to understand anything about the events unfolding around us, then you will cease repeating mindless slurs against others and listen to what they're saying and consider it honestly. I mean, I'm pretty sure you have no interest in doing anything but insulting as many people as you can, as harshly as you can, but if you wanted to understand the world better that's what you would do.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:57PM
That was my practice as well for a long time. I would read sources like Huffington Post and Drudge side-by-side. This election ended the reading of Huffington Post and its confederates, for me. The heights of self-delusion and propaganda they were going to to cram Hillary down everyone's throats, in direct contradiction of the principles they purport to support, was sickening. I know some others felt the same way I did, because I checked in with those sites just after the election to gauge their reaction and there were folks saying, "This is the result of rigging the primary game for a candidate like Hillary." I checked in again late last week to see if the initial shock had passed, if any of them had come back down to earth, and nope, they hadn't. They're spinning off into an ever more irrelevant and delusional tangential parallel universe.
I can read Drudge comfortably, though, because I don't expect those readers to agree with me. Their sacred cows and hobby horses are as plain as the nose on their face. It's easy to look past that and try to understand what their motivations are. Yes, some of them are motivated by evil. But most aren't, and are simply misconstrued as such by their detractors. It's more likely they're more comfortable with the discursive milieu on offer there, even though what they're talking about is essentially the same thing that their fellow citizens on the other side of the discursive divide are worried about.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 14 2016, @12:06AM
I agree completely that all news organizations have biases.
I disagree that news organizations' biases can be usefully placed on a simple left-right spectrum, though. There are all sorts of biases shared by both MSNBC and Fox News that leave both of them spewing total nonsense. And especially when you encounter a situation where you think *all* sources of information have a bias in a particular direction, you should make darn sure that it's not your own biases that are skewing what you think about what those sources of information are telling you. And the way to do that is to bypass the secondary sources and do your own actual research into the issue at hand, bearing in mind that "reading some guy's random rant on the Internet" doesn't qualify as research.
As an example, if you believed the sky was purple, and everybody around you was telling you the sky was blue, then you should doubt yourself enough to take a photo of the sky and figure out if it's closer to #8888FF or #FF88FF. When you can't do direct research like that, then at the very least you can go look at reputable organizations that show their work (i.e. their sources of information, and how they got from those sources to their conclusions).
Now, you might decide that sounds too much like work. Well, in that case, the proper conclusion is that you either don't really care, or don't know, and the wise move is to withhold judgment and keep your mouth shut until you know more.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:58AM
When over eighty percent of a profession self-identify as progressives, I'm inclined to take their word for it. Just saying...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:51PM
The trouble with that thinking is that "progressive" (or "conservative", or "libertarian", or any other political label) has no bearing on the question of whether the information in question is either accurate or useful. And yes, that goes just as much for your own political affiliation as anybody else's: Progressives should be questioning the HuffPo or MSNBC just as much as they question the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.
A good example of this: Lots of news organizations have spent the last week reporting on how the intel agencies know, just know, that the Russians were behind the DNC hack. But the only technical evidence they've provided for that is a phishing email, an attack so simple that anybody could pull it off, with a defense so well-known (multi-factor authentication) that it should never have worked. Which means it could have been done just as easily by some random dude angry at Hillary Clinton because she started a civil war in their country as by Vlad Putin and friends.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Wednesday December 14 2016, @02:57PM
"When over eighty percent of a profession self-identify as progressives, I'm inclined to take their word for it. Just saying..."
Well, having difficulty confirming that statement without going to far right sights like MRC or The Federalist. But I did find a decent study that shows the breakdown of self-identified partisanship. Both D's and R's have lost ground to the middle here with the I's growing steadily over the years.
28.1% Democrat
7.1% Republican
50.2% Independent
14.6% Other *
I realize that party affiliation and even voting patterns don't equate equally to political leaning, (I think most of us had to hold our noses when we voted this year) and in my experience true Independents like and dislike portions of both platforms and have no real loyalty to either. This was the least biased study I could find on the subject.
Bias has always been a part of the news, it tended to lean right when I was a kid, (dirty hippies, draft dodgers, COMMIES) and has shifted back and forth just like the presidency and society at large has. Some shit don't work like they promised, everyone gets pissed, switch. Adding to that is both parties working hard to spread lies and hate about each other, (Heartless Republicans, Bleeding Heart Liberals, Rethuglicans, Libtards, Socialists, Nazis ), while doing nothing FOR US and blaming each others failed policies.
We are too busy fighting about small social issues while the surveillance state takes over in the background and things like The Patriot Act, Citizens United, NAFTA etc are all passed with bipartisan support while we take in the show of bathroom equality, security theater and marriage laws. Social Distractions are best as we get passionate about them while the stuff most people don't understand because the effects of such laws either don't affect them directly, or are so convoluted and misrepresented that they don't know what they mean anyway. But a penis in the vagina room, that they understand.
George Orwell thought too small.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all smell the same. Except mine, as I eat potpourri so my farts smell like Christmas!
Ah, methinks my paranoid rant time is at an end, time to unwind, fold up the tinfoil hat, grab a cold one and a blunt, and play a little KSP....
* http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf [indiana.edu]
(PDF from the Bloomington, IN School of Journalism, Indiana University)
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:47AM
hahaha.
there's no left left anymore.
what the fuck are you on about? just throwing conservative talking-points at us, again, buzzard?
conservatives have gotton much worse over the last few decades. and they all blindly chant the party line, calling anyone they disagree with 'libural' (sic) or even lib-tards if they want to show their true party affiliation.
they parrot back that the news on tv and print is all left-leaning. what I find funny is that there isn't a single leftist left other than, say, bernie, and we all know how well received he was.
you conservatives keep trying to redefine words and concepts. funny that.
(actually its not funny, its depressing. gotta go drink some more brawndo. its what I crave.)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 14 2016, @11:16AM
You think it's just conservatives calling you libtards? Huh. Well, I guess anything looks conservative when you're that far off the scale.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @03:31PM
That has happened on that side of the discursive divide, but it has happened on the other side, too. "Rethuglican," "Morans (a DailyKos joke about Tea Partiers' signs)," etc. Sound familiar?
Many have sunk to that level, everywhere, because it's easier to react than to think. It's sheer mental laziness. The cheerleaders, on the other hand, have been doing it because it makes them a lot of money. They know that's why they do it, and they snicker behind closed doors at all the rubes that fall for it while they're doing business with their supposed dire enemies on the other side of the supposed discursive divide.
For me that has been the most depressing aspect of the last 18 months, to realize that reality has been hopelessly buried underneath layer upon layer of delusion, and that everyone has been piling them on. I keep hoping Ms. Marple will turn up at the end and calmly cut through the crap, saying it always comes back to money. Always go back to the money.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14 2016, @06:17PM
Left of fascism isn't left, its just not as extremely far to the right. What you call "left" everyone else on the planet calls "far right".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 14 2016, @11:04PM
Oh, so we don't actually have a left here abouts then. Check.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:24PM
Oh please, AC. They innovated to be somewhat right wing, sorta neocuckservative "We're you're second chance to vote for all of Mondale's policies, but today not 1984!".
The left has always had Pravda, NYT, Mother Jones, HuffPo... old time propaganda stuff.
When I was a kid I'd read NYT and laugh at the Pravda narrative, how could anyone believe that crap, and now its swapped around, if you want to be informed you have to view RT whereas NYT is just for laughing at.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 14 2016, @06:24PM
Fox News went on the air in 1996, long before any so-called "leftist" programs were thought up, and really, you're trying to compare tv infotainment to newspapers?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 16 2016, @12:06AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves