Hacker News Reader

Comment by carbine | Hacker News Reader

I used to be a big news consumer. Eventually canceled my NYT sub and quit all national news, except when something major is happening or when I’m about to vote. I read The Economist because it’s one of the last excellent publications and it does seem to help improve my thinking, especially with respect to understanding the macro landscape and investing. But yes, following every Congressional drama is probably a waste of your time.

I do think consumption of local news is not a bad idea — that’s the one arena where we could all probably benefit our communities by being more engaged. (Follow the zoning debates, not the murder mysteries.)

View on HN

I could not agree more with this approach. The Economist is excellent, and because they are a weekly publication, their reporting can be more thoughtful and detached from the outrage du jour. They also have excellent podcasts: the daily Intelligence and, for those interested in US politics, the weekly "Checks and Balance".

Supporting local news has become so much more important here in the U.S., as more and more independent local newspapers are shutting down, even in medium-sized metro areas. In addition, a lot of "Local" TV stations are owned by, and puppets of, corporations with political agendas like Sinclair[1]. From the linked article:

> About 39% of Americans are within range of a Sinclair-owned TV outlet, most of them unwittingly, because local TV stations typically use the logos of national networks with which they are affiliated, like NBC, CBS and Fox [...] Last year 37% of Americans got their news from local television, according to the Pew Research Centre, compared with 28% who got news from cable networks [...]

EDIT adding a link to 2018 reporting on Sinclair from PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo (less than 5 minutes)

[1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/04/05/orders-to...

I agree that local news is a meaningful exception. Watching my affiliate station makes me feel more connected to my community. Furthermore, it does actually cover things in my life: the state fair, exhibits at my local museum, maybe some kid hit a bird with a baseball and played "Taps" for it so the mayor's gonna give him a trophy which I can then steal and sell as scrap metal because I know where the trophy is because I watched the local news -- stuff like that.

...a very specific example, but one that demonstrates the actionability of local news nonetheless

The CXO of my massive employer once mentioned that the Economist was the only publication they still subscribed and read diligently. Do you find that yourself preferring the Economist on certain issues, and less strong elsewhere?

For some reason I'm really interested in seeing a positive-yet-balanced review or anecdote about print journalism. I think it's the novelty-cheers.

I prefer the Economist on all Issues. I think they tend to be the most neutral and even if they say something I disagree with, I am able to acknowledge their position and accept the points they are making.

Agreed, they’re consistently excellent on all issues. One minute you’re learning about Chinese domestic policy, the next you’re going deep on advances in particle physics. And they’re underrated for their humour —- occasionally there’s a bone dry joke in there.

Probably part of what makes it great is that journalists don’t put their names on their columns. Articles are pretty much all written with the same rigorously specific tone, and if they share an opinion they make it clear that’s what they’re doing and they generally do so on behalf of the magazine. It’s about the journalism, not anyone’s Twitter following.

> I do think consumption of local news is not a bad idea — that’s the one arena where we could all probably benefit our communities by being more engaged. (Follow the zoning debates, not the murder mysteries.)

The Metro section has always been my favorite part of the local paper and the one I read first on Sunday mornings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com