Hacker News Reader

Comment by flats | Hacker News Reader

I strongly agree with this. I would, however, like to call out one TV program here in the U.S. that I think comes much closer to approximating the experience of “reading a 5,000-word article”: PBS NewsHour. It’s great, completely free and available to watch online, and you can even get most of what you need from their podcast alone (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/segments).

It consists of fairly in-depth, thoughtful coverage of both domestic and worldwide news topics, as well as a tiny bit of political analysis on Mondays and Fridays. It almost never devolves into the breathless, “the world is about to end”-type coverage found on basically all cable news programs. Judy Woodruff and her team are really great. I dearly miss Gwen Ifill and Jim Lehrer.

The Economist is also a great resource, as has been pointed out by other commenters here. They publish an audio edition of each week’s newspaper, too.

View on HN

I feel like PBS is one of the few orgs that prioritizes quality above all else and really means it. Between newshour, NOVA, and the kids programming, they get a lot of playtime in my home.

That is also because PBS is one of the only channels that is held to any actual standards. All other channels (including all news channels) are classified purely as "entertainment" and therefore are not held to anything.

The NewsHour is fantastic. Occasionally they fall into the same traps that any news source can, but it's a great way to learn about what's going on with a minimal amount of sensationalism.

I disagree with the post article that "staying up to date" is some fundamentally bullshit concept. It can help you prioritize what you care about influencing in the world, even if that influence is relatively small.

"Staying up to date" could mean hourly updates or weekly (or monthly) newspapers.

How often are those priorities changing? Surely nobody needs hourly pings from a news app on their phone to inform what they care about influencing in the world.

PBS Newshour is a gem for sure and one of the few sources I trust almost fully. NPR is also high on my list.

I just wish there was a similar Right leaning news source to offset their very Progressive filter.

The Economist and Wall Street Journal (minus the opinion pages) basically fills that niche for me.

The Wall Street Journal needs an option to subscribe without the opinion pages.

I feel like NPR has changed over the last few years though or maybe I'm the one that changed either way I kinda stopped enjoying it as much lately.

NPR and their local affiliates nowadays are indistinguishable from every other liberal rag out there.

I was a huge NPR fan forever, could hum all their audio intros etc. Donor to local affiliate.

I think there has been a major change there in the last x years?

They seem to do the same story over and over now. And the lens has shifted pretty far left.

I've laughed at a few things when it's just ridiculous. Sadly I did stop listening.

Anyone have any listening data from media markets like NY or Boston or SF (ie, leftwing) to see if this new format / approach is resonating with folks? I've been actually wondering what the 5 year story would look like now just given how into NPR I was and now how I don't listen.

I'm left but I like a touch of perspective or at least to be able to hear the other side of an issue.

I hardly watch TV, but happened across News Hour at someone's home. I was shocked; it was a like an alternate reality. It makes CNN and Fox look ridiculous - everyone should watch News Hour just to reset their perspectives.

The only TV news worth watching that I've seen.

I would have also recommended the Economist until I experienced a Gell-Mann amnesiac effect [1] with regards to an article they wrote about South Africa, a country where I lived much of my life in, in which they so horrifically butchered the coverage I simply canceled my subscription for fear of how inaccurate everything else might have been.

[1]: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

What did they get wrong about it? I am particularly interested in South Africa; when I was young my favorite novel was set there (Spud by John Van De Ruit) and it's grown into a very interesting "split narrative" among Americans, who believe things about it depending on their political beliefs.

may be worth pointing out that you seem to be using that backwards - the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is about immediately forgetting that you read something so horribly misrepresented - you knowingly scoff and then trust the next thing you read. a reaction of "this is shit, what else in here might be shit, get it away from me" is the direct opposite.

Is there a name for this second, opposite effect.

I find it pretty common in all areas I hold some expertise in.

link?

As a counterpoint, I've found The Economist is quite good on my own domestic politics when it does cover it - albeit rarely.

To me this quote underlines the importance of reading news from varied sources rather than not reading it at all. I mean clearly 99.99% of news I ignore, but if I think it's important I'll read about it from multiple papers because the one I primarily read - the FT will have its own viewpoint.

Having seen what the Canadian media writes about US politics I’m not surprised.

I’ve come to the conclusion if you really want to under the nuances of a current affair, you simply won’t get it from the news. You’ll get the super simplified, “tie it in a nice bow”, “here are the bad guys and here are the good guys view”.

They simply don’t have the time or resources for more than that.

Gosh, News Hour with Jim Lehrer was a STAPLE in my house growing up. Both parents would be back from work, cup of chai in hand, and you would hear the intro go and even I used to tune in as a teenager to get the news.

Yep, same here (except replace “cup of chai” with “glass of wine”).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com