Hacker News Reader

Comment by konschubert | Hacker News Reader

In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box. There are also other ways than voting to influence political decision making in a democracy, which requires citizens to be informed and educated.

This doesn't require checking the news daily, but maybe at least once a month?

View on HN

> In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box.

Even if you accept this is true, I have a hard time believing that 'following the news' actually achieves this in any substantial way. If anything, it may have the opposite effect, as ad-driven sensationalism selects for disjointed, short-term stories with large emotional impacts over those which enable readers to form far-seeing, rational, coherent world-views.

It's also generally not how people vote anyway. People primarily vote based on their virtues, morals, and issues that they perceive to be important and correct. The news certainly has an impact, but not that much after they're adults.

At some point watching the news is purely entertainment at best, and a way to feel better than others by being more informed at worst.

> primarily vote based on their virtues, morals, and issues that they perceive to be important and correct.

You wish.

People have always voted with their guts and feelings, much less with their brain.

Virtues are morals live not in the brain - they are not derived by reason - so we're in agreement.

People do everything with their guts and feelings, then use their brains to rationalize their decisions afterward.

Imagine a scenario where one the local officials you voted for is caught misusing city funds. I'd imagine you want to know this come election time. How else does democracy work, if voters don't know what happened?

I'm not saying that what currently passes for news is a good solution, but I feel like a lot of people sort of throw the baby with the bathwater and justify completely detaching themselves from what's happening because news are heavily flawed. They are, and I don't blame anyone person from taking a break, but it doesn't scale. If a large percentage of the population does it it causes problems.

> Imagine a scenario where one the local officials you voted for is caught misusing city funds.

When I was younger, two consecutive governors from opposite parties both ended up in prison for their activity as elected officials. The STOCK act was passed 10 years ago, but insider trading in congress remains rampant.

We have different expecations.

Efficiency wise you could probably just put in a day or 2 of catch up before going to vote. Would probably actually get a more impartial view on candidates not tainted by whatever the latest controversy is that will be forgotten in a week.

Following some news is important, but nationally things are so ridiculously polarized that a majority of the population could get by with just checking in once a month or so.

Locally -- most people live in solid red or blue states, so if they want to go the extra mile, they could check if there's anyone worth voting for in their local red/blue party primaries.

> In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box.

Millions of people are ignoring that advice currently, and unlike action - say, giving to those in need or volunteering your help - a single vote doesn't spur any change; lost to the margins of error.

I personally think many people hide behind voting as their civic duty as a way to get out of action and helping those in need, especially those who are local.

Sure, voting is fine. I do it. It doesn't much matter given the city, county, and state I live in (Seattle, King County, Washington State) since you can guess how issues are quite easily litigated and voted upon, but I'll learn a little bit about the stuff on the ballot and cast my vote. I also don't really think it does much; I mostly do it to silence those who think not voting is some cardinal sin.

Helping those in your neighborhood with food security, transportation, or access to information/services makes an impact that day for that person. They don't much care who you voted for. Little Free Pantries and Little Free Libraries are a great way to get started with hyperlocal giving, if anyone is looking for a way to help locally and disconnect nationally/globally from events that you have vanishingly little (I'm being generous) control over.

There's many other ways to make an informed choice.

Books, develop a moral compass, talk with experts or even trusted friends, observe what is happening in your area and act in good faith to become involved.

IMO I'd trust the vote of someone who volunteers with the poor over someone who just watches $BIGNEWS each night

Making a good choice is more than having data, it's about having wisdom of what even matters in life and which data even matters for moving towards that good life. The news cannot tell you what is Good.

The only moral obligation a citizen has in a free republic is to not violate the rights of fellow citizens. Beyond that, you should be free to live your life as you choose, including being apolitical and ignoring the news. It may not be the smartest position to take for maintaining your freedoms, but it is a morally valid one.

I mean, maybe? What about our gerrymandered system (edit: in the US) is democratic? Senators and governors? Most of those have a lock on their votes, both among expected and registered.

I have voted every election that I can physically do so, but at some point you hit the margin described in the myth of the rational voter.

I can’t think of anything useful I’ve ever learned from a major news outlet. I generally feel like they actively drain my IQ points.

NPR or a good magazine, yes. The news described in this article? No.

You are probably better of spending two days before election day reading up on politicians actions on wikipedia. And even then your vote will get swamped by somebody who had 4 kids that are now of voting age.

The news usually only have one thing relevant to your life: the weather.

Most of what's in the news isn't really news though. It's analyses of news, that turn out to very often just be speculation. Newsworthy events come around like, a couple of times a year. Most of the rest is just gossip.

Last couple of years, I've seen talking heads projecting among other things:

* Covid has a 10% mortality rate

* Covid will blow over by march 2020

* Covid is just a flu

* Covid will blow over by summer 2020

* Covid will blow over by fall 2020

* Trump will join the QAnon protesters

* Trump won the election by a landslide

* Trump will refuse to step down and become a dictator

* Covid will blow over by 2021 when the vaccinations get started

* Covid will blow over by summer 2021

* Covid will blow over by fall 2021

* Covid will blow over by winter 2021

* Putin is just saber rattling, he will not invade Ukraine

* Ukraine will fold like a house of cards

* The Russian convoy will be stuck in the mud forever and it's all Putin's got

* Sanctions will defeat Putin any moment now

* The Russians will turn on Putin

* The Russian Oligarchs will turn on Putin

* Putin will be defeated by April 2022

* Putin will be defeated by Summer 2022

If this is where you get your understanding of the world, I'm not even sure it's a net positive. You might just walk away with a less accurate understanding of things than if you simply weren't told about these things.

I don’t think the point of democracy is to be moralizing and shaming everyone

Laudable, but being informed from any source is fraught.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com