Hacker News Reader

"The function of news is to facilitate smalltalk."

I've heard there are studies that confirm this (sorry, no citation handy), and I've also heard it said that Yahoo! Mail's success was due in part to their recognition of this fact. Put news next to email and you reduce the friction of social interaction.

Edit: The Habermas Thesis. http://hpronline.org/specialty-blogs/hprgument-blog/why-both...

Why is there not a service that tracks news stories and algorithmically relates them into the narrative of history, driven by the singular question of "why?"? Something in between google news and quora/stack exchange (anonymized to avoid embarrassment of dumb questions like "what are Israel and Palestine fighting over anyway?" but with a points/voting system to propagate quality answers.) Whoever makes this, please Tell HN so I can sign up for your beta.

I am working on this very thing, and in fact it's called Whybase (http://whybase.com).

Got invites for HNers?

Hi Will. Sure, you can use the standard invite form on the home page now, and we'll post a special HN sign-up form when we make the official announcement in the upcoming months.

I guess a lot of us are curious too.

only on HN

You can kind of use Wikipedia like this.

It would be nice though if all content had an audit trail, which you could trace through to the original sources. Could be quite enlightening.

You underestimate the importance of smalltalk. Gossip is the cornerstone of a moral society, moreso than laws. Gossip forms reputations, and reputations determine who we trust. News is just gossip in the large. Solve the reputation problem, and you solve the gossip problem.

> Solve the reputation problem, and you solve the gossip problem.

I agree - this is the key! I've been really thinking hard about the whole reputation problem. In a way, Google found a way to solve reputation problem on the Internet for website, and therefore their tremendous success. Would equivalent method work on people - just give reputation points by Citation (or Followers, as Klout is trying to do)? I don't think that's enough - plus my feeling is that there are bunch of dimensions to a Reputation. And on top of all that - we haven't even solved Identity issue on the Net yet.

I would tend to disagree. I am an avid reader of history, and having read news about world events and then read books about them, I would say that books usually have an agenda. Even if they are unbiased, you are still at the mercy of somebody else to make an opinion for you. While my greatest joy of reading a new thing is how it adds to or reinforces my mental model of an event.

> Most folks don't actually want news to be too personalized because then it loses its social function.

When Techmeme first started I had a conversation about this with Gabe Rivera - the founder of the site. He realized early on that he had to steer away from personalization because a large part of the attraction to Techmeme was the readers all referring to stories featured on it -for eg. 'did you see this on Techmeme'.

It facilitates conversations within the group of people that read the site as they are all literally reading off the same page. Apparently The Druge Report realized this early on as well which is why they go with one major story per day (or did).

When you are part of an industry or group you want to, or need to, know what everybody else is reading so you can 'keep up' and be 'in the loop'. In silicon valley tech is it Techememe (and HN) and in politics it is Druge, etc.

The media narrative of how the world is supposed to work just doesn't match the reality. This is why most news is useless. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a great example of this.

You can still get this social interaction without having to follow every piece of news that comes out. Just spend some time reading a more in depth summary of something up till this point. Then when something new happens let the person you are talking to fill you in and use your overview of the subject to fit in the new piece of information and give some opinion on the whole thing.

There's the function of the news in practice and there's the function of the news in theory. I don't do very well making political small talk because I get very angry about it. Nonetheless, I believe it is my duty to be informed about political goings-on since I am a citizen of a democracy where the people are sovereign and I participate in the political process. You can make all kinds of arguments about why this is bogus in reality (both political parties are the same, news is just about the horse race, etc), but I still feel that very strongly.

Reading How to do X better articles, on the other hand, not so much.

> The function of news is to facilitate smalltalk.

Case in point: I visit hacker news for the comments.

not only some factoids but a lot of disinformation as well, especially if the subject is contentious. Most of the news establishment is about either keeping you away from real issues or brainwashing you to their tune.

I stopped reading the news at one point -- for a couple years -- because of its persistent lack of depth. I realized that reading 100 BBC articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would leave me knowing virtually nothing about it, other than some factoids, whereas the same time spent reading books would be worthwhile.

Not to mention that you would have read 100 articles from a single source that is a government-controlled channel of information from a country that is partly responsible for starting the Israeli-Palestinian mess in the first place.

There's so much wrong with this that it's hard to know where to start. The BBC is pretty much the gold standard for un-biased reporting, regularly taking the government to task on issues of the day. As John Humphreys said to a minister once before interviewing him, "I'm not here to make you look like an idiot, but if you choose to, I won't stop you".

It even takes itself to task hugely, as shown recently when a BBC reporter was destroyed in an interview about how much better the Sky and iTV coverage was than the BBC during the capture of Tripoli, by another BBC journalist live on air.

Impartiality and being un-biased are different things.

The BBC is pretty much the gold standard for un-biased reporting, regularly taking the government to task on issues of the day.

It's only the "gold standard" for mainstream sources, which is not saying much. For people shopping for more accurate information elsewhere, it's nothing to write home about. Would you take your technical reporting from the BBC? Well, I wouldn't take my world affair's reporting either.

That said, I have worked with the BBC several times in the past (and other outlets, as a stringer). No mainstream coverage is accurate, and a lot are just used to justify a point the reporter has already made. Don't be fooled by spectacles like a BBC journalist "destroying" another BBC journalist on air.