How to read the news

[avalok]

The "I don't care before it bites me in the a$$"-strategy can be risky without superior tactics to deal with things ex post.

When going without reading the news I notice a considerable improvement in general mood and I have far more time to spend doing this I'd really rather be doing anyway. I completely agree with Jacob above that this approach works fine until you are left incapable to respond to an event biting you "in the a$$". That said, I'm not convinced that consuming the sheer flood of news reported each day is going to help one foresee things coming down the road and respond in advance, not without an refined approach to filtering through the vast majority of news which is noise. I think the sweet spot lies somewhere in the middle; not drowning, but not entirely on the shore. I guess my query then is one of how to swim: what approaches are there to reading the news than can facilitate the insights it is supposed to bring, cutting through the noise?

There was a similar discussion over four years ago, but the main focus was on paper dailies over news sites, rather than what I think I am missing, which is an appropriate approach to reading the stuff.

[AnalyticalEngine]

My main approach when reading the news is to consider the agenda is behind whatever I'm reading. It's like watching a movie while focusing on how the director constructed certain shots instead of the story itself. Looking at the news as an cultural and information ecosystem helps keep your blood pressure down lower when you do read it. It also helps you stay aware that most news is just being published to suck up your attention for clicks and ad money.

That's not to say being aware of events is useless--quite the contrary--but having broader frameworks that you can fit the news into helps turn the sheer incoherent volume of it into something you can actually understand. And this approach makes you less susceptible to propaganda as well.

And it goes without saying that not all news sources are created equally. Definitely it helps to stick with the higher quality ones.

[ertyu]

what approaches are there to reading the news than can facilitate the insights it is supposed to bring, cutting through the noise?

One good criterion for filtering out bad news is, watch your emotional state. I think most are aware that if you find yourself enraged/angry as a result of reading the news, you've probably gone too far left/right. But also watch out for that sneaky sense that you're being lulled. The world is objectively a shitshow; if I find that a news source makes it easy for me to give into the temptation of wanting to disregard what I'm reading uncritically because "it'll all be alright," it's also time to stop and pause.

[zbigi]

When going without reading the news I notice a considerable improvement in general mood and I have far more time to spend doing this I'd really rather be doing anyway. I completely agree with Jacob above that this approach works fine until you are left incapable to respond to an event biting you "in the a$$". That said, I'm not convinced that consuming the sheer flood of news reported each day is going to help one foresee things coming down the road and respond in advance, not without an refined approach to filtering through the vast majority of news which is noise.

It also depends on your financial strategy. If it's very risk-awerse, very few events can topple your boat. However, if you're aiming for those high return rates (via e.g. individual stock picking), you should probably follow the news closely.

[IlliniDave]

It's difficult. IMO the quality of what's out there as news is pretty poor and often seems designed to stir negative emotions. Accuracy often seems questionable. Reasonable discussion of any thing that's complicated/has nuance is generally verboten. I've taken to mostly headline scanning as a way to sift for things I feel are of immediate relevance but I probably only click on 1 of 50 or so. I don't think I'm enough of a chess player to draft contingent strategies from emergent "news" on a constant basis, as a matter of fact I find the effort causes a lot of stress. For me limiting exposure to what amounts to digital tabloid stuff and focusing more on a balance of longer form podcast discussions from reasonable sources is more palatable and of higher quality--just takes a lot of time/focus so I tend to fade in and out. And even there there some susceptibility to echo chambers albeit with somewhat less gaslighting.

[Henry]

I think with the advent of podcasts (I am big fan of long form productions) "read the news" is anachronistic. An old but thank god recently dead asshole I used to work with insinuated that I wasn't informed about current events because I didn't walk with a newspaper folded under my arm when I went to the can to take a dump. Ironically he went blind before he died so fuck him two times over. Personally, I have no compunction depending on others. If I need to understand China, I have people I believe are qualified on the topic who I will listen to/read especially those who can provide a global/historical perspective. My only qualification is that I will not read/listen to people who will not make admissions against interest as that is the very definition of propaganda. And that applies to both those I tend to agree with and those I don't.

At this point in the game, the news is legal work or to put it in cinematic terms, a Rashomon endeavor. You have to listen to all sides and decide who makes the best case remembering that people at best try to be objective but are never neutral. I fought with a friend for over a decade after we both witnessed a homeless person throw a trash bag at a moving vehicle and we disagreed whether he did it on purpose. I said he didn't. I'm sure if you scratched that surface of the argument, you would find underneath it other issues ie. our experience with homeless people, how stoned we were at the time of the incident, how I was jealous of him because of his hot girlfriend etc. I also keep in mind that we are nearly 60 years out from the Kennedy assassination and despite multiple eye witness accounts, film evidence, and a trove of documents, research books, documentaries that can fill a black hole, there is still disagreement. I suspect 2023 will stir that pot again.

[Sclass]

The goal of news media isn’t to inform. It’s to sell ads. Once you understand why they’re pushing your buttons you can put the horrific stories in the proper perspective. Too many stories about kids getting hurt…it’s pretty shameless reporting. Notice how the content moves on as people get numb. Eg Covid, Ukraine, Uvalde.

I also keep in mind that we are nearly 60 years out from the Kennedy assassination and despite multiple eye witness accounts, film evidence, and a trove of documents, research books, documentaries that can fill a black hole, there is still disagreement. I suspect 2023 will stir that pot again.

My feeling after a lifetime spanning this debacle is the anti news effort was very powerful. What younger people don’t perceive is how long it took for tidbits of information to be meted out to the public. For example it took a decade for the film to be released. It sounds absurd nowadays but it was held back for a loooonng time. Nobody from the TikTok generation would accept that. But we did. I’m shocked that there is still an effort to obscure information. Everyone involved is dead. But I guess that really isn’t the way these things work. What happens in 2023?

[jacob]

I guess my query then is one of how to swim: what approaches are there to reading the news than can facilitate the insights it is supposed to bring, cutting through the noise?

News (data) only becomes information within the context of an educated framework, so I'd prioritize that.

For example, if you're following energy-related news, you need to know about how the various sources (wind, solar, coal, shale, oil, gas, nuclear, ...) work; how they connect to the grid; what the various limitations are; choke points; interconnects; major players, etc.

News without a framework is just entertainment or worse.

Methinks a lot of the noise is due to the increasing number of pundits and op-eds which is often confused for "the news" despite just being someone's opinion. This is great for "reviewing reviews", that is, talking about what other people are talking about at cocktail parties or blogs. However, this is mostly useful for understanding [a fraction of] what other people understand or feeling seen by hearing one's sentiments reflected by someone more eloquent.

I've been quoting Kant a lot lately: Theory without practice is empty. Practice without theory is blind. In that regard "news practice" without theory or relying on someone else's theory is either blind or risks being misleading.

[Henry]

What happens in 2023?

60th anniversary. I understand that the name no longer carries the cache but there are still rocks being turned over.

https://nypost.com/2022/11/19/pal-revea ... k-killing/

[Scott 2]

I use a browser plugin that labels news source by bias. Here's an example for google news:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/google-news/

It's a good reminder to see that little LC (left of center) in my browser, when an article pushes all my buttons.


The times I have gone without news, someone tells me when an important event happens. Fact is, I don't take meaningful action based upon the news. Regardless of whether I should, I don't. I'm not adding value to my life by reading it.

[jacob]

I use a browser plugin that labels news source by bias. Here's an example for google news:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/google-news/

I've been supporting these guys on patreon for years. I didn't know about the plugin. Link?

[Scott 2]

Disclaimer - I'm not sure exactly how the plugin ties to the fact check group. After looking into the developer, I felt comfortable using it.

https://drmikecrowe.github.io/mbfcext/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... odjodcbkkh
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... act-check/

[ffj]

@avalok

I would argue that if one just wants to find a "trusted" news source and exclusively read or listen to them then it's better to not follow any news sources and go about your day. I would also argue that if one wants to be truly informed on any topic then it will require a tremendous amount of work, with a fearlessness to find truth, wherever that source may originate. A conventional news source would be one of the last places to look for any kind of veracity.

If you just want to know what everyone is buzzing about, just read the headlines and ignore the content. If you want to learn how information is manipulated, read the news. It's actually kind of interesting dissecting a news article but ultimately infuriating. Now if you like validation, just pick your echo chamber and enjoy your day. Millions believe exactly as you do!

Along those lines, accept that you are a flawed and biased/prejudiced individual. There are no exceptions here and that will influence whether you accept certain truths and world views. Your life experience, personality traits, and internal values along with your lineage will heavily influence your perspective and you will subconsciously seek "trustworthy" news sources based on those characteristics. Just be aware. Also be aware how a nefarious organization can manipulate these characteristics.

But the best way I have found to "cut through the noise" is to ask myself logical questions of what aren't the "reporters" talking about? What are they omitting? Jacob had an excellent example recently about the cost of operation of the lasers to achieve net energy gain from fusion. I mean, how do you leave that detail out in your hard-hitting investigative journalism? You do it on purpose, just like every fucking story out there on every topic imaginable.

And follow the money. Ask yourself who funds the research and who owns the news source? What does someone have to gain from any one particular story? Which billionaire is influencing your world-view?

Good luck

[Mister Imperceptible]

60th anniversary. I understand that the name no longer carries the cache but there are still rocks being turned over.

https://nypost.com/2022/11/19/pal-revea ... k-killing/

They have been keeping this under wraps for years.

What else needs to be kept under wraps for 75 years?

When will we again spin the public opinion board?

[jacob]

But the best way I have found to "cut through the noise" is to ask myself logical questions of what aren't the "reporters" talking about? What are they omitting? Jacob had an excellent example recently about the cost of operation of the lasers to achieve net energy gain from fusion. I mean, how do you leave that detail out in your hard-hitting investigative journalism? You do it on purpose, just like every fucking story out there on every topic imaginable.

Hanlon's Razor. Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity (=here lack of context).

Science pundits and the news consumers who follow them likely don't know the domain well enough to understand what a Q factor is. To a scientist passing Q>1 is a big deal, so that's their perspective: It's really exciting! Only a few hundred people people in the world may truly understand how exciting this is ... but regardless it gets reported as exciting, because hewmons.

(One of my biggest peeves about sports reporting is how the athlete is always asked about their momentary feels after a big win. Never anything about the training plains and strategies that made it possible to get there...)

From an engineering perspective, the Q factor needs to be much bigger than 1 (more like 10) to use fusion as an effective energy resource. From a business/energy infrastructure perspective, the barrier is even higher (more like 100). However, the reporting scientists are unaware of these issues---not their job---so that doesn't constrain their enthusiasm for their momentary success.

The political domain is the same. Close and personal is exciting, bigger picture is lost because ... that's someone else's job, except sometimes there aren't anyone else to do that job and so the presentation is just accepted as-is.

This is why understanding the context is so very important and worth spending time on.

[Henry]

The Eastern European scholar Timothy Snyder was one of the few people (along with military historians completely unfamiliar with Ukraine) who pushed back against the popular idea that Russian would take the region in three days. Why? Because they knew how to study maps.

[avalok]

The political domain is the same. Close and personal is exciting, bigger picture is lost because ... that's someone else's problem, except there aren't anyone else.

The effect is exacerbated by the rapidity of news reporting as well. As every tidbit is now posted into rolling live feeds 24/7, the reports can only be close and personal.

I like the idea of focusing on building a framework, rather than the focus being on "the news" as the end. It is far more proactive. I think this is what I have been trying to do without knowing it, but then returning to the news with increasing exasperation rather than understanding. I'm not sure if it is even worth me headline scanning. As Scott 2 implied: if it is big enough, you will be told about it.

[jacob]

As Scott 2 implied: if it is big enough, you will be told about it.

Best not waiting for someone else to tell. After they finished covering their own a$$, it might be too late. However, you might make the news as an ironic example of what not to do if you only had paid attention to the news. For example, ...

Hurricane, COVID, travel bans, student loans, health insurance, crypto fails, brownouts, cold snaps, heat waves, anti-government protests, etc.

There's been a recent litany of people making life-altering mistakes walking into "If only I had known, derp?"/"But everyone else knew, duh!"-type mistakes.

When it comes to news, the word is currently in the chaotic regime, which basically turns everything into a "you-problem".

[avalok]

Hmmm, so again it is somewhere in the middle? As in, focus on building a framework, but keep an eye on the news in case something obvious that needs to be acted on comes up.

I think in the past I have allowed myself to use the news as various things; originally kidding myself it made me informed, then later as a distraction-from-boredom tool. This year in particular I have become disillusioned by the whole cacophony, yet still felt as though it was important to keep up. Perhaps I can try using it (very lightly) to keep an eye out for things, while simultaneously training my ability to do so.

[ffj]

Hanlon's Razor. Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity (=here lack of context).



You are much more generous than I am with intentions. While Hanlon's Razor can ascribe a certain amount of non-curiosity, one can't ignore the consistency in which stories aren't fleshed out, always in favor of the institution providing the stories. It's a system that obviously works, but I would personally be embarrassed to label myself a journalist and not be able to perform basic fundamental tasks, or to purposefully ignore details not conducive to my paycheck. But that is my bias.