This is an arrogant privileged position to just ignore what is going on around you. This is at best ignoring the trampling of rights of the weakest of our society and at worst being an active colluder in such acts.
That may inform others and possibly even change their minds on important issues.
So even if you're not out there marching in protests or volunteering for your favorite political organization, you can still make a difference by informing others.
The effect of this is evident on HN, which used to be almost exclusively a navel-gazing tech and startup news site, but has over the years become more politically aware.
I believe that things like the recent tech employee moves towards unionizing, and various protests at companies like Google are partially motivated by information employees at these companies received on sites like HN, where important political topics are discussed and people are informed.
Sticking one's head in the sand by ignoring news makes it less likely that you'll ever be motivated to do anything yourself and less likely you'll help motivate anyone else to act either.
Wouldn't that imply that we don't live in a democracy and ppl are picking boxes at random at the ballot box?
One of my close friend coming out as gay in high school has had a larger effect on who I have voted for during my lifetime than any news.
2) If we're going the informed-voter justification, we'd be much (for large values of "much") better off if everyone took 99% of the time they spend on news and instead read foundational works and textbooks in political science, economics, comparative politics, ethics, statistics, history, and government in [home country], with maybe a smidge of modern policy pieces (e.g. think-tank stuff, policy studies, that kind of thing).
Is that what the article is discussing though?
Is it not possible that by spending less time/energy on the sensationalism of corporate news, we can spend more time and energy observing, contemplating and addressing the actual problems in the world?
Not reading the news does not equate to ignoring what’s going on around you.
Reading the news does not necessarily help the trampled.
how so?
> Get off your high horse.
no need to be rude here.
It takes active measures to not hear about what’s new. No one here is advocating that.
Researching an issue is not “reading news”. Debating current events is not “the news”. Understanding the world is not “the news”. Going on strike is not “the news”.
It’s craving the next hit of shallow information that is poison.
Article doesn't define news as such. He estimates that about 10% of news is legitimate.
> Debating current events is not “the news”
So.. your "debates" are "deep" and everything else is "shallow".
Get off your high horse.
No need to be rude here, either.
Its possible he doesn't have such ridiculous self identity. correct ? In which case my comment was not rude.
No. It's pretty clear that if you read any of article at all, you didn't read beyond the first few paragraphs. Please in the future refrain from sharing your opinion on articles you didn't even read.
It's also pretty clear that discussing this further would be pointless. Perhaps because you've formed part of your identity around being someone who consumes the news, so any attack on that idea, you take as a personal attack. ;)
But deciding to opt out entirely is kind of like dropping out of high school because you won the lottery. Can you get away with it? Maybe, for a while. Are you ignorant because if it? Of course.
I stopped consuming news years ago.
The only way it reaches my conscious is if:
1) friends or family mention something (or anyone else within my social circle). Fair game. This helps me understand their thinking patterns too. Very helpful to see what they find important.
2) retweets. If I'm following someone who is retweeting low quality news I immediately block.
I don't feel anxious, when I go to the barbers and everyone is staring at the TV in the top corner, it reminds me of why I stopped.
Gyms are evil that play general trashy news on TV.
On the whole, you are not ignorant if you don't consume the news, not by any standard.
Don't believe that one bit.
P.s great handle.
Agreed about the TVs. I never understood why so many places have it running in the background all day long.
I don't mean this in an insulting way, but aren't you ignorant (by definition) of current events if you don't read/hear about them?
Why is the medium of acquisition of news important here, seems like an irrelevant distinction. How can one be 'Ignorant of current events' if he is acquiring said current events through coworkers/locals.
This is precisely what I was referring to in my original comment. Not everyone has the privilege to leave safety of their family to random happenstance local interactions. eg: My wife's grand parents are on greencard and unenrolled themselves from one govt service based on recent news about being a public charge. Some ppl are constantly on the edge to leave it to 'local interactions'
> if it matters to my family/community/area I’ll hear about it from local interactions.
Reading only relevant news is still reading news.
Anything that will impact your life will be filtered through.
How are you so sure it will ? It might not. correct?
It’s surely possible that something could occur that has repercussions for your life, to where you would have preferred to be aware of it ahead of time. But I can only think of 1 time in my 40 years when that’s happened with any significance. Hardly worth making myself an anxious wreck trying to constantly “be informed”. No matter how diligent one tried to keep pace, you’d never be certain of catching everything anyway.
99% is irrelevant Decision fatigue Generally crap stuff Unhealthy Chips away on your perspective
Better to vet individual publications and consume at really moderate rates, for example, the economist, pointed out in the paper.
Far easier to see the bull for what it is when you’re not acclimated to being deceived 99% of the time.