> Some people agree with me on a small scale [...] because they think these are aberrations; that underneath all this, the news is worth saving. I simply go one

> Some people agree with me on a small scale [...] because they think these are aberrations; that underneath all this, the news is worth saving. I simply go one step further: I think none of it is worthwhile. I'll be one of those people to agree "on a small scale", but I'll go one (smaller) step further. I don't think these few are aberrations, I think the vast majority of news is not worthwhile. News worth reading is the exception. > Let us look at the front page of today’s New York Times, the gold standard in news. Is it? Really? I'm not sure if this is entirely true in general but good local news seems often well worth reading for me. If it's politics, reportage on short term decisions made by local councils will affect my daily life, and are somewhat "within reach". If it's entertainment or otherwise, it's likely about something I could realistically engage with in person, or become involved in, etc. Quite a lot of local news has certain quality issues, but there are really great exceptions here in my experience.