[jtorsella]

It’s pretty interesting to read what’s basically a long series of substantive empirical claims without a single citation. All the evidence necessary to support this argument is furnished entirely within the series of loosely-connected ideas and free-associations - an incredible feat for any article, much less a stream-of consciousness. Wow!

If we existed in a world where “News doesn’t make you more informed; it just makes you more confident the information you have is all there is.” was something that could be false, it would probably be Not Good to present it as true and move on here. Luckily, since this is an an obvious analytic truth, the author is right to simply say it and move on. As a suggestion to the author, it would be helpful to list all the propositions which need to be justifiable a priori for his argument to be justified (in this case all of them), so that readers can know whether or not to take him seriously at first glance.

[dr_bash]

Dude that is pretty dismissive. Your not even trying to validate their claims, just shut it down.

Everyone knows there is problems with the media, particularly with attention seeking (read click bait), and bias (read telling you what you want to hear).

The news is a contributing factor in the current political climate, it is mostly unhealthy. Why is it unfounded?

[jtorsella]

Oh you’re right - sorry, I forgot that everyone knows that the key ideas of the article are correct so they don’t require any evidence.

To drop the sarcastic frame - the article either argues something that could be incorrect or it makes a meaningless argument. If it’s arguing something that could be otherwise then it needs to give evidence for the things it’s saying. It doesn’t and treats everything it’s saying as completely self-evident. But these are empirical assertions that need evidence to be proven true or false, and the article stands out in using zero evidence. Personally, I think that this inadvertently reveals the disdain for news is really part of a broader undervaluing of evidence in general, but I don’t think that’s provable really.

[dr_bash]

I see you edited your comment.

the article is an opinion, like your earlier comment, there is no need to cite anything or be to pedantic.

As a native English speaker try to simplify the wording on your arguments a bit. They are somwhat highfalutin and a little convoluted. Your message is fairly simple, no reason to add extra complexity… best case you confuse some esl people, worst case you seem like hot air.

“The finest language is mostly made up of simple unimposing words” - George Eliot.