Getting the latest thing that you feel the need to prepare for to survive a little bit longer tha the person next to you is a great use for news — but hear me out, you can also inform yourself about an issue that has already happened and pull real useful knowledge from that. E.g. a in depth analysis of why the chip supply crisis started does not need to be totally up to date, it needs to instead make very complex topics understandable in a good way, by having a long term look on certain actors, industries etc.
Sure, and I subscribe to a number of newsletters that dig into issues like that regularly. I just didn't see enough information on the linked site to make it clear that is what was happening. My question was an honest one: if the point is to demonstrate that the rush to fill a 24-hour news cycle is unhealthy, then great! But the selection of articles seems to focus on the latest news just the same, with a delay of three months.
It seems both too late to report on Omicron from a preventative point of view, and maybe also too early for an in-depth look back, especially in April when issue #45 was published with an article entitled "The arrival of Omicron." If you want to look back in depth, maybe focus even earlier than three months ago. And I you want to focus on current news, well, I'm still not sure the point.
I'm getting a lot of mockery here for a bare link to a site that doesn't explain itself well. The rush to judgment might suggest that you all need to engage in a bit of delayed gratification, rather than piling on. At least I poked around enough to notice particular article titles and publication dates.
