> Is the new generation reading news? I highly doubt it.

Instead of doubting it, try doing some research.

"Age does not impact people’s attentiveness to various news topics. Even the youngest adults are as likely to pay attention to news [...] as older adults. Further, they are no more likely than older adults to follow news on lifestyle topics."[1]

> I think the new generation is caught up in quizzes that stir up emotions, and psychological tests that determine whether a giraffe is your spirit animal.

This is incredibly condescending and seemingly not based in any statistical reality.

> I know the system is broken, corrupt, beyond repair -- why remind me about it every day?

Because knowing how "the system" is broken today (which differ from yesterday or last week) makes you an informed citizen. When enough informed citizens vote, the system is significantly less broken.

If you don't inform yourself and vote, you are one of the reasons the system is still dangerously broken. I hope well-run governments are not a matter of life and death for you, because they are for billions of other people.

1. https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/...

This is assuming the vote actually has a significant impact on the state of things. I vote, but I'm not sure I could justify that belief with evidence.

I saw a meme once that said, "I don't vote because I think it'll fix things. I vote so I know I'm not one of the reasons things are broken."

Not sure if that helps, but thank you for voting!

Sounds like the "Road Not Taken"※ - they think either choice will keep things broken, yet one of them makes all the difference.

※ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18380366

No, because in this case your vote changes the final number of the vote. Even the losing side can have political power if they have a big enough base.

Thank you for this reply.

> I know the system is broken, corrupt, beyond repair -- why remind me about it every day?

Perhaps only having Hacker News as your source of news has led to that mentality. That's not to say it isn't broken, or there isn't corruption, but I don't think things are beyond repair, and they can certainly be worse.

> Perhaps only having Hacker News as your source of news has led to that mentality.

Ok, next time I will omit the part where I say that HN has been my only source of news.

> For the last 4-5 years, Hacker News has been pretty much my only source of any kind of news outside of the topics that I work with on a daily basis. This is true.

Why?

Hacker News is a content aggregator, no different than Reddit, Twitter or Facebook. The posters here are not unbiased, nor are they likely to be experts in every subject they comment on, unless it's about tech, and then only maybe.

I can understand preferring Hacker News for technical news, or to avoid mainstream news, but as a primary news source? I think you're letting HN's elitist cultural bias cloud your sense of objectivity if you think this one internet forum is a better a news provider than any other.

I'm not sure OP is saying HN is better. It might simply be the only site they visit regularly that happens to link to mainstream news articles.

I consider it a little dangerous to rely on a single news source. Granted HN as an aggregator is better than relying on a single paper but it's still a bit unhealthy to read all news in a HN framing (assuming you read comments+newsitem). Even if you just use it as an aggregator it's still fairly selective.

Additionally, HN is very "high level". I don't know how involved you are in the community you live in but I always consume at least one "hyperlocal" paper (+local radio) to stay up to speed on the things that happen in my immediate neighborhood.

> but I always consume at least one "hyperlocal" paper (+local radio) to stay up to speed on the things that happen in my immediate neighborhood.

I use FB in order to stay up-to-date with news from my childhood town, of which I moved out 18 years ago. It kind of gives me a feeling of belonging, even though almost all of my friends and even my parents have moved out of that town.

> Is the new generation reading news? I highly doubt it. I think the new generation is caught up in quizzes that stir up emotions, and psychological tests that determine whether a giraffe is your spirit animal.

I think that you would know more about the information habits of the new generation if you actually researched it, instead of relying on HN as your only news source...

This community definitely has a lot of biases of its own, no matter how much it tries to deny it, so really, I think that for anyone, getting news from multiple sources makes it easier to come up with a more holistic interpretation of current events.

I'm with you, though I sometimes supplement it with news.google.com which at least mentions when certain articles are commentary. If a story interests me enough then I go ahead and research it from all major media sources, especially opposing sides and do my best to form a conclusion that makes sense, usually keeping those to myself since others will only have familiarity with one source or the next. Of course sometimes I land on the not-so-major media sources like blogs that call out mainstream media issues too.

I'm what the mainstream media calls a millennial (only discovered I had that title after 10 years of being one apparently, shows how much I buy into the Media). I have seen time and time again how toxic the media can be even for democracy. During the last election where Ron Paul was a candidate they gave him the least amount of air time on television[0][1][2], and thus he became irrelevant to most Americans because they are glued to the TV and the news organizations, he wasn't the kind of person that would of sold advertisement eye balls I guess. I guess if you want a solid candidate to be president buy all the ad space most major news organization will offer? He was a rare gem I got excited to vote for but couldn't.

[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/ron-pau...

[1]: http://www.journalism.org/numbers/are-media-ignoring-ron-pau...

[2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-ron-paul-getting-unfair-medi...

Same. HN is the only stream of "news" I consume. And I kind of miss the older HN where non-tech "news" was immediately flagged to oblivion. So now I have to consciously skip irrelevant stuff (arguably like this one).

There was never such a time. pg himself (the creator of the site), who left in 2014, submitted way more liberally than just tech stuff: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=pg

Maybe you're right https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494031

> (arguably like this one)

Your comment shows how conscious you are while skipping "irrelevant" stuff.

Which was exactly my point. HN used to curate the content for me.

> I think the new generation is caught up in quizzes that stir up emotions, and psychological tests that determine whether a giraffe is your spirit animal.

You're definitely wrong on this point (and as others have said, it's a condescending sentiment).

This has always happened. I'm 28 and online quizzes and tests were _very_ common when I was school age.

My parent's generation also took lots of quizzes and tests, albeit they were in newspapers and magazines (and you had to tally up your own results).

> I think the new generation is caught up in quizzes that stir up emotions, and psychological tests that determine whether a giraffe is your spirit animal.

Given the activism they're showing in, eg, the US, I think if you read the news, you'd be surprised how wrong you are.

> How can anyone justify reading news that only talk about negative things?

To be aware of them in order to help fix them?

How do you know what fixes are working if you only read negative things?

A lot of that activism is more performative than practical, judging by voter turnout.

Didn't the last US election have the largest turnout in the past century? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_elections

It did, the activists lost.

How so?

The number of people who perform some kind of activism is way lower than voter turnout. What makes you think there are lots of people who are doing "performative" activism that isn't translating into them voting or otherwise participating in the system?

> What makes you think there are lots of people who are doing "performative" activism that isn't translating into them voting

I don't think that. Activism isn't translating into non-activists voting, hence activism being performative.

Votes are weak if there is no one or nothing of substance to vote for.

HN is my news feed for tech, but I have realised that my news feed for "rest of the world" has reduced down to radio / TV weekly comedy shows. Things like BBC news quiz or Mock The Week, (similar to US's John Oliver/ Steve Colbert) actually do a fairly good job of capturing the headlines and providing concise updates. As well as enough cynicism to keep me on my toes.

The only time it failed me was a few years back when a disgruntled Tory party donor spread rumours that the then PM David Cameron had put his dick in a pigs mouth as a university hazing ritual. As no mainstream media would ever dare print that, but people slowly got the right twitter link from friends, there were two weeks when a "oink oink" joke would cause half the country to convulse in laughter and the other half (me included) to wonder what the hell was going on.

You have just stated that your source of news is comedians who were doing standup routines in nightclubs before their current TV gig and, in fact, still do comedy at night clubs (John Oliver for one).

That's OK. A lot of people aren't aware of that. You can fix that.

Can you be specific about what you find problematic about that?

You don't have a problem receiving your news from a comedian versus a trained journalist?

I've done the same, but only for the past few years. I grew tired, emotionally exhausted even, of being bombarded with strongly biased negativity, images of war, brutality, poverty and injustice, NIMBYism and fake outrage - and most of all, at my sense of helplessness against it all. I could do nothing about any of it, and resolved to remove it from my life.

Since I did so, I've been much happier. I can't avoid all news - for example, I see non-tech stuff on HN sometimes, or see Trump's latest nonsense in my Twitter timeline - but with the exception of technical stuff on HN, I never seek it out.

Wow you just shat on people who read the news and people who don't in a single comment, while elevating your own head-buried-in-the-sand preference as the elite choice.

I'm not even mad! That's amazing!

Thanks.

That's the same reason I don't watch news on TV, they're always covering negative stories about how politicians are corrupt, big organizations cheat the system, etc. I just don't feel like being more pessimistic than I already are.

HN is a good filter. If it makes it to HN and happens in the real world then it probably is worth taking note.

Regarding your choice not to watch TV at age 12-13, this reminds me of reading tabloid newspapers at that age or possibly earlier. It all seemed so much below me and for people that must be thick.

HN is NOT a good filter though it's better than some. Judging by the person's statement, he is around 18 years old. For all I know, so are you. And so are 80% of anonymous "news" sources posted here.

Anonymous postings on the internet, no matter where, are the worst thing that has happened to civilization since anonymous reports to the police of wrongdoings of a neighbor.

The comment you are referring to was made by someone considerably older than eighteen.

> Is the new generation reading news? I highly doubt it. I think the new generation is caught up in quizzes that stir up emotions, and psychological tests that determine whether a giraffe is your spirit animal.

When people write of the 'new generation' they tend to be a generation older and slightly out of touch with this 'new generation'. I think you are allowing your assumptions to cloud your judgement somewhat.

80% of this so-called 'news' that you are seemingly quite assertive in defending is the creation of PR agencies. Not sure what relevance your comments on 'anonymous news' has to do with my comment.

I stand by my original comment, there is no point getting engrossed in the Punch and Judy Trump show, Brexit or anything else of that ilk. There is also another question that has to be asked of news - 'does this affect my life or the world I live in?' This applies to sport too, following with a passion the comings and goings of sports celebrities is a waste of time unless you play the sport yourself.

Hence HN is a very good filter. A normal news source will have stories that are clickbait, hard to not be interested in at an entertainment level.

This attitude does not mean passivity, a lack of interest in the world and a lack of engagement in politics. On the contrary, people that shout at their TV to the tune of the latest Trumpisms are stuck on their sofa and not doing anything.

I am NOT defending television or radio as a news source. Far from it. I am very aware of its creation by PR and ad agencies. Not only did I work in the TV and radio business for 10 years but my nephew's fiance is a producer for a large TV station. I think she's great so I bite my tongue.

I can think of a few worse things that have happened to civilization

non-anyomous postings are holding their own quite well.

google.com/search?q=whatsapp+massacre