Consuming News: How Much? What Sources? (1 Viewer)

[Despyzer]

Sources:
NPR, Charleston Post and Courier, USA Today, New York Times, and a few other sites I'll visit if I'm truly intrigued by a story.

Time spent:
I suppose I average 45-60 minutes a day, but some of that is also spent commuting to and from work (podcasts).

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I am not familiar with what happened in the Israel thread, but I do think that this is an interesting topic. I was actually speaking to one of my customers about this the other day. Our discussion was basically about how we like to feel informed and knowledgable about current events and news—but that often times the way that the mainstream media packages it is often biased—and is often overly negative. I personally find myself mainly watching 30 minutes of local news a day, and then couple that with doing my own research on larger news events on the internet (YouTube..etc). I generally will try to watch or read up on an event through a few sources —and will go out of my way to read opinions on both sides before formulating my own (if I care to have a particular opinion on an event).

Just a quick 6 second video that makes me laugh about “sources”. It does contain a swear word.

My source is that I made it the F@#& up

Imagine a world, Raiden. Free of cancel culture.Where no one can call me out for my outlandish claims!from the funny Max0r video:https://youtu.be/TgmTsa3rFU0...

www.youtube.com

 

[Nugget]

Majority of my news consumption is focused on local. I subscribe to my local paper online and get the Sunday paper delivered. I’ll check the local subreddits 2-3x per week. Apple News subscription gives me access to the KC paper and between that and the Kansas Reflector I try to keep up on state legislation.

For National/International I would start with CNBC as I pay more attention to business news and markets than any type of cultural news concerns. The business aspects will pick up the major stories (wars, speaker) but leave out prison breaks or celebrity gossip type stories.

 

[jwb]

Majority of my news consumption is focused on local. I subscribe to my local paper online and get the Sunday paper delivered. I’ll check the local subreddits 2-3x per week. Apple News subscription gives me access to the KC paper and between that and the Kansas Reflector I try to keep up on state legislation.

For National/International I would start with CNBC as I pay more attention to business news and markets than any type of cultural news concerns. The business aspects will pick up the major stories (wars, speaker) but leave out prison breaks or celebrity gossip type stories.

I've done this over the last year, and feel it's excellent . I have no interest in partisan "gotchas", and there's none of that there. If I need to go deeper, I'll read Rueters, NYT, and WSJ - that's enough.

 

[top dog]

Sometimes I consume way too much honestly. When something big is going on I'll end up spending hours going over it. When the Hamas attack happened my wife made me turn off the TV at one point because in her words "I was overloading on it. Do something else."

Usually at work I will pull up a browser and go to Google News to scan the headlines. I understand each outlet has their bias, so if a topic is big enough that I want to really feel knowledgeable, I'll dig in to multiple outlets. Fox, CNN, Reuters, BBC, etc.

This forum has been fantastic over the years to help me become informed on various things. The Israel War thread was fantastic for that. Really helped me understand the complexity of the situation. Unfortunate that it got locked. Maybe Joe will let it continue when people have time to calm down a bit. It's tough. When there are people you relate to that are being hurt or dying it gets emotional FAST. The Covid thread was a great source for info in real time. The Ukraine thread has been my #1 source for news in that conflict.

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news is an interesting site that tries to show you different views as well. From the right, center, and left perspective.

Our local metro area news is on in the morning when I'm getting ready for work.

For news in the local community, nothing beats the Facebook Community groups. The only reason I still go on facebook is to go to those groups and check out who is pissed off at who for their dogs running loose and what ridiculous thing the mayor didl last week.

 

[BladeRunner]

I will say I appreciate folks being in the community and you know I love y'all. But using the FFA with anonymous posters as a primary news source is not a good idea in my opinion.

i don't know, Joe. I think LadiesMan42322136 seems like a trusted source!

 

[Scoresman]

My sources are usually

1.) Threads here until they get locked
2.) My wife saying "Hey did you hear about...."

 

[GordonGekko]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why....

I will give a professional media optics perspective on this.....If I had to train someone from pure scratch, with limited to no pathway towards current events, nor politics and was still likely very young, what I'd suggest is to

1) Expose yourself to everything in terms of information. This is valuable for immersion, and for later, pattern recognition.

2) Set aside X number of minutes a night, whatever is practical and available, and set a schedule to cover a different topic each night. Maybe Monday nights are where you cover all topics related to abortion, reproduction, and health care. Tuesdays is for gun rights, gun laws and gun control. Wednesdays is for free speech. Etc, etc. Maybe it's just 10 minutes a night. Or whatever makes sense. Over the course of a month, a year, a few years, that adds up. Visit different sources and assess hard facts.

3) Focus on self development, understanding healthy emotional boundaries, behavioral psychology and communication dynamics. OUTSIDE of things like the news, MSM etc, etc.

"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." - Abraham Lincoln

Asking someone to search for the ideal news source is like asking someone where to find the easiest trees to cut down. You are better served "sharpening the ax", so to speak, so you can better negotiate any source or format you encounter.

Worth reading to start (again, this is a starting point) -

The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz
Boundaries by Henry Cloud
The Six Pillars Of Self Esteem by Nathanial Braden
What Every Body Is Saying by Joe Navarro

4) If you want to know the tactics of effective writing to you, then you have to do more writing. If you want to know effective tactics in terms of video to you, then be in a position to make video. A good example is Sigmund Bloom and his podcast. He's gotten better. ( He also has some long term glitches that have never been corrected, but maybe the resource base isn't there to help him in that regard) I still listen to it on occasion. It takes time but you learn how to give a better interview, how to get a guest to talk about things that they might not be happy to talk about to start, how to escape when a situation arises where the conversation veers into a subject that's bad for the brand/business/etc. You get better at something by doing more of it. With structure.

When the PSF existed, I did high level consistent extensive coverage of breaking down what the media was saying, but the context of why they were saying it. It's because it's very likely I've written more professional level media copy than anyone here on this site. Ever. My thread topics shifted more towards exposing more high information pathways, thus many felt they were quasi blogs instead of typical forum discussion. No one sourced and attributed more than I did and I never stayed in one source location for very long. A lot of people attacked my thread topics, including even a Staff member, but they were actually instructive if people kept up and paid attention. Some will inevitably disagree, and I'm OK with that. As I've said before - The kind of world I want to live in includes people who can and do disagree with me. But you'll find some here don't align to that principle.

What I mean by "pattern recognition" is I can look at different news sites and publications and instantly break down what reactions they are trying to elicit from the readers or viewers. Not what they are saying on the surface, but the pure motive and who benefits the most if they achieve that end. Over time, with enough exposure, you see the patterns of baseline manipulation. How to shape how you feel about a certain subject based on how the information is curated.

Closing thoughts - This thread topic, why it was created, likely stems from what happened in the since locked thread that was political in nature. (I'm not getting into that topic) In effect, at least as it pertains to FBG, the blanket questioning of sources or dogmatic defense of some sourcing is a proxy attack. It's a way to, in many cases, I wouldn't say all, to circumvent being banned here while digging at someone who has an ideological disagreement. It's a way to call someone a liar without creating enough cause to hit the Report Button. There are people here who are intentionally obtuse on purpose. It's not really that much different than the problem with the "laughing emoji", some people, not all, will abuse what they can and as much as they can. One of your long time Staff members started a topic about what is a "good source" and what is a "bad source" and made a list. It was essentially codifying the ability to openly call people liars, without context, while the PSF existed. Why he did that or chose to do that is completely inexplicable. It's like giving a room full of arsonists a bunch of thermite grenades.

If you want to cease future arguments about "sources", the the simple path is to limit it to facts. I.E. no one can talk about intent. (For example, "The New York Times is a legacy publication and no one does it better so all your points are wrong and basically I'm calling you a liar while avoiding getting banned for it") Only point out facts ( i.e. "This source used photos that did not align to the actual incident with the time and place of said tragedy and here are the links to the articles/videos that discuss it") and allow people to decide for themselves. I recognize you don't want to micromanage that, but that you probably will have to in the future is based on all the reasons the PSF was shut down in the first place. But it was one of your guys, on your payroll, that codified the pathway to do it, so people have kept doing it. Maybe it's a good time to ask him what exactly he was thinking when he triggered that slippery slope in your house. But that's up to you.

Again, as I like to point out practical and logistical solutions - I'd suggest everyone who is starting to expose themselves to all kinds of sources and information. Set a schedule to tackle a subject a night , and when you see something interesting or something triggers interest, then TAKE NOTES. Write down your observations. Write down your questions.

Some will ask why even bother. Because it's a path not just for current events and politics, but for "soft skills" It makes you a better communicator and more effective in writing, negotiation, problem solving, diplomacy and resource management. Something I said in 2006 when I started on these forums is I don't want to provide better answers for people ( though sometimes, maybe often, I've done that) but I want to upscale people into the pathway to learn how to ask better questions.

In keeping with that, JJ Redick was a designated long range shooter in the NBA for a long time. He pointed out several times in interviews that he had to learn that sometimes it was selfish NOT to shoot the ball. To violate what he learned early on about keeping the ball moving. That there were times that he specifically was the high percentage shot and his teammates and coaches were working hard to generate that opportunity for him, and if he didn't shoot it, that he was hurting the team.

The "better question" for you is this - Everyone knows you want to see the best in other people. But does that individual pathway ever becomes selfish against the greater community good? Once you answer that question for yourself, I fully believe your enforcement style will align more to creating the vision of what you'd like this community to be in your most ideal sense.

I'm glad the PSF is gone. I've always said if people don't like what you are giving them, particularly for free, then give them nothing instead, see how they like that better. You gave everyone basically a "freebie" for what really was political discussion in a recent thread here for a couple of weeks, and some, not all, but some still couldn't keep it together and not turn it into a bullet festival. They begged for nothing, so I say give it to them.

Sharpen the axe in your hand first. Don't look for easier trees to cut down.

Joe, I will genuinely miss this place. Even when I finally run out of rope. For what it's worth.

 

[culdeus]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why....

I will give a professional media optics perspective on this.....If I had to train someone from pure scratch, with limited to no pathway towards current events, nor politics and was still likely very young, what I'd suggest is to

1) Expose yourself to everything in terms of information. This is valuable for immersion, and for later, pattern recognition.

2) Set aside X number of minutes a night, whatever is practical and available, and set a schedule to cover a different topic each night. Maybe Monday nights are where you cover all topics related to abortion, reproduction, and health care. Tuesdays is for gun rights, gun laws and gun control. Wednesdays is for free speech. Etc, etc. Maybe it's just 10 minutes a night. Or whatever makes sense. Over the course of a month, a year, a few years, that adds up. Visit different sources and assess hard facts.

3) Focus on self development, understanding healthy emotional boundaries, behavioral psychology and communication dynamics. OUTSIDE of things like the news, MSM etc, etc.

"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." - Abraham Lincoln

Asking someone to search for the ideal news source is like asking someone where to find the easiest trees to cut down. You are better served "sharpening the ax", so to speak, so you can better negotiate any source or format you encounter.

Worth reading to start (again, this is a starting point) -

The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz
Boundaries by Henry Cloud
The Six Pillars Of Self Esteem by Nathanial Braden
What Every Body Is Saying by Joe Navarro

4) If you want to know the tactics of effective writing to you, then you have to do more writing. If you want to know effective tactics in terms of video to you, then be in a position to make video. A good example is Sigmund Bloom and his podcast. He's gotten better. ( He also has some long term glitches that have never been corrected, but maybe the resource base isn't there to help him in that regard) I still listen to it on occasion. It takes time but you learn how to give a better interview, how to get a guest to talk about things that they might not be happy to talk about to start, how to escape when a situation arises where the conversation veers into a subject that's bad for the brand/business/etc. You get better at something by doing more of it. With structure.

When the PSF existed, I did high level consistent extensive coverage of breaking down what the media was saying, but the context of why they were saying it. It's because it's very likely I've written more professional level media copy than anyone here on this site. Ever. My thread topics shifted more towards exposing more high information pathways, thus many felt they were quasi blogs instead of typical forum discussion. No one sourced and attributed more than I did and I never stayed in one source location for very long. A lot of people attacked my thread topics, including even a Staff member, but they were actually instructive if people kept up and paid attention. Some will inevitably disagree, and I'm OK with that. As I've said before - The kind of world I want to live in includes people who can and do disagree with me. But you'll find some here don't align to that principle.

What I mean by "pattern recognition" is I can look at different news sites and publications and instantly break down what reactions they are trying to elicit from the readers or viewers. Not what they are saying on the surface, but the pure motive and who benefits the most if they achieve that end. Over time, with enough exposure, you see the patterns of baseline manipulation. How to shape how you feel about a certain subject based on how the information is curated.

Closing thoughts - This thread topic, why it was created, likely stems from what happened in the since locked thread that was political in nature. (I'm not getting into that topic) In effect, at least as it pertains to FBG, the blanket questioning of sources or dogmatic defense of some sourcing is a proxy attack. It's a way to, in many cases, I wouldn't say all, to circumvent being banned here while digging at someone who has an ideological disagreement. It's a way to call someone a liar without creating enough cause to hit the Report Button. There are people here who are intentionally obtuse on purpose. It's not really that much different than the problem with the "laughing emoji", some people, not all, will abuse what they can and as much as they can. One of your long time Staff members started a topic about what is a "good source" and what is a "bad source" and made a list. It was essentially codifying the ability to openly call people liars, without context, while the PSF existed. Why he did that or chose to do that is completely inexplicable. It's like giving a room full of arsonists a bunch of thermite grenades.

If you want to cease future arguments about "sources", the the simple path is to limit it to facts. I.E. no one can talk about intent. (For example, "The New York Times is a legacy publication and no one does it better so all your points are wrong and basically I'm calling you a liar while avoiding getting banned for it") Only point out facts ( i.e. "This source used photos that did not align to the actual incident with the time and place of said tragedy and here are the links to the articles/videos that discuss it") and allow people to decide for themselves. I recognize you don't want to micromanage that, but that you probably will have to in the future is based on all the reasons the PSF was shut down in the first place. But it was one of your guys, on your payroll, that codified the pathway to do it, so people have kept doing it. Maybe it's a good time to ask him what exactly he was thinking when he triggered that slippery slope in your house. But that's up to you.

Again, as I like to point out practical and logistical solutions - I'd suggest everyone who is starting to expose themselves to all kinds of sources and information. Set a schedule to tackle a subject a night , and when you see something interesting or something triggers interest, then TAKE NOTES. Write down your observations. Write down your questions.

Some will ask why even bother. Because it's a path not just for current events and politics, but for "soft skills" It makes you a better communicator and more effective in writing, negotiation, problem solving, diplomacy and resource management. Something I said in 2006 when I started on these forums is I don't want to provide better answers for people ( though sometimes, maybe often, I've done that) but I want to upscale people into the pathway to learn how to ask better questions.

In keeping with that, JJ Redick was a designated long range shooter in the NBA for a long time. He pointed out several times in interviews that he had to learn that sometimes it was selfish NOT to shoot the ball. To violate what he learned early on about keeping the ball moving. That there were times that he specifically was the high percentage shot and his teammates and coaches were working hard to generate that opportunity for him, and if he didn't shoot it, that he was hurting the team.

The "better question" for you is this - Everyone knows you want to see the best in other people. But does that individual pathway ever becomes selfish against the greater community good? Once you answer that question for yourself, I fully believe your enforcement style will align more to creating the vision of what you'd like this community to be in your most ideal sense.

I'm glad the PSF is gone. I've always said if people don't like what you are giving them, particularly for free, then give them nothing instead, see how they like that better. You gave everyone basically a "freebie" for what really was political discussion in a recent thread here for a couple of weeks, and some, not all, but some still couldn't keep it together and not turn it into a bullet festival. They begged for nothing, so I say give it to them.

Sharpen the axe in your hand first. Don't look for easier trees to cut down.

Joe, I will genuinely miss this place. Even when I finally run out of rope. For what it's worth.

How long did this take to write out? I mean there are jobs that pay you to produce copy.

 

[Poke_4_Life]

For me... podcasts in the morning, NPR and NYT mostly. Some industry rags and the WSJ for economic updates (I'm in banking), then the occasional local evening news, primarily for weather. I also like to be knowledgeable about national politics, so I listen to the 538 podcast for key races and some for the stat nerd outtakes. I'll also peruse headlines on Twitter and Reddit daily, but rarely actually read the articles.

 

[Goldminer1]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why. Tim Ferris recently had a guest on his super popular podcast that talked about being "News Sober" meaning he didn't consume news.

--- I feel that it is your duty to be "informed" - but you should only consume as much news as is healthy for you. I have kept the Israel/Hamas conflict at an arms length, simply because I don't feel like it is good for me to see the pictures and hear the stories that are coming out of the region. I "know" what is going on in general, and for me that is good enough. I know that I don't like seeing what is happening to children on either side of this, so I choose not to view that stuff if I can help it.

2. What sources you like best for consuming news. I'd be interested in what folks use now and sharing best practices for what you've found to work well.

--- If I am on the couch and am going to look at a truly "breaking" news story, my default channel would be CNN. For a nightly news broadcast, I'm usually an NBC or ABC guy, and I also think that PBS does a good job.

During the 2016 election cycle and previous presidential administration, I watched too much news and it really did effect how I felt about politics and the country in general. I have been more mindful of that in the past few years and have cut way back on how much stuff I pay attention to. So much of it is blown out of proportion, and I can't do anything about any of it anyway, so, I'll stay "informed" but not consumed by current events.

 

[kupcho1]

Here's a little exercise that, if not helpful, might at least prove cathartic.

If I could change one thing about the news ...

Anyone brought on to discuss the latest war/conflict would have the choice of either (1) being introduced with no "resume" provided (e.g., former Defense Secretary) or (2) full disclosure including, but not limited to, any financial ties to defense contractors. I think the cable news networks are the biggest offenders, but newspapers are also offenders (if only to a lesser degree).

What we get now is completely slanted. If someone wants to come on and advocate escalation, we should know that they financially benefit from, say, selling missiles to one of the combatants.

(And before anyone jumps in to say "freedom of the press", keep in mind we have truth in advertising and food labeling laws that require disclosure.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here's a little exercise that, if not helpful, might at least prove cathartic.

If I could change one thing about the news ...

Anyone brought on to discuss the latest war/conflict would have the choice of either (1) being introduced with no "resume" provided (e.g., former Defense Secretary) or (2) full disclosure including, but not limited to, any financial ties to defense contractors. I think the cable news networks are the biggest offenders, but newspapers are also offenders (if only to a lesser degree).

What we get now is completely slanted. If someone wants to come on and advocate escalation, we should know that they financially benefit from, say, selling missiles to one of the combatants.

(And before anyone jumps in to say "freedom of the press", keep in mind we have truth in advertising and food labeling laws that require disclosure.)

In written media, the terms "experts say" and "according to experts" should go away. Say who the experts are and why we should listen to them. Most of us learned in fifth grade to distrust appeals to authority, and we are backsliding badly in this area.

I see this as highly related to the point you are making about on-the-air guests.

 

[Terminalxylem]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why. Tim Ferris recently had a guest on his super popular podcast that talked about being "News Sober" meaning he didn't consume news.

--- I feel that it is your duty to be "informed" - but you should only consume as much news as is healthy for you.

Why is this a duty? I mean, there’s an unlimited amount of information to process, so why should I prioritize “news”?

It facilitates informed voting, sure. Or I can just cram immediately before elections. But day-to-day existence?

To be clear, I’m not advocating living in ignorance. I read journals related to my job, articles on my hobbies, and look up random topics all the time. I also read threads here, and talk to other people, most of whom consume the news.

I just don’t see much value in being immersed in the politics du jour, or inundating myself with the usual badness which makes headlines. All that stuff detracts from quality of life imo, and largely won’t be impacted by my involvement.

Other than feeling informed, what concrete benefits do you derive from being news-savvy?

 

[Psychopav]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why. Tim Ferris recently had a guest on his super popular podcast that talked about being "News Sober" meaning he didn't consume news.

--- I feel that it is your duty to be "informed" - but you should only consume as much news as is healthy for you.

Why is this a duty? I mean, there’s an unlimited amount of information to process, so why should I prioritize “news”?

It facilitates informed voting, sure. Or I can just cram immediately before elections. But day-to-day existence?

To be clear, I’m not advocating living in ignorance. I read journals related to my job, articles on my hobbies, and look up random topics all the time. I also read threads here, and talk to other people, most of whom consume the news.

I just don’t see much value in being involved with the politics du jour, or inundating myself with the usual badness which makes headlines. All that stuff detracts from quality of life imo, and largely won’t be impacted by my involvement.

Other than feeling informed, what concrete benefits do you derive from being news-savvy?

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

Link

 

[Terminalxylem]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why. Tim Ferris recently had a guest on his super popular podcast that talked about being "News Sober" meaning he didn't consume news.

--- I feel that it is your duty to be "informed" - but you should only consume as much news as is healthy for you.

Why is this a duty? I mean, there’s an unlimited amount of information to process, so why should I prioritize “news”?

It facilitates informed voting, sure. Or I can just cram immediately before elections. But day-to-day existence?

To be clear, I’m not advocating living in ignorance. I read journals related to my job, articles on my hobbies, and look up random topics all the time. I also read threads here, and talk to other people, most of whom consume the news.

I just don’t see much value in being involved with the politics du jour, or inundating myself with the usual badness which makes headlines. All that stuff detracts from quality of life imo, and largely won’t be impacted by my involvement.

Other than feeling informed, what concrete benefits do you derive from being news-savvy?

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

Link

You think Jefferson would approve of the mix of contemporary media from which most people are informed?

 

[Psychopav]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why. Tim Ferris recently had a guest on his super popular podcast that talked about being "News Sober" meaning he didn't consume news.

--- I feel that it is your duty to be "informed" - but you should only consume as much news as is healthy for you.

Why is this a duty? I mean, there’s an unlimited amount of information to process, so why should I prioritize “news”?

It facilitates informed voting, sure. Or I can just cram immediately before elections. But day-to-day existence?

To be clear, I’m not advocating living in ignorance. I read journals related to my job, articles on my hobbies, and look up random topics all the time. I also read threads here, and talk to other people, most of whom consume the news.

I just don’t see much value in being involved with the politics du jour, or inundating myself with the usual badness which makes headlines. All that stuff detracts from quality of life imo, and largely won’t be impacted by my involvement.

Other than feeling informed, what concrete benefits do you derive from being news-savvy?

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

Link

You think Jefferson would approve of the mix of contemporary media from which most people are informed?

I think most people realize they have to sort through the bs. I also think they had bad journalism in the 18th century too. Jefferson didn't tell people to bury their heads in the sand then and I don't think he's would day that now either.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why. Tim Ferris recently had a guest on his super popular podcast that talked about being "News Sober" meaning he didn't consume news.

--- I feel that it is your duty to be "informed" - but you should only consume as much news as is healthy for you.

Why is this a duty? I mean, there’s an unlimited amount of information to process, so why should I prioritize “news”?

It facilitates informed voting, sure. Or I can just cram immediately before elections. But day-to-day existence?

To be clear, I’m not advocating living in ignorance. I read journals related to my job, articles on my hobbies, and look up random topics all the time. I also read threads here, and talk to other people, most of whom consume the news.

I just don’t see much value in being involved with the politics du jour, or inundating myself with the usual badness which makes headlines. All that stuff detracts from quality of life imo, and largely won’t be impacted by my involvement.

Other than feeling informed, what concrete benefits do you derive from being news-savvy?

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789

Link

You think Jefferson would approve of the mix of contemporary media from which most people are informed?

I think most people realize they have to sort through the bs. I also think they had bad journalism in the 18th century too. Jefferson didn't tell people to bury their heads in the sand then and I don't think he's would day that now either.

Jefferson lived in an age where it took weeks for news to spread. Different era. People who follow politics today tend to get swept up in minutiae that varies from cycle to cycle.

 

[beer 30]

Elon on Rogan discussing Twitter is an interesting listen.

 

[Goldminer1]

1. How much news do you feel it's best to consume and why. Tim Ferris recently had a guest on his super popular podcast that talked about being "News Sober" meaning he didn't consume news.

--- I feel that it is your duty to be "informed" - but you should only consume as much news as is healthy for you.

Why is this a duty? I mean, there’s an unlimited amount of information to process, so why should I prioritize “news”?

It facilitates informed voting, sure. Or I can just cram immediately before elections. But day-to-day existence?

To be clear, I’m not advocating living in ignorance. I read journals related to my job, articles on my hobbies, and look up random topics all the time. I also read threads here, and talk to other people, most of whom consume the news.

I just don’t see much value in being immersed in the politics du jour, or inundating myself with the usual badness which makes headlines. All that stuff detracts from quality of life imo, and largely won’t be impacted by my involvement.

Other than feeling informed, what concrete benefits do you derive from being news-savvy?

Maybe I should have been more clear. I was trying to articuate that people have a duty, to as you say, not be ignorant. I think a lot of people are just walking around completely unaware of what is going on in the world. "Oh, Russia and Ukraine are fighting?" Like in those "JayWalking" type of videos where they ask random people on the street really basic questions, like, "Name a country on this map" and they can't do it - I think it is our duty to be above that level of ignorance and lack of awareness.

Do I think people should be guzzling down news and commentary 24/7? Absolutely not.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Elon on Rogan discussing Twitter is an interesting listen.

I bet. I saw yesterday he was teasing it. I'll try to find time to listen. That's the trouble with Rogan for me is it takes so long.

Do you have a cliff notes summary for what he said?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think where one fits on the spectrum of news consumption and how we think of it is super interesting.

In my opinion, on one end of the spectrum, there is willful ignorance washing hands of things we know are bad but don’t affect us (or maybe even benefit us). Then there is the “Not my monkeys / Not my circus” that can often be smug. Then maybe it gets more to blissful/benevolent ignorance. Then the more the honest “I've accepted I'm not the General Manager of the universe” and then it goes on to obsessing over news.

Where we are to fit and live and relate to others on that spectrum I think is really interesting. I think we all mostly agree the ends of the spectrum are not good. But where one falls in between is interesting.

 

[beer 30]

Elon on Rogan discussing Twitter is an interesting listen.

I bet. I saw yesterday he was teasing it. I'll try to find time to listen. That's the trouble with Rogan for me is it takes so long.

Do you have a cliff notes summary for what he said?

Yea, start at 41:55. Elon's thought was that Twitter was a confluence of Far Left ideology having the mechanism to project to the world via Twitter, somewhat unintentionally. They just happened to be in the right area. Basically San Francisco/Berkley is about a 10 mile square area that is far left but had the ability to project that ideology to the world because Twitter was based there and so influenced what was being done there. I haven't listened to the whole podcast yet so he may elaborate further but the 10 minutes or so he discussed it were very interesting.

That's probably enough to get this thread locked up so I'll leave it there but it's an interesting take I haven't heard before.

 

[fantasy stud]

I'm more of a political news guy. I watch barely any during the week beside my twitter feed and this board. I watch most of the Sunday morning news shows- fox, abc, meet the press. I like to see shows where there are people from both sides. I also will partake in a little Bill Maher on Fridays. I find him interesting because he's gone from a typical one-sided liberal to often brutally attacking some of the left's current world views.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Elon on Rogan discussing Twitter is an interesting listen.

I bet. I saw yesterday he was teasing it. I'll try to find time to listen. That's the trouble with Rogan for me is it takes so long.

Do you have a cliff notes summary for what he said?

Yea, start at 41:55. Elon's thought was that Twitter was a confluence of Far Left ideology having the mechanism to project to the world via Twitter, somewhat unintentionally. They just happened to be in the right area. Basically San Francisco/Berkley is about a 10 mile square area that is far left but had the ability to project that ideology to the world because Twitter was based there and so influenced what was being done there. I haven't listened to the whole podcast yet so he may elaborate further but the 10 minutes or so he discussed it were very interesting.

That's probably enough to get this thread locked up so I'll leave it there but it's an interesting take I haven't heard before.

Thanks. I'll try to listen soon. And thank you, let's please not take it into political area. Thanks.

 

[massraider]

Check the morning brew and 1440 newsletters.

Really good cross section of news--not politics.

News: not the same as politics. I get why people think this. It does not have to be that way.

 

[beer 30]

Check the morning brew and 1440 newsletters.

Really good cross section of news--not politics.

News: not the same as politics. I get why people think this. It does not have to be that way.

Might have been you but somebody this week recommended 1440 in a thread I was reading so I signed up. Like it, quick and concise

 

[massraider]

Check the morning brew and 1440 newsletters.

Really good cross section of news--not politics.

News: not the same as politics. I get why people think this. It does not have to be that way.

Might have been you but somebody this week recommended 1440 in a thread I was reading so I signed up. Like it, quick and concise

Definitely check out the Morning Brew one. It feels weird to recommend an email blast, but I much prefer skimming the emails to negotiating with the news sites we are most familiar with

 

[Jayrod]

I had been dipping my toe back into Twitter/X recently (mostly due to the NBA starting back up).

I then got sucked into some non-sports stuff and just deleted my account last night. The consistent "anyone can say anything as though it is an irrefutable fact" and it immediately gets supported by 100's of others gets a little old to deal with. There is also some algorithm stuff that really limits who can see your posts if you are a new account. My replies were getting little to no response or even views and then because I replied to certain types of posts (to try and refute them) my feed gets bombarded with similar takes and it quickly became overwhelming to read the same insane garbage over and over. Maybe if I had kept my old established account it would be better? But I deleted that account months ago as well because it was becoming unhealthy for me. I like the concept and was originally in favor of Musk's changes, but it has spiraled out of control, IMO.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Check the morning brew and 1440 newsletters.

Really good cross section of news--not politics.

News: not the same as politics. I get why people think this. It does not have to be that way.

Agreed. I've been a long time fan of Morning Brew. They're a monster in the Newsletter space and a leader newsletters like ours try to follow.

They're consistently good.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Check the morning brew and 1440 newsletters.

Really good cross section of news--not politics.

News: not the same as politics. I get why people think this. It does not have to be that way.

Might have been you but somebody this week recommended 1440 in a thread I was reading so I signed up. Like it, quick and concise

Definitely check out the Morning Brew one. It feels weird to recommend an email blast, but I much prefer skimming the emails to negotiating with the news sites we are most familiar with

And I wouldn't say it's weird to recommend an email newsletter.

By definition, the value they bring is "curation". You trust them to have a take on both what they choose to cover and HOW they cover it that fits with what you're looking for.

That's the real value of most any newsletter.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm more of a political news guy. I watch barely any during the week beside my twitter feed and this board. I watch most of the Sunday morning news shows- fox, abc, meet the press. I like to see shows where there are people from both sides. I also will partake in a little Bill Maher on Fridays. I find him interesting because he's gone from a typical one-sided liberal to often brutally attacking some of the left's current world views.

The Sunday shows are good for two things: what the political machines/government administrations want us to focus on (along with their opinions), and a heads up on the speaking points they are putting out there. Right or left, it's fascinating to me to see or hear trending stories from various sources and connect them to the obvious partisan talking points. It really is fascinating, and also is great in helping to discern bias in the media on both sides.

The stories I appreciate most across all spectrums are those told by a known partisan source that support the opposing viewpoint. It doesn't happen often, but when it does it tends to be pretty reliable. The exceptions were when Obama first took the White House and Trump. There were plenty of news organizations on either respective side that had traditionally toed the line on partisan reporting but broke away in those two cases (Obama for maybe 2 years, Trump for about 4).

 

[JAA]

abcnews

 

[FairWarning]

I had been dipping my toe back into Twitter/X recently (mostly due to the NBA starting back up).

I then got sucked into some non-sports stuff and just deleted my account last night. The consistent "anyone can say anything as though it is an irrefutable fact" and it immediately gets supported by 100's of others gets a little old to deal with. There is also some algorithm stuff that really limits who can see your posts if you are a new account. My replies were getting little to no response or even views and then because I replied to certain types of posts (to try and refute them) my feed gets bombarded with similar takes and it quickly became overwhelming to read the same insane garbage over and over. Maybe if I had kept my old established account it would be better? But I deleted that account months ago as well because it was becoming unhealthy for me. I like the concept and was originally in favor of Musk's changes, but it has spiraled out of control, IMO.

What you may want to do is make or find a group on X that is just nba media/sportswriters. That will keep you from the other drivel. I do like X a lot for news, but they have to be trusted sources. It’s really easy to go down that rabbit hole on there.

 

[McBokonon]

Anybody using the Ground News app? I just learned about it from a friend of mine and have been messing around with the free version but will try the free premium trial soon. It’s a news aggregator essentially. The one feature that is pretty excellent (and might be more robust with the paid version) is their “Blindspot” section which highlights news articles that have little coverage on one side of the political spectrum so you can see what’s likely being shared and passed around in the partisan information bubbles. Just thought I’d share. I can give an update on the premium version once I try it assuming I remember.

 

[Gatorade]

My phone has "newsbreak" on it. I get a lot of headlines from there, but it is so biased that I have to go to other sources to get the real truth. I listen to both sides and investigate if I need to, then make my own decisions.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Anybody using the Ground News app? I just learned about it from a friend of mine and have been messing around with the free version but will try the free premium trial soon. It’s a news aggregator essentially. The one feature that is pretty excellent (and might be more robust with the paid version) is their “Blindspot” section which highlights news articles that have little coverage on one side of the political spectrum so you can see what’s likely being shared and passed around in the partisan information bubbles. Just thought I’d share. I can give an update on the premium version once I try it assuming I remember.

Thanks. I'd be interested in your experience with it.

 

[rockaction]

The one feature that is pretty excellent (and might be more robust with the paid version) is their “Blindspot” section which highlights news articles that have little coverage on one side of the political spectrum so you can see what’s likely being shared and passed around in the partisan information bubbles

Sounds like a great feature. I can’t tell you how often I’ve been blindsided by stories happening on both sides of the aisle since 2015. Once you’re on Twitter, you generally have at least heard of these stories in some ancillary fashion, but it’s definitely nice if somebody could pull this feature off without the venom that usually comes with the Twitter stuff.

 

[titusbramble]

Anybody using the Ground News app? I just learned about it from a friend of mine and have been messing around with the free version but will try the free premium trial soon. It’s a news aggregator essentially. The one feature that is pretty excellent (and might be more robust with the paid version) is their “Blindspot” section which highlights news articles that have little coverage on one side of the political spectrum so you can see what’s likely being shared and passed around in the partisan information bubbles. Just thought I’d share. I can give an update on the premium version once I try it assuming I remember.

Would you say that the creators of the app are either apolitical or centrist? I ask as what you are describing is basically Fark, except attempting to point out political biases, but it's hard to do the latter if whoever is doing the aggregation is biased in itself, which is especially damaging if, without wanting to get specifically political, they are in that group that have swung very far one way but still think they are in the centre. And presenting effective one sided views as centrist defeats the object.

On a related note, there was something that I thought was interesting that JD Vance brought up on the podcast he did with Rogan. Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

 

[rockaction]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

 

[Mitchie]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

 

[rockaction]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

I understand that. That was not the case in 1997 when I was down in D.C. and we were assured by the libertarian right that the position towards marijuana would never officially be recreation. All one had to do was read the tea leaves and official positions to see that a moderate position, such as medical marijuana only, would not be the case in the future.

Same with Roe and the mother’s life. If you believe that the fetus is a baby, you’re going to have those that argue you should save its life even if it jeopardizes the mother’s. It’s inherent in the argument at some point. And criminal punishment as deterrence goes hand-in-hand with these laws like peanut butter and chocolate.

And that’s how the extreme comes to be. The arguments have a basis in something. For marijuana, it’s bodily autonomy. For abortion, it’s about recognizing the fetus as a person. The “extreme” positions flow therefrom.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[rockaction]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

The last part of your statement is incorrect, by the way. Only 25 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and it remains regulated in those states. The federal government still has it as an illegal drug under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. States cannot override the federal government. What we know is that the federal government has decided not to prosecute and has thus left a gray area of enforcement. States can pass their own laws but we are still subject to the fed. gov. and their enforcement mechanism.

 

[Mitchie]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

The last part of your statement is incorrect, by the way. Only 25 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and it remains regulated in those states. The federal government still has it as an illegal drug under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. States cannot override the federal government. What we know is that the federal government has decided not to prosecute and has thus left a gray area of enforcement. States can pass their own laws but we are still subject to the fed. gov. and their enforcement mechanism.

You misread what I was trying to say (maybe I could've worded better), which was that most of the states that have legalized it I believe have done so through ballot measures.

 

[Mitchie]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

I understand that. That was not the case in 1997 when I was down in D.C. and we were assured by the libertarian right that the position towards marijuana would never officially be recreation. All one had to do was read the tea leaves and official positions to see that a moderate position, such as medical marijuana only, would not be the case in the future.

Same with Roe and the mother’s life. If you believe that the fetus is a baby, you’re going to have those that argue you should save its life even if it jeopardizes the mother’s. It’s inherent in the argument at some point. And criminal punishment as deterrence goes hand-in-hand with these laws like peanut butter and chocolate.

And that’s how the extreme comes to be. The arguments have a basis in something. For marijuana, it’s bodily autonomy. For abortion, it’s about recognizing the fetus as a person. The “extreme” positions flow therefrom.

I hope that makes sense.

thanks for trying to clarify but it doesn't make sense, marijuana use is not an extreme view and don't see how that is at all analagous to the abortion issue that you mentioned. The fact that people have changed their view since 1997 is not relevant. People have changed their views on lots of issues over time. And I don't agree that in 1997 all people had to do was read the tea leaves. I was alive then and the idea that weed would be legalized like it is today was unheard of then. I think you may have some hindsight bias. But that last point not even really all that important because the majority of people have different views today and that's what matters.

 

[rockaction]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

The last part of your statement is incorrect, by the way. Only 25 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and it remains regulated in those states. The federal government still has it as an illegal drug under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. States cannot override the federal government. What we know is that the federal government has decided not to prosecute and has thus left a gray area of enforcement. States can pass their own laws but we are still subject to the fed. gov. and their enforcement mechanism.

You misread what I was trying to say (maybe I could've worded better), which was that most of the states that have legalized it I believe have done so through ballot measures.

Ah, yes. I think I get what you’re going for. Most of the states (if not all) have legalized via referendum or via the legislature as opposed to a less accountable way (courts or admin. state). I see. And I’m only saying it was an extreme position from 1997-2000 or so. I hope that clarifies why I’d call it an extreme position. You knew once the Silent Generation departed that marijuana would become not-so anathema to the general public.

 

[rockaction]

And I don't agree that in 1997 all people had to do was read the tea leaves. I was alive then and the idea that weed would be legalized like it is today was unheard of then. I think you may have some hindsight bias. But that last point not even really all that important because the majority of people have different views today and that's what matters.

You’re proving my point here, aren’t you?

 

[rockaction]

I mean, you can’t say it “was unheard of then” and then say that it wasn’t an extreme position for that time, can you?

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well. I think I am.

I’m saying it was an extreme position in ’97 (legalization). We were assured it would never be fully legalized. But the extreme position came to pass. I’m also saying that if you looked at the age breakdown of how the youth and boomers back then felt about it, you had tea leaves telling you the extreme position would come to pass.

Same with abortion. The extreme position is coming to be the one we’re arguing about. And while Roe. v. Wade was overturned by the S. Ct., the state regulations are being decided at the ballot box. I do not know how it breaks down along age groups, so I’m saying nothing about that.

But they’re awfully similar in terms of how the extreme positions have come to the fore when we were assured they would not even be basically discussed.

 

[Mitchie]

And I don't agree that in 1997 all people had to do was read the tea leaves. I was alive then and the idea that weed would be legalized like it is today was unheard of then. I think you may have some hindsight bias. But that last point not even really all that important because the majority of people have different views today and that's what matters.

You’re proving my point here, aren’t you?

how so? i was saying there were no tea leaves

 

[Mitchie]

I mean, you can’t say it “was unheard of then” and then say that it wasn’t an extreme position for that time, can you?

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well. I think I am.

I’m saying it was an extreme position in ’97 (legalization). We were assured it would never be fully legalized. But the extreme position came to pass.

Same with abortion. The extreme position is coming to be the one we’re arguing about. And while Roe. v. Wade was overturned by the S. Ct., the state regulations are being decided at the ballot box.

the extreme position came to pass because the majority of people are now in favor of it, that is not the case with the issue of when abortion endangers the life of the mother. the majority of people are not in favor of this, we are arguing about it because the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people (i hope this isn't too political of a statement but think this is a fact, polls show that most people are opposed to banning abortion if it jeapordizes the life of the mother)