I categorically reject the notion that news is relevant to being informed. A single reading of an economics text book for example will make anyone who I should want to be able to vote more informed than the same amount of news. Further news is completely irrelevant for being informed as only the exceptional things are news worthy and not trends against which one could act, like climate change or shifting balances of power.
Thus the proposition is to be informed on some topic one cares about. Again there I suggest to not read “news” as most people will get more out of reading comprehensive articles on the topic or even a text book to better understand it.
In short: No, this is not just a prisoner’s dilemma and I dislike political systems where governance is one.
A single reading of an economics text book for example will make anyone who I should want to be able to vote more informed than the same amount of news.
For context, there are about eight econ textbooks in my line of sight at this very moment. I’ve even read some of them. The kind of knowledge you get from consuming such a textbook is certainly useful, but for practical purposes it’s highly contingent on what kind of world you’re living in. The textbook probably won’t tell you that, but an equivalent amount of news almost certainly would.
I doubt that regular reading of a popular news paper will make ones opinion more relevant than a good understanding of supply and demand, judging by the average comments section.
I think you’re taking a narrow reading about what sort of information you can glean from a given story.
Reading the average comments threads on a news item is very very terrifyingly informative, just not about the subject at hand. (Or course, you hit the point of diminishing returns quickly)
I think sixes_and_seven’s point (though I may have misunderstood) is that your understanding of supply & demand (and everything else in the econ textbook) still has to be applied to concrete cases to prove useful, and following the news furnishes you with concrete cases, and allows you to practice recognizing where the models in the textbook are most applicable.
I’m sympathetic, but surely this rejection is contingent on certain facts about your local environment. If you lived in a area experiencing rapid and chaotic change, following the news would be very valuable, even if the news was presented poorly or had significant bias. Consider Syria.
I categorically reject the notion that news is relevant to being informed. A single reading of an economics text book for example will make anyone who I should want to be able to vote more informed than the same amount of news. Further news is completely irrelevant for being informed as only the exceptional things are news worthy and not trends against which one could act, like climate change or shifting balances of power.
Thus the proposition is to be informed on some topic one cares about. Again there I suggest to not read “news” as most people will get more out of reading comprehensive articles on the topic or even a text book to better understand it.
In short: No, this is not just a prisoner’s dilemma and I dislike political systems where governance is one.
For context, there are about eight econ textbooks in my line of sight at this very moment. I’ve even read some of them. The kind of knowledge you get from consuming such a textbook is certainly useful, but for practical purposes it’s highly contingent on what kind of world you’re living in. The textbook probably won’t tell you that, but an equivalent amount of news almost certainly would.
I doubt that regular reading of a popular news paper will make ones opinion more relevant than a good understanding of supply and demand, judging by the average comments section.
I think you’re taking a narrow reading about what sort of information you can glean from a given story.
Reading the average comments threads on a news item is very very terrifyingly informative, just not about the subject at hand. (Or course, you hit the point of diminishing returns quickly)
I think sixes_and_seven’s point (though I may have misunderstood) is that your understanding of supply & demand (and everything else in the econ textbook) still has to be applied to concrete cases to prove useful, and following the news furnishes you with concrete cases, and allows you to practice recognizing where the models in the textbook are most applicable.
I’m sympathetic, but surely this rejection is contingent on certain facts about your local environment. If you lived in a area experiencing rapid and chaotic change, following the news would be very valuable, even if the news was presented poorly or had significant bias. Consider Syria.