5 ms·

How do you responsibly participate in a democracy when you ignore world news? For example, how can you judge two presidential candidates' positions on foreign

How do you responsibly participate in a democracy when you ignore world news? For example, how can you judge two presidential candidates' positions on foreign policy when you don't know what other nations have been up to? The OP doesn't discriminate between junk news, entertainment news, and knowing what is going on in the world.

zalew 15y ago
> how can you judge two presidential candidates' positions on foreign policy when you don't know what other nations have been up to? If you read/watch American news, you think you actually know what other nations are up to?
- pork 15y ago
  Sure you can! Like everything else, you have to pick your sources. I go with NYT and the IHT for "American" sources, and the BBC and Al Jaz, and then occassionally the local newspapers if I'm bored. NYT is quite decent, IMO, although obviously far from perfect.
  - zalew 15y ago
    If you watch AJ/BBC you've probably spotted what my comment was up to. If not, just compare it to their respective US alternatives and you get it. I sometimes click on to mainstream US news just to check what's the POV on foreign affairs and I always feel like there's an echo chamber with a very thick wall (not to mention the quality of journalism), and it's not only the one with F and X in their name. It's a pity though, and what makes me more annoyed is that popular news channels in my country also went that direction.
- slamdunc 15y ago
  > If you read/watch American news, you think you actually know what other nations are up to? This reminds me of a recent Daily Show segment that showed how Time magazine offers different cover stories for their international and their US issues on the same date. One example was the Arab Spring (international) and something on "doing chores" for us here in the US.
  - zalew 15y ago
    Yeah, and puppies. Sometimes when I take a glance at American news it looks like there'd be a conspiracy going on not to expose citizens to any issue possibly widening their field of view on world affairs. It's pathetic.
celoyd 15y ago
Argument #1: Presidential candidates are noise. Unless you live in Ohio or Florida, your vote is foregone. If you want to be a good citizen, your time is probably best spent on convincing your friends to vote in local races. Or doing not-explicitly-political work that contributes to justice, peace and prosperity. A small career choice can do a lot more than the most forceful checkmark on a ballot. Argument #2: You probably need something like ten kilobytes of information to make a reasonable decision about which presidential candidate to vote for. This is way less than the amount of information that news-oriented people spend their time and attention to absorb on a single day. (If you want to overkill, on November 1st you could read the election issue of The Economist cover to cover, whatever political posts are on the front page of HN, and the Wikipedia pages for the major issues. Then sit and think carefully for an hour. This would take about five hours, and I’ll bet $1 you’d vote for the same candidate you would have if you’d read five hours of political news per day for the last year.)
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >Unless you live in Ohio or Florida, your vote is foregone. One could make a good argument that this kind of faulty thinking is the reason third party candidates can never get any footing, and also the reason that we get such downright evil people elected. Your vote is not "foregone" unless you choose not to vote. Period.
  - celoyd 15y ago
    Oh? What’s the fault in the thinking? I think it’s not a problem in the utility equation for an individual voter, it’s a problem in the system. By definition, a vote in a non-swing state is insignificant. Empirically, a good showing for a third-party candidate has no significant effect on the political discourse, and your individual share of giving that candidate a strong showing is negligible. Voting in the US is badly broken. I strongly favor equal representation, a multiparty system, and other reforms. Part of getting to them is admitting things like my vote, for one, being foregone.
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
tomjen3 15y ago
Oh please. Politicians change their positions so much once they are elected that you can't judge what they will do on foreign policy or any other matter.

zalew 15y ago

> how can you judge two presidential candidates' positions on foreign policy when you don't know what other nations have been up to? If you read/watch American news, you think you actually know what other nations are up to?

pork 15y ago
Sure you can! Like everything else, you have to pick your sources. I go with NYT and the IHT for "American" sources, and the BBC and Al Jaz, and then occassionally the local newspapers if I'm bored. NYT is quite decent, IMO, although obviously far from perfect.
- zalew 15y ago
  If you watch AJ/BBC you've probably spotted what my comment was up to. If not, just compare it to their respective US alternatives and you get it. I sometimes click on to mainstream US news just to check what's the POV on foreign affairs and I always feel like there's an echo chamber with a very thick wall (not to mention the quality of journalism), and it's not only the one with F and X in their name. It's a pity though, and what makes me more annoyed is that popular news channels in my country also went that direction.
slamdunc 15y ago
> If you read/watch American news, you think you actually know what other nations are up to? This reminds me of a recent Daily Show segment that showed how Time magazine offers different cover stories for their international and their US issues on the same date. One example was the Arab Spring (international) and something on "doing chores" for us here in the US.
- zalew 15y ago
  Yeah, and puppies. Sometimes when I take a glance at American news it looks like there'd be a conspiracy going on not to expose citizens to any issue possibly widening their field of view on world affairs. It's pathetic.

celoyd 15y ago

Argument #1: Presidential candidates are noise. Unless you live in Ohio or Florida, your vote is foregone. If you want to be a good citizen, your time is probably best spent on convincing your friends to vote in local races. Or doing not-explicitly-political work that contributes to justice, peace and prosperity. A small career choice can do a lot more than the most forceful checkmark on a ballot. Argument #2: You probably need something like ten kilobytes of information to make a reasonable decision about which presidential candidate to vote for. This is way less than the amount of information that news-oriented people spend their time and attention to absorb on a single day. (If you want to overkill, on November 1st you could read the election issue of The Economist cover to cover, whatever political posts are on the front page of HN, and the Wikipedia pages for the major issues. Then sit and think carefully for an hour. This would take about five hours, and I’ll bet $1 you’d vote for the same candidate you would have if you’d read five hours of political news per day for the last year.)

Karunamon 15y ago
>Unless you live in Ohio or Florida, your vote is foregone. One could make a good argument that this kind of faulty thinking is the reason third party candidates can never get any footing, and also the reason that we get such downright evil people elected. Your vote is not "foregone" unless you choose not to vote. Period.
- celoyd 15y ago
  Oh? What’s the fault in the thinking? I think it’s not a problem in the utility equation for an individual voter, it’s a problem in the system. By definition, a vote in a non-swing state is insignificant. Empirically, a good showing for a third-party candidate has no significant effect on the political discourse, and your individual share of giving that candidate a strong showing is negligible. Voting in the US is badly broken. I strongly favor equal representation, a multiparty system, and other reforms. Part of getting to them is admitting things like my vote, for one, being foregone.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago

tomjen3 15y ago

Oh please. Politicians change their positions so much once they are elected that you can't judge what they will do on foreign policy or any other matter.