In other words, let's say you're an ordinary person with a job and a family, and maybe a hobby or two, and you don't have the luxury of reading several newspapers, scanning the foreign press, or watching television all day long. 

How would you best use those 30 minutes?

Your goal is to be an informed citizen who casts your vote wisely. 

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Beasley
Joined
Dec '10
Beasley

If the only time I had to survey the events of the day, was as long as it took to sit and eat a decent breakfast, I think you have to take your chances with a decent gatekeeper. I would spend 30 minutes with the Wall Street Journal, hands down. 

Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 4:33am
Israel Pickholtz
Joined
Feb '11
Israel P.

You mean other than the Steelers, right?

For me that's what Twitter is for.  It is open all the time and although it can be maddeningly slow sometimes, I get links from the folks whose opinions interest me and I follow up on the tweets which look good.

When I have more time, Ricochet, Contentions and Jennifer Rubin are also open, since they are mostly late with their Twitter announcements.

River
Joined
Aug '10
River

Wall Street Journal Online. National Review Online. But thirty minutes a day isn't enough. I think you need at least an hour or more.

Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 4:32am
Jerry Broaddus
Joined
Dec '10
Jerry Broaddus

Locally, there are few quick access sources. But for national politics, James Taranto's Best of the Web has to be part of that half hour.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

River: Wall Street Journal Online. National Review Online. But thirty minutes a day isn't enough. I think you need at least an hour or more. · Mar 29 at 4:30am

Edited on Mar 29 at 04:32 am

I know for sure that 24 hours a day isn't enough time. I could spend that much time just trying to deeply understand what's going on in my apartment building, and still be left with doubts at the end of it. But most people just do not have a lot of spare time--that's reality.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

I'm inclined to say Wall Street Journal and Twitter, too. Of course, Twitter's exactly what you make of it--you can't just set it to "give me the best news."

Israel Pickholtz
Joined
Feb '11
Israel P.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

24 hours a day isn't enough time. I could spend that much time just trying to deeply understand what's going on in my apartment building, and still be left with doubts at the end of it.  · Mar 29 at 4:39am

They used to call people like that "gossips."

River
Joined
Aug '10
River

So true, Claire. It's a full-time job to really understand the enigmas, conundrums, and deliberate obfuscations of human affairs.

Ajax Telamônios
Joined
Jan '11
Ajax Telamônios

If you can only devote a mere 2% of your time every day to staying abreast of the news, you're likely to be woefully under- and thus uninformed.  Your time would likely be of more use if you spent a couple of hours on a Saturday or Sunday catching up and using the time to digest the different points of view and then come to an informed opinion of your own, rather than trying to absorb and understand the flood of information a wee bit at a time.  With only thirty minutes per day to spare, you're more apt to just parrot whatever it was that you heard or read the day before and found appealing which, as far as I'm concerned, is not a sound basis for wise vote casting.

Nick Stuart
Joined
May '10
Nick Stuart

 To cast a vote as an informed citizen?  Ignore the whole mess and identify someone whose opinion you trust. Ask him or her who she likes in the election. You'll save a ton of time. That's what I do in local races where the judges, school board candidates, council members, forest preserve district board members, &tc. are more numerous than grains of sand and about as distinguished and distinguishable.

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

 I've used mine time already.

Checking the browser, there are ten sites I check at least once daily.  And others I check on the weekend (more long-form, less frequently updated).  But I only have comments for you, my dear.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

Israel P.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

24 hours a day isn't enough time. I could spend that much time just trying to deeply understand what's going on in my apartment building, and still be left with doubts at the end of it.  · Mar 29 at 4:39am

They used to call people like that "gossips." · Mar 29 at 4:43am

They still do. I'm fascinated by the drama going on in the apartment above me--I don't know whose side to take, either. 

Claire Berlinski, Ed.
River: So true, Claire. It's a full-time job to really understand the enigmas, conundrums, and deliberate obfuscations of human affairs. · Mar 29 at 4:44am

It is. And I need a better system for prioritizing--and for figuring out what's really going on, as opposed to what people are good at getting into the press. 

Kevin Walker
Joined
Aug '10
Kevin Walker

Here's my routine: 1010 WINS news radio in the shower; Ricochet, The Corner, and Drudge on my Droid during the train ride into NYC; Taranto's Best of the Web Today during the train ride home; and a quick scan of Fox's Special Report on my TiVo before bed.


Joined
Oct '10
AngloCon

A productive thirty minutes might include the Daily Telegraph and Instapundit. Beyond that, your question brings two tangential thoughts to mind.  

First, If the thirty minutes may be supplemented with non-current events reading, then fiction in the form of quality literature and nonfiction in the form of history/biography leavens ones ability to contextualize snapshots of instant news on demand.  (There's this book about an "Iron Lady" that's a good example, if only I could remember what it's called.)

Second, this time deficit explains why the "elites" will never be nearly capable of executing centralized control in the manner they intend.  Did Hillary Clinton seriously call Assad a "reformer"?  I must remember to ask my friend Rafic about that.

raycon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon

As noted by

Ajax Telamônios: If you can only devote a mere 2% of your time every day to staying abreast of the news, you're likely to be woefully under- and thus uninformed.   · Mar 29 at 4:49am

I submit that except for occasionally chaotic periods, we can almost all devote substantially more of our time to learning what's going on around us than that.  Without becoming a news geek, it is possible to skip some TV, miss the big game occasionally and even pass on the occasional, choose your own favorite, distraction.  As a republican democracy, if we want to give our best to the future of our country and our kids, we invest in it.

We have so easily fallen into the lie that it is a citizens duty to let his vote be counted, and implicit in that idea is that the uniformed have equal voice in the peoples affairs.  Can't take the time to know the issues, cant be bothered investing in understanding the issues, content yourself with 30 minutes with Katie Couric, but let your voice be heard.  We cannot disenfranchise anyone, almost, but must live with the dumbed down result.  Don't have the time?  Stay home on election day.

Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 5:23am
Claire Berlinski, Ed.

AngloCon

Second, this time deficit explains why the "elites" will never be nearly capable of executing centralized control in the manner they intend.  Did Hillary Clinton seriously call Assad a "reformer"?  I must remember to ask my friend Rafic about that. · Mar 29 at 5:10am

So true. Kissinger was clearly absolutely right when he remarked that once you're in office, you're running on stockpiled intellectual capital. The terrifying thing about what's happening in the world now is that there is no way--no way, no how--that anyone could keep up with it all to the level required to make competent decisions, however well-briefed. 

Claire Berlinski, Ed.
raycon: We have so easily fallen into the lie that it is a citizens duty to let his vote be counted, and implicit in that idea is that the uniformed has equal voice in the peoples affairs.  Can't take the time to know the issues, cant be bothered investing in understanding the issues, content yourself with 30 minutes with Katie Couric, but let your voice be heard.  We cannot disenfranchise anyone, almost, but must live with the dumbed · Mar 29 at 5:21am

You know, the people I worry about most are not the dumb, but the semi-informed.

John Marzan
Joined
Oct '10
John Marzan

Read Drudge, Kaus, Althouse and Nikki Finke's Deadline.

Give up Instapundit, Ricochet, Twitter, Facebook and Everything Else.

Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 5:33am
Ajax Telamônios
Joined
Jan '11
Ajax Telamônios

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

You know, the people I worry about most are not the dumb, but the semi-informed.

And those are the ones most likely to be spending their thirty minutes watching Jon Stewart.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In