Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomalaci | Hacker News Reader

News as a term is rather abstract and can be interpreted in infinite ways. I mean, if you want literal translation you can easily find it in dictionaries. If anything, I feel like post is quite sensationalist.

From my personal experience, I don't find general news helpful at all (doom and gloom happening on other side of the world most of the time), you usually want to find various specialized news sites that focus on specific areas.

Also, one thing I noticed quite often is that you rarely get to comment or see other people's comments on many news sites. I am quite thankful sites like Ars Technica and HN exist because you can usually find some extra info related to the original article from those comments.

View on HN

>you can usually find some extra info related to the original article from those comments

The real values of being lazy to a fault, reading the comments that come floating above with an experience.

These relatively small and fractured communities are what contains most of the uncluttered sources of outside information, organically getting reprinted for judgement by it's observers once more.

"News" sites are once more the old 1999 closed boxes asking for coin to enter.

> From my personal experience, I don't find general news helpful at all

The issue here is that's not actually news. Something happening - because LOTS of things happen - is not news. Content focused on "increasing engagement" (to increase ad views) is not news.

News has relevance. News has importance. News' priority is to inform and clarify.

All too often, most news is not news (at best it's current events). It doesn't help that parroting press releases and narratives that force feed "conventional wisdom" is passed off as journalism.

Collectively, we need to stop giving credit where credit is not due. A barking pet is not a cat.

Sure, the abnormal has been normalized. But that doesn't make it right.

What's relevant and important?

If the political situation in, say, Nepal is reported on in The Economist that's certainly relevant and important to--not only the residents of Nepal and perhaps nearby countries--but those who do business with or travel to the country. However, many people in the West and elsewhere would perhaps be forgiven for giving the article a cursory skim or skipping it entirely because it's not relevant or important to them.

What's relevant and important?

Pretty much - per the article - everything NOT being "news'ed." Don't let presentation and confidence fool ya. Most of "the news" isn't.

Either you understand the intent and purpose of that system or you don't.

The question isn't "what's important and relevant?" The question is: is this nonsense being presented as important and relevant actually so? Passively accepting and defaulting to "yes" is The Biggest mistake you can make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com