16 ms·

Giving up reading news will make us happier

369 points by Ours90 9y ago

konart 9y ago
“Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a subtle thing. One must know how to eat, yet just think – most people don’t know how to eat at all. One must not only know what to eat, but when and how.’ (Philip Philipovich waved his fork meaningfully.) ‘And what to say while you’re eating. Yes, my dear sir. If you care about your digestion, my advice is – don’t talk about bolshevism or medicine at table. And, God forbid – never read Soviet newspapers before dinner.’ ‘M’mm . . . But there are no other newspapers.’ ‘In that case don’t read any at all. Do you know I once made thirty tests in my clinic. And what do you think? The patients who never read newspapers felt excellent. Those whom I specially made read Pravda all lost weight.” ― Mikhail Bulgakov, Heart of a Dog
- AnatMl2 9y ago
  Love this, but since the book has an anti-Soviet sentiment, I don't think we could generalize this quote. In USSR you would read only what you should and you didn't really have a choice. Freedom of press was something impossible to imagine. I cannot say that everything what we read, or choose to read today is worth reading but there is a good press, which is at times difficult to find, but you will never get to it if you don't filter.
  - radicalbyte 9y ago
    The irony is that at the limits of capitalism you find the same thing as soviet communism. Worthless news.
    - vixen99 9y ago
      Replace 'capitalism' or 'soviet communism' with X (= just about any current topic) and you'll likely get the same. Is that ironic?
  - qaq 9y ago
    The major US news outlets deteriorated to the point of being close to USSR level of bias and propaganda.
    - notfromhere 9y ago
      No they're not. If you actually believe this, no one can help you.
      - qaq 9y ago
        I see little difference CNN has clear political angle so does FOX which is basically directed by owners interests. That's a very short through to the USSR old times. If I ever turn on either one I feel that I am back to USSR. (I lived in US 1995-2004) and came back to US in 2015 the difference is very stark I would imaging when it was happening gradually it would be less noticeable vs going from 2000 +/- version to today. In USSR you had a small group of people (Politburo) controlling among other things all the media. If you take the number of people in US exerting major influence on media through ownership it's pretty much smaller number than even members of Politburo.
        notfromhere 9y ago
        I also grew up in the USSR; comparing CNN to Pravda is still stupid.
- olavk 9y ago
  Note that the context is a society where it is NOT considered desirable to lose weight!
  - konart 9y ago
    Unhealthy weight loss is never desirable.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - olavk 9y ago
      That is kind of tautological.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
akuji1993 9y ago
Kind of strange, reading that on a news site, pretty much telling you to stop using their site.
- swiley 9y ago
  One of the reasons I haven't blocked hackernews with /etc/hosts is because of it's noprocrast feature. Most of these sites know they're potentially harmful, the better ones acknowledge it and help their readers avoid the harm.
  - ckkcicgtj 9y ago
    I think op meant The Guardian being a news site.
    - akuji1993 9y ago
      Yeah, that's what I meant^^
- hyper_reality 9y ago
  I think the piece was aiming for maximum irony. Also note: "In a 2001 study two scholars in Canada (LINK) showed that comprehension declines as the number of hyperlinks in a document increases."
- jessaustin 9y ago
  In the courts, an admission against the witness's own interest is considered more reliable than other testimony.
dmichulke 9y ago
Same holds true for watching "House of Cards" and "The mechanism". If you can watch those without getting angry you probably didn't get it. With "it" I mean the unhappiness ;) Also, there should be a 2013 in the title
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
brownbat 9y ago
Original full essay in German: http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat-full/ http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat-full/
- pasta 9y ago
  And in English: http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news-diet/ http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news-diet/ I read this years ago and stopped reading and watching news. Never missed a thing. Important things you will hear one way or another and the rest is just noise. Loud distracting noise.
  - JepZ 9y ago
    Did you notice the evil word in the URL of this website before you posted your comment?
    - pasta 9y ago
      I did. I'm very aware that lately more and more posts on HN have the same depth as main stream news (what the article is about). But what I like about HN is that the comment section is full of insight about the subject sometimes even debunking the article that was posted. So yes.
      - JepZ 9y ago
        I didn't mean to offend you, in fact, I am trying to consume less 'news' myself since a few years. And while I agree that the HN comments hold a lot of high quality information, I see that HN, in general, has a similar effect on my concentration and productivity as other news/media sites. So I don't try to not read HN at all, but to become aware of the effect it has on me and limit my news consumption to a healthy dose ;-)
- swah 9y ago
  From the same author of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16248196-the-art-of-thinking-clearly https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16248196-the-art-of-thin...
some_account 9y ago
Haven't watched the news in at least 5 years. Actually I haven't watched TV in the last 5 years even. So I don't have ads bombarding me, or fear and propaganda coming in every day. Highly recommended. You have one life. Make sure it counts as a happy one.
- paulgb 9y ago
  Ditto. I was also surprised how much happier I was when I deleted all the news apps off my phone. I realized that there's really no good reason for most people to get real-time news alerts except to feed an addiction.
  - ragequitta 9y ago
    I'm confused. How are y'all saying these things on a site called... Hacker.. news?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      It may be called HN, but most of what gets posted here is not really "news".
      - gtirloni 9y ago
        Yes. I would categorize as "bad news" (or "news news") all the FB outrage, policital stuff, the Waymo lawsuit, etc. Bad as in getting to read them for very small content almost everyday doesn't help. On the other hand, HN is very useful for keeping up with developments in my area, interesting technical articles, insightful discussions. HN is usually not "news news".
        ragequitta 9y ago
        Somewhat agree as I'm not as depressed as when I'm on reddit. But just in the past few weeks we've had things like: active shooter on youtube campus, all the facebook doom and gloom, cell phones cause cancer in male rats (I think I got that from hacker news), China's social credit system, etc. I have a friend who actually doesn't follow the news (I'm not sure he knows what cambridge analytica is yet) and he tells me all the time how doom and gloom I am just from reading hacker news.
brownbat 9y ago
I just listened to a podcast with Laurie Santos, all about her course on happiness research, which quickly became the most popular course ever taught at Yale. https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136 https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136 A shortened version of the course is available on Coursera: https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well-being https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well-being It's surprising how much the research validates things we all intuitively know or suspect about happiness, but routinely fail to put into practice. Exercise. Sleep. Mindfulness. Human interactions. Have some free time. "Avoid news" seems like it might fit too.
- ragequitta 9y ago
  Thanks for this. Watched the course intro and I'm definitely enrolling for April 9th.
w23j 9y ago
What do you guys do if you need a short break from work? Between tasks or if I have finished something mentally demanding, I will often skim some news sites or hacker news. Any recommendation what else to do as a quick break between programming tasks?
- icebraining 9y ago
  I prepare a cup of tea and stare out the window.
  - dehef 9y ago
    Yeah I just go outside pretending taking a mental cigarette, And water is better than tea also
    - icebraining 9y ago
      water is better than tea also Not for my enjoyment. Though by "tea" I mean an infusion, not necessarily tea itself. I actually prefer mint.
    - haggy 9y ago
      > water is better than tea also What are you basing this off of? How are the comparisons being done? Tea has many benefits provided its not "fake" sugar-riddled tea. Don't make a comment telling someone else to "stop doing something" without any context about why you're suggesting it.
- paulgb 9y ago
  I think a lot of the (very valid) points in the article apply more to mainstream news than industry-focused news like HN. That said, https://news.ycombinator.com/best https://news.ycombinator.com/best acts as a good low-pass filter for the "wrong" type of news.
- lemonberry 9y ago
  On a recommendation from someone somewhere I pick up a book, typically fiction, to get my brain somewhere else. Or a brisk walk.
mark_l_watson 9y ago
This is what I have been telling family and friends for years! Life is about personal connections and leading a productive life. News ingestion is harmful to both activities. Ironic, Guardian warns us about news consumption and I donate $5/month to them because next to NPR they are the best news source for me.
JepZ 9y ago
The Guardian just publishes that story because know we can't resist :D
coldcode 9y ago
Right and when the secret police come to your door you will be surprised. Wait, you say, when did we get taken over by a dictator? What happened to our democracy? Why is my internet suddenly riddled with NO everywhere? How come my job vanished? Why are my children suddenly forced to eat dirt? Why do I live in a crime infested neighborhood that used to be safe? Why did evil people destroy my environment? Oh yeah, I didn't pay attention. It's not News you should be looking for, but information, and that's the real problem. If you ignore what is going on in the world because you don't want o hear anything hard you may be blissful, but you are just not involved, and all of us will suffer because you did not care to participate. If finding your information in "News" which is determined to give you false information is bad, ignoring what is going on in life is worse, because the only people who will change things are the very people you don't want doing it. I remember voting in a bond election in a city of 500,000. Only a few hundred voted. We spent $50M of the people's money because they didn't care. Ignoring News is fine, ignoring what is going on is not.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Hence the penultimate paragraph, no? "Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too."
  - openasocket 9y ago
    Which seemed like a non-sequitur to me. How is investigative journalism not news? Virtually every one of his arguments applies equally to investigative journalism, and the fact that he explicitly overrides those arguments demonstrates their weakness.
- JohnBooty 9y ago
  > It's not News you should be looking for, but information, and that's the real problem This is an excellent distinction! > I remember voting in a bond election in a city of 500,000. Only a few hundred voted. We spent $50M of the people's money because they didn't care. Ignoring News is fine, ignoring what is going on is not. I'm guilty of not following my own advice here, but anybody who feels utterly overwhelmed and powerless by national/world politics can definitely be involved or at least informed at the local level!
sureaboutthis 9y ago
When I worked in television news, long ago, it was under the wing of the independent news department. TV news, now, is under the programming department and beholding to marketing. Thus, you'll find "news" stories about products being introduced--even promoted--by "news stories" and pretty boys and girls. Especially on local TV shows where money is tighter and few stations employ full-time news personnel to actually dig into a story and are only "rip-and-readers" as we called them back in the day.
lovelearning 9y ago
Giving up political news didn't make me happier, but it certainly reduced that niggling feeling that everything is headed towards doom. It's said that "an informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy", and that's probably why many of us consume so much political news. However, I feel seeing the news and expressing outrage privately or on social media have become low-effort excuses for not doing things that can actually improve our governments. Outrage does not affect anything except our own peace of mind and health. As far as I can tell, atleast in my country, only two things lead towards any real change - 1)protests and 2)money. Either I should put in the effort to organize people and protest, or I should spend money trying to influence decision makers. Since I suck at the first and lack in the second, I decided to be apathetic towards everything political.
- gtirloni 9y ago
  The average citizen (not organizing protests and keeping away from fruitless online outrage) can probably catch up with all relevant political news in 1-2 hours/month of concentrated effort. I've started doing just that and it has had great impact on my mental health. I don't feel any less prepared to make an impact when the time comes (elections, sporadic talks with friends and family). Should I be more engaged? Surely. But I just look at all of it and think it's a necessary evil and I'm happy other people feel more inclined to participate heavily. I just don't have the mental skills to keep up and be sane.
  - sk1pper 9y ago
    What sources do you use to catch up?
    - gtirloni 9y ago
      It's highly centered on my country so I'm not sure it's of use to a global audience. But it's a mix of filtering actual facts from newspaper articles on both sides of the spectrum (they usually carry very little information and mostly repeat words to fill up screen space), then check a few respected journalists publishing analysis after a few weeks (again, from left/right). They will be biased, like anything, but there's a kernel of Truth even when I disagree. So that's useful for informing my thoughts.
cirrus-clouds 9y ago
Of course you need to read the news. Select your news sources carefully and limit or eliminate your exposure to social media discussions of the news. I understand the sentiment that news can make you depressed, but reading the news can also spur people to act positively in a multitude of ways. When a natural disaster strikes and the news is filled with stories of anguish and despair in the aftermath, people donate to charities because of the news reports they've seen. Imagine if we never read the news because such stories were too depressing? Imagine if this young student had never seen a harrowing news report about the Syrian war? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968
- bovermyer 9y ago
  I've become very jaded about the world in general largely because I used to read the news every day. News that I actually care about is the stuff I learn by talking to people in person. It's also a lot less likely to be negative news. Then, once it's been established that I care about it, I'll do research about it - whether that's talking to friends about personal news, or reading online about a new bill that would affect people I care about.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  > eliminate your exposure to social media discussions of the news. Sadly most news has become a newsfeed. CNN, Fox, etc are all newsfeeds-breaking news! new update! new notification! here are some pundits talking about it. The reality is we need news-we don't need a 24/7 news cycle.
- base698 9y ago
  You may read this tariff story and think, what’s the big deal? The story’s not bad. Isn’t it reasonable to talk about effects of current events in this way? I answer, absolutely not. Such speculation is a complete waste of time. It’s useless. It’s bullshit on the front page of the Times. http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/
oftenwrong 9y ago
Also relevant, Aaron Swartz' I Hate the News post: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews Basically: Less news, more books.
donw 9y ago
It's not just news. I cut out mainstream media several years ago, and noted a definite improvement in my psychological well-being. As of the end of last year, I stopped engaging in mainstream social media. So much better. I still keep a Facebook account for Messenger and Events, but don't post, read timelines, or participate. Not only do I have more time to read books and learn new things -- made pita bread from scratch for the first time this week -- but I am in general, notably happier and more focused. I suspect that information hygiene is going to be one of the great underrated skills of the digital age. Hacker News is an exception that I indulge in maybe once a week or two -- today's the day! -- as most of what ends up on here is worthwhile, and the moderation team has done an excellent job of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high. Quora also tends to be good, between Be Nice Be Respectful (BNBR), and the Real Name policy, although they recently went downhill by interleaving the standard cesspool that is mainstream news in the Quora feed. Reddit... there are a few gold nuggets (/r/writingprompts), but overall it's just a crapfest.
- nealdt 9y ago
  I like your term 'information hygiene'. Very relevant to staying focussed.
- darepublic 9y ago
  I feel like the signal to noise ratio has suffered in recent weeks because of the mainstream media attack on tech companies
  - FLUX-YOU 9y ago
    We've been in breaking news hell ever since Trump was elected and because eleventy billion scandals are being found.
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      Hate to point it out but the 24 hour news cycle and hell of continuous breaking news predates the Trump presidency by several decades. I recall being disgusted by it during the late nineties when cable news started being a big thing, but it probably started even before that.
flr03 9y ago
If being happy is your ultimate life goal then it's probably right. Although the quest for happiness should not be the only thing we work for. Personally I think this is a very selfish way of thinking. Being informed and capable of logical thinking considering your environment is equally important. That said, we should seek for good quality news and I agree with the article on this point about investigation journalism. But this is like research, it is essential, has a cost and not all the time succeeds. As a citizen it's a duty to be well informed so we can participate in democracy efficiently (Quoting Greek philosophers here).
- tvanantwerp 9y ago
  This assumes that consuming the news equates to being well informed. I certainly doubt that assumption. Journalism relating to areas I know well is often woefully inaccurate, if it even is reporting rather than opinion. And keeping in mind the Gell-Mann Effect, I should probably not give the stories about topics beyond my expertise the benefit of the doubt.
- BaronSamedi 9y ago
  Almost everyone would agree that being informed is important. The question is whether the news leads to being informed. Many would argue that daily news consumption has the opposite effect.
ponderatul 9y ago
It's great to see this in the Guardian. I use some of these publications as a litmus test for when a concept has finally gained broad appeal.
return0 9y ago
but what is life without drama?
randomsearch 9y ago
I think that being ignorant of current events in the world around you is irresponsible and selfish. It undermines democracy and prevents you from addressing problems in society where you could make a difference. A better suggestion is to focus on higher quality news sources: I'd recommend Reuters (try the iOS app) and the Economist, and Channel 4 News in the UK.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > It undermines democracy and prevents you from addressing problems in society where you could make a difference. There are plenty of people undermining democracy while being well aware of what's happening around them. Moot point.
  - randomsearch 9y ago
    Because another person is doing something bad does not allow you to absolve yourself of social responsibility.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      My point is having access of information is not a useful variable to define enlightment.
ekianjo 9y ago
> happier Seeking happiness is a trap in itself though. This has been extensively discussed by centuries of philosophers. Happiness is transitory and can never be sustained.
- sethammons 9y ago
  What counts as sustained? Does a bad day, week, month, or year disrupt it? Or is a year or decade of general happiness mean it is sustained? Does it have to last until your death? Maybe it requires the context of your first sentence about seeking happiness. For myself, I would not say I seek it, but that I chose it. I feel I've been generally happy nearly always. Sure, there have been stresses, losses, tragedies, tears, and such. There have been extended periods of feelings of inadequacy and of being trapped. Yet, even through all such events and periods, I'd say I tend to be happy. And the last major part of a decade has been the most fulfilling and blessed part of my life yet. Sure, it could come crashing down. Or it could get even better! I chose to be happy with where I have been, where I am at, and look forward to where I'll go.
trisimix 9y ago
Seems like an uninformed population will be even more umhappy when they are inevitably taken advantage of.
- simonh 9y ago
  I’d really recommend reading the article. I think it addresses this issue very well.
monster_group 9y ago
The problem is that some news is relevant. One of my friends has given up reading or watching any kind of news altogether. At first this seems impressive but when I asked him about how far his house was from the wildfire, he was like "Umm - what wildfire?". He was oblivious to the fact that country's biggest wildfire was just three miles away from his house. He is a very smart and successful guy and it really jolted me how a guy like him could be oblivious to such an important event that could impact his life. The reason - he doesn't watch news.
- slaydemons 9y ago
  But he did find out since you told him. That's the whole reason you don't need to read news because if something in the news is actually important you will find out from people talking about it.
- roryisok 9y ago
  Three miles? Did he also give up looking out the window?
  - jensvdh 9y ago
    Or talking to people in general? That seems incredibly odd.
    - monster_group 9y ago
      I asked him about if he could not see the smoke. He said the wind direction took the smoke away from his house and some hills obstructed his view. He had just moved into the neighborhood so he wasn't friends with the neighbors quite yet.
      - jackhack 9y ago
        Wow! I would think the logjam of people stuffing their cars with possessions and getting the hell out of there would have been a clue that something, possibly, was happening that might warrant some further investigation. There's apparently a fine line between "not ardently following the news" and "not paying attention at all."
fredley 9y ago
I gave up news last year. It was really hard, I instinctively and habitually checked various news sources, so it was hard to fight this back. I've also removed my Facebook news feed. Now all I consume are HN and Twitter (from which I cull anything political or current affairsy). I have a subscription to Delayed Gratification[1], and am a lot more content now than I used to be. 1: https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
habosa 9y ago
For a less radical step than giving up news completely, try just giving up 'push' news. For me this meant disabling my Google Now feed, turning off NYTimes notifications, unfollowing all non-human accounts on Facebook, and unsubscribing from some email digests. Oh and check out the 'noprocrast' settings on Hacker News. Now I read the news exactly when I want to and from sources I enjoy. I still probably know more than I'd like to about the whims of the president, but I notice that I'm probably 20% happier and 5% less informed than when I started. A good trade.
openasocket 9y ago
I found this article really unconvincing. It lashes out at random things like the number of hyperlinks in an article, and has completely unsubstantiated claims like the following: "Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed." This claim stops just short of saying watching the news causes ADHD, from a self-styled "self-help guru" with no expertise in neurology or psychology, without any sort of citation. There's also specious logic like this: "I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter" I also find the question "Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your life" to be poorly founded. Knowledge is a good unto itself, and simply raising awareness of issues can lead to action, even if the majority do nothing concrete to help. Simply seeing the change in polling data can cause politicians to enact legislation (though, obviously, donating to a lobbying group or contacting your representative are more effective). Moreover, I think the fundamental idea asserted here is dangerous. Limiting your news intake is one thing, but forgoing it entirely?. The cornerstone of democracy is an informed public. Keeping people aware of the actions being taken at and highest and lowest levels of government is the only way to keep it accountable. And on a personal note I think it is immoral for people who are relatively well off to ignore the problems plaguing others.
- arrythur 9y ago
  "The cornerstone of democracy is an informed public." Absolutely agree with this. We have to elect our representatives based off of the knowledge we have of their actions and the policies they hold. Covering your ears and closing your eyes just makes you a less informed voter when the time comes. I think the need to shut out the news from one's life is perfectly acceptable, but at the very least, one should read some headlines at least once a week to get an idea of whats going on outside of their own personal world.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
KirinDave 9y ago
Look, I think this is great and all, but I'm pretty skeptical of this chant, "If the news bothers you so much because of what you're reading, just stop reading. It's not like you can change it." Obviously, events that already happened can't be changed. But a lot of what upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy. These things are changeable, and direct (and/or collective) action can change them. When you're in a position where by default things go your way (dominant gender, dominant sexual orientation, dominant phenotype/race in local community) then yeah, you can just disengage and suspect that things are ticking over nicely for you. That's not the case for people outside this happy intersection. It certainly reads to me, as someone out of one of those bounds like you're telling me to disengage while people actively trying to shape law to marginalize me certainly won't. Further, resistance to propaganda and misinformation is not an attribute of mentality. It's a combination of learned skills and _context_. By yielding all current contextual information, you are severely damaging your ability to process current events. This is in sharp contrast to the arguments put forth here and in the article that often lament the lack of skills (e.g., statistical thinking) that you can both learn and maintain in isolation. I agree that controlling your media consumption is important and some folks (including myself) sometimes go off on media benders, getting very stressed. But the second assumption (that it's pointless) is wrong. My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support.
- edgarvaldes 9y ago
  I check news once a week, sometimes less. I mean reading newspapers, opinion articles, news on television, the subreddit of my country. The most relevant news come to me through comments from friends or family, in the after-dinner talks or meetings. With that combination, I am well informed of current events, and I am not overwhelmed by what I consider repetitive or irrelevant information.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    That's fascinating, but neither the subject of the article nor my comment. Thank you.
- 9y ago
stochastic_monk 9y ago
"But at least we still have a hand with which to switch channels or turn off altogether. I tell my lecture audiences to never, ever watch local TV news." - Ray Bradbury, 1996 Playboy Interview
scottmsul 9y ago
> Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your life, Yes, there was an article on HN a couple weeks ago. Pork treated with nitrates increases the chance of colon cancer as much as smoking increases the chance of lung cancer (but pork treated with salt is ok).
- gowan 9y ago
  interesting... can you provide a link?
  - avtar 9y ago
    Possibly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    I think it's reasonable to make at least some attempt before asking… http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pork+nitrates+hacker+news http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pork+nitrates+hacker+news
- rossdavidh 9y ago
  Hacker News definitely seems to work better than conventional news sources, as far as filtering to what is actually informative.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Mainstream media/news is the fast food of information. It's super cheap, easy to get, and it gives you a quick high like you get from all the sugar and fat in fast food, but you'll invetably feel worse after doing so. Cooking a healthier meal by yourself and doing your own independent research and investigations takes much more time, but also has a much greater reward.
Yetanfou 9y ago
Mainstream media in my part of the world - north-western Europe in general, Sweden and the Netherlands to be more specific - seems to have forgotten that it is the fiduciary duty of the news media to keep watch over those in power, instead turning their gaze on those who oppose the government position. While some critical journalism still exists in the main stream media, especially in Sweden this has mostly moved to what for some reason is called 'alternative media' Given this lack of critical opinions in main stream media it is rather pointless to rely on them to keep informed. The 'alternative' media often offers a more critical voice but that voice often comes with an agenda and an accompanying myopic view which makes it as unwise to rely on any single 'alternative' source as it is to rely on main stream sources. The solution to this conundrum is most emphatically not to 'stick your head in the sand' (i.e. giving up on reading news) as that just makes you less informed and with that less prepared to make rational decisions. This goes from the small - missing the small article hidden on page 7 in the local paper where the council declares its intention to close down the school you planned to send your children to because they claim to need the building for other purposes (this happened where I live, those who did read the news gathered to protest leading to the decision to be suspended) - to the large ('brexit', 'Russia is the new/old enemy', etc). Is there an easy solution? No, I don't think there is. Finding truth in the media is like finding a needle in a haystack full of pins. What I do is use a news reader (the News app for Nextcloud, think 'Google Reader' but under private regime) with a select list of subscriptions from both 'alternative' as well as main stream sources. Reading the headlines gives an idea of what is being reported, comparing how what is being reported between sources gives an impression of what really happens or happened.
enraged_camel 9y ago
I'm of the firm opinion that it is everyone's civic duty to stay informed of what is going on around them, even if news coverage is negative and biased. The alternative - sticking one's head in the sand - is selfish. In the short run it can make you happier and give you the ability to focus on your personal affairs, but in the long run it makes you more and more isolated and contributes to the degradation of the social fabric. You don't have to remain immersed in breaking news for hours and hours, but even 15-20 minutes browsing headlines and skimming through select articles can go a long way towards what I call "civic awareness".
newscracker 9y ago
I stopped getting the newspaper more than a year ago, and have consciously reduced using Facebook (which was already limited to specific topics related to "greater good", to put it in words that don't expose too much). Since I don't have cable at home, there's nothing blaring in the background with a regurgitation of the same stuff and flashy animations about some "breaking news" that's mostly of no practical value. Many a times it just increases frustration and stress over things you don't generally care about or can't really do something about. I don't mind not having anything to gossip about with co-workers. There's enough going on in general anyway, without mainstream news adding to it. I've seen that life does actually get a bit difficult in certain ways when one doesn't keep up with news, especially anything related to taxation and other policies (related to real estate, automobiles). So I still check a few online news sites once every two days or so for the headlines alone. In general, staying away from these sources reduces what I feel as "internal agitation" that usually bleeds into many other activities (while being in the background). I would anyday recommend people to get off standard cable TV and also news, and instead making choices that are a bit more involved. The mental peace thus obtained alone is worth it! P.S.: Slightly related is giving up surfing the web itself, which my mind (that's been modified to have a low attention span due to years on the web) would probably benefit a lot more from.
hemantv 9y ago
My biggest question is how do you keep up if you cut news. I would definitely like to quit checking HN also but FOmo of new technologies keep me coming.
- Sileni 9y ago
  Set aside a specific time each week to scan the headlines and pick out the most interesting. For HN or most content aggregation sites, if something is particularly important, it'll stay on the first 5-6 pages for more than a week. Scan the first few pages, pick out 5-10 articles, read for an hour or two. You'll be at least 80% as informed as if you had checked in every day. This also lets you deep dive into any of the ideas if they're particularly interesting, because it's such a small list of mental options. One of my worst problems is ending up with a notebook page of 40 items that I found interesting. I never go back and learn more about them because I can't really decide what's the most interesting. Cull options ruthlessly until you have a manageable set of options.
- _rpd 9y ago
  http://www.hackernewsletter.com/ http://www.hackernewsletter.com/ does a good job.
kev6168 9y ago
Regarding news, I have had this self-imposed rule: * Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and no clicking links.* Implementation details: I keep around 10 news sites in a bookmark folder. Through out a day, I right click on the folder and open all of the sites at once, then spend on average 5 to 10 seconds on each site. Do this three or four times each day. Been pretty happy doing this for a few years now.
- ambrosite 9y ago
  "Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and no clicking links." I like that rule. One quick check of the news home page should be enough to tell you if there is anything truly important going on that requires your immediate attention.
Rotdhizon 9y ago
I see many people here who have said it, and I will say it; I haven't watched any mainstream news(Fox, CNN, ABC, etc) in years. All it is, is negativity and deception. For the most part, I don't care about what is going on. I get my fill of major events from browsing reddit and HN, and even then I just read the comments, rarely the article. I've never used FB as a source of information, that sounds about as bad of a source as you can get. Back when I used to watch the news, it was always the same. Something like >> Weather >> Death >> Death >> Shooting >> Crime reports >> Crime reports >> Sports >> Empty feel good story(Guy saves kitten, guy donates to charity, etc) >> Ending They focus so much on negativity and toxic behaviors, it's depressing. I don't want to wake up in the mornings and first thing I see is how many people died the previous day from local crimes. Even worse are the minor crimes where people who might not even be guilty get their picture blown up on screen and automatically deemed criminals prior to being convicted. "Man who might have stolen a car is charged, no evidence has yet been presented. So here is his picture, links to his social media accounts, his address, his entire life story. If you ever see him in the future, consider him a criminal" It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore. Every major news outlet leans towards one side or the other. The stations that do try an report unbiased get their funding cut and put in financial ruin.
- 0x445442 9y ago
  Yes... In general I think we're all too concerned about things WAY beyond our spheres of influence. My wife, though she's gotten better, tends to get too emotionally invested in situations abroad. I try to explain to her that I'm not dispassionate but that I realize we live in an imperfect world where bad things are happening all the time and just because people on TV or wherever are bringing it to her attention doesn't mean it's any worse than a similar situation happening some place else that she's not hearing about. The problem is when folks hear about all these negative events they tend to want government to tinker until we reach a utopia where nothing bad happens anymore. The tough question though; how do we create/maintain an optimally informed electorate?
- ch4s3 9y ago
  > It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore. I'm not so sure that "unbiased information" is a thing that really exists. For example, you would like to know the outside temperature, so you check online. That information comes from a sensor somewhere near where you happen to be. But who placed the sensor there, and why was that location chosen? Was the sensor calibrated? How was it originally designed? What choices were made in the design process, and how did the engineer's biases shape the final product. You could keep going. Obviously, that's a bit absurd, but it's relevant to news. Even a simple reporting of facts about a car crash can be view through numerous lenses. Initial fact gathering by police and emergency workers all add their own perspectives and inputs to the "raw data", and then that has to go through a reporter who is also a person with their own world view, opinions, and experiences. Do they use the word "crash", or "accident"? Both words heavily bias the reporting of a car coming into contact with a guardrail at a particular speed. It would be hard to strip all bias from something so simple. For murkier issues, like the actions of nation states, it is even harder to"stick to the facts". The facts may not even be clear. The data you include in a report has to be curated somehow, and that can't be free from bias. You have to select sources, and again those are decisions made by people. Unbiased information is in my opinion a myth invented largely to discredit the idea that reporting is useful even with bias and that there can exist objective facts. Perhaps there is a problem of propaganda masquerading as news, or heavily biased reporting pretending to be wholly objective, but that's a different thing. Ultimately it's our responsibility as consumers of information to look at the information presented to us with a critical eye.
0x4f3759df 9y ago
News is like art. Anything can be defined as art, anything can be defined as news. Elon Musk tweeted? Lets wrap the tweet in a fluff burrito... Although, Tesla stocks been seeing some tough times, today Elon tweeted X..., in conclusion ... That passes as news, but its just drivel.
letslightafire 9y ago
Most of the times when I watch the "news" it isn't to get more informed, it's more as something to watch, get entertained, and have open in the background. For this reason I like watching local news better as the stories they have are much more focused than CNN or FOX's 100th story about Trump tweets. Most people attack local news but I seem that they have more integrity than the big named channels if you manage to slog through the crappy syndicated ones. Thankfully Sinclair doesn't own any stations in my area. It's nice to at least have news that is more compact and relates more to your life. Traffic, weather, daily minor politics that won't matter outside of your 50 mile radius. All of these are things that remind me that the area I live in is living and breathing and not just a set-piece for the larger and grander story that most national news medias cover.
austinl 9y ago
“And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, - we need never read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?” Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854)
RIMR 9y ago
>Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. Okay... Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected representatives about policies that matter to me. Consuming local news has kept me informed of important happenings in my community - including events that I attended and consider my self better off for going. Consuming industry news has kept me up-to-date on the things that I need to stay aware of at my Cybersecurity job. I find that consuming 24 hour TV news, or consuming and sharing lots of hyper-partisan political news is emotionally taxing. I don't do much of that. I occasionally watch my local news, but mostly consume local newspapers and neighborhood blogs to keep informed of what is happening in my community. Everything else I read online, and I do consume news pretty much every day. I really don't see the point in outright refusing to stay informed of current events. Just don't overindulge in the news/entertainment nonsense that masquerades as real journalism now days.
- hueving 9y ago
  >Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected representatives about policies that matter to me. Give an example. Otherwise it's a post-hoc hand-waving justification. Also include how you meaningfully communicated with your representative about the issue (e.g. writing a complaint email about the popular news of the day doesn't count).
  - RIMR 9y ago
    I wrote to my governor and my districts state reps about making Net Neutrality Washington State law after the FCC repealed those rules. My state is now planning to pass a state law, despite federal law prohibiting us from doing so. I didn't do that alone, but if nobody was paying attention to the news and doing their part, it likely wouldn't have happened.
    - slyall 9y ago
      Where did you hear about that story? TV News, Radio News or the local newspaper?
Tempest1981 9y ago
Slight tangent, but I look at how much time and energy is expended in the tech comment forums, where fanboys argue religiously: Android vs iOS, Windows vs macOS vs Linux, Intel vs AMD vs ARM, Tesla vs Uber vs Waymo. Eventually it degrades into CompanyX sucks; no CompanyY sucks more. I wish I could encourage the fanboys to go out and create something awesome, or be part of something constructive. Vs watching and criticizing from the sidelines.
dv35z 9y ago
Goal: - Stay informed about important world events (for yourself AND for social reasons) - Reduce time & attention spent on "waste" news Challenges: - Most news "as it happens" is inaccurate - Much of the news is colored with story-like "narrative", rather than "just the facts, Jack". - News websites have perverse incentives (attract eyeballs, provoke outrage, etc) - A lot of attention in MSM is paid to irrelevant topics (e.g. personal interest, odd crimes, etc). - Heavy Biases present Solution(s): - Postpone / let it soak: If you see a news article you're interested in, withstand the dopamine - send the article to Pocket. Set aside regular time (end of day, or once a week) to review all postponed news. With any luck, the news story has developed more accurate info - Use non commercial news sources. Example: At the beginning of month, review the WIKIPEDIA current events portal. The assumption is that the news articles & topics there are likely "aged" slightly, and more factual. Examples: News LAST month (Likely fairly relevant & accurate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_20.... News THIS month (reasonably relevant "breaking news"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_20... "Aggregated" news for the YEAR (read the sections by month): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March If you spot-check the above links, you can see that it really does "cover" most of the news that's front of mind in the major news outlets. The difference is, you can click in - read to the depth you prefer - and generally avoid some of the major editorializing / narrative building.
your-nanny 9y ago
There is value in staying informed. However the news cycle ain't healthy. Slow news is the thing to do. The old weekly or monthly news summaries will increase the snr. Or Wikipedia's news entries.
mattbert 9y ago
Ignorance is bliss for the individual, but has steep consequences for society.
chris_va 9y ago
Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have to admit, it's pretty wonderful. And somewhat ironic, given that I used to be the TL of Google News 10 years ago. I still read The Economist weekly, come to HN occasionally, and hear about important/local/political events from friends. I don't, however, have to hear the constant doom bombardment that the media has evolved to produce. Stepping back really highlights how toxic the news can be. We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. Access to the internet and globalization has made people (real people, not the loudest selected subset you see in media) genuinely care about each other everywhere in the world I have traveled. Yet you would never think that just looking at typical media. It isn't a perfect society, and horrible situations still exist that deserve attention, but that will always be true. We still have enormous strides we can make, and that struggle is an important aspect of our society, especially in defending against erosions of personal freedoms. Honestly, though, we are doing really well compared with 100 years ago.
- Diederich 9y ago
  > We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now
- abrahamepton 9y ago
  Hey, Chris! I largely agree with you, and think reading things like the Economist on a weekly basis is salutary - it's weekly, so building a reading habit around it doesn't lead to constant panic. It's broad, covers a lot of what's going on around the world and isn't as obsessed with the trivialities American media focuses on. As a guy who used to work on Google News with you, I always appreciated the effort to get more global news and more global sources integrated into peoples' reading experiences. Where I disagree is that I think being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention so we can vote as informed participants, and I don't know how to do that without reading the news. And it's important to be clear that there's a lot still wrong with the world. The climate is in crisis; more humans are in slavery today than at any time in human history; we're in the midst of one of the great migrant/refugee crises of the modern world. Importantly, many media outlets largely ignore those things, but not all media does.
hitekker 9y ago
The title of the article "News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier", but the HN headline is "Giving up reading news will make us happier". The former says that not reading the news is individually beneficial, whereas latter implies that it is socially beneficial. Those are distinct enough qualities that, when coupled with missing "(2013)", inclines me to believe that the current headline is too misleading. It should be changed to reflect its source.
jwcacces 9y ago
Ignorance is strength
mankash666 9y ago
I read and consume copious amounts of news and I'm perfectly happy. Reason - I curate/choose carefully what I consume.
jancsika 9y ago
> Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. Up to date reports about hurricane Irma's path. Did I do it? Did I just when the internet?
xivzgrev 9y ago
A bold piece. I'm glad he was allowed to publish it.
Digit-Al 9y ago
Somewhat ironic that a newspaper is reproducing an article saying you shouldn't read newspapers :-)

369 points by Ours90 9y ago

“Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a subtle thing. One must know how to eat, yet just think – most people don’t know how to eat at all. One must not only know what to eat, but when and how.’ (Philip Philipovich waved his fork meaningfully.) ‘And what to say while you’re eating. Yes, my dear sir. If you care about your digestion, my advice is – don’t talk about bolshevism or medicine at table. And, God forbid – never read Soviet newspapers before dinner.’ ‘M’mm . . . But there are no other newspapers.’ ‘In that case don’t read any at all. Do you know I once made thirty tests in my clinic. And what do you think? The patients who never read newspapers felt excellent. Those whom I specially made read Pravda all lost weight.” ― Mikhail Bulgakov, Heart of a Dog

AnatMl2 9y ago
Love this, but since the book has an anti-Soviet sentiment, I don't think we could generalize this quote. In USSR you would read only what you should and you didn't really have a choice. Freedom of press was something impossible to imagine. I cannot say that everything what we read, or choose to read today is worth reading but there is a good press, which is at times difficult to find, but you will never get to it if you don't filter.
- radicalbyte 9y ago
  The irony is that at the limits of capitalism you find the same thing as soviet communism. Worthless news.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Replace 'capitalism' or 'soviet communism' with X (= just about any current topic) and you'll likely get the same. Is that ironic?
- qaq 9y ago
  The major US news outlets deteriorated to the point of being close to USSR level of bias and propaganda.
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    No they're not. If you actually believe this, no one can help you.
    - qaq 9y ago
      I see little difference CNN has clear political angle so does FOX which is basically directed by owners interests. That's a very short through to the USSR old times. If I ever turn on either one I feel that I am back to USSR. (I lived in US 1995-2004) and came back to US in 2015 the difference is very stark I would imaging when it was happening gradually it would be less noticeable vs going from 2000 +/- version to today. In USSR you had a small group of people (Politburo) controlling among other things all the media. If you take the number of people in US exerting major influence on media through ownership it's pretty much smaller number than even members of Politburo.
      - notfromhere 9y ago
        I also grew up in the USSR; comparing CNN to Pravda is still stupid.
olavk 9y ago
Note that the context is a society where it is NOT considered desirable to lose weight!
- konart 9y ago
  Unhealthy weight loss is never desirable.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - olavk 9y ago
    That is kind of tautological.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

akuji1993 9y ago

Kind of strange, reading that on a news site, pretty much telling you to stop using their site.

swiley 9y ago
One of the reasons I haven't blocked hackernews with /etc/hosts is because of it's noprocrast feature. Most of these sites know they're potentially harmful, the better ones acknowledge it and help their readers avoid the harm.
- ckkcicgtj 9y ago
  I think op meant The Guardian being a news site.
  - akuji1993 9y ago
    Yeah, that's what I meant^^
hyper_reality 9y ago
I think the piece was aiming for maximum irony. Also note: "In a 2001 study two scholars in Canada (LINK) showed that comprehension declines as the number of hyperlinks in a document increases."
jessaustin 9y ago
In the courts, an admission against the witness's own interest is considered more reliable than other testimony.

dmichulke 9y ago

Same holds true for watching "House of Cards" and "The mechanism". If you can watch those without getting angry you probably didn't get it. With "it" I mean the unhappiness ;) Also, there should be a 2013 in the title

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

brownbat 9y ago

Original full essay in German: http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat-full/ http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat-full/

pasta 9y ago
And in English: http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news-diet/ http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news-diet/ I read this years ago and stopped reading and watching news. Never missed a thing. Important things you will hear one way or another and the rest is just noise. Loud distracting noise.
- JepZ 9y ago
  Did you notice the evil word in the URL of this website before you posted your comment?
  - pasta 9y ago
    I did. I'm very aware that lately more and more posts on HN have the same depth as main stream news (what the article is about). But what I like about HN is that the comment section is full of insight about the subject sometimes even debunking the article that was posted. So yes.
    - JepZ 9y ago
      I didn't mean to offend you, in fact, I am trying to consume less 'news' myself since a few years. And while I agree that the HN comments hold a lot of high quality information, I see that HN, in general, has a similar effect on my concentration and productivity as other news/media sites. So I don't try to not read HN at all, but to become aware of the effect it has on me and limit my news consumption to a healthy dose ;-)
swah 9y ago
From the same author of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16248196-the-art-of-thinking-clearly https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16248196-the-art-of-thin...

some_account 9y ago

Haven't watched the news in at least 5 years. Actually I haven't watched TV in the last 5 years even. So I don't have ads bombarding me, or fear and propaganda coming in every day. Highly recommended. You have one life. Make sure it counts as a happy one.

paulgb 9y ago
Ditto. I was also surprised how much happier I was when I deleted all the news apps off my phone. I realized that there's really no good reason for most people to get real-time news alerts except to feed an addiction.
- ragequitta 9y ago
  I'm confused. How are y'all saying these things on a site called... Hacker.. news?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    It may be called HN, but most of what gets posted here is not really "news".
    - gtirloni 9y ago
      Yes. I would categorize as "bad news" (or "news news") all the FB outrage, policital stuff, the Waymo lawsuit, etc. Bad as in getting to read them for very small content almost everyday doesn't help. On the other hand, HN is very useful for keeping up with developments in my area, interesting technical articles, insightful discussions. HN is usually not "news news".
      - ragequitta 9y ago
        Somewhat agree as I'm not as depressed as when I'm on reddit. But just in the past few weeks we've had things like: active shooter on youtube campus, all the facebook doom and gloom, cell phones cause cancer in male rats (I think I got that from hacker news), China's social credit system, etc. I have a friend who actually doesn't follow the news (I'm not sure he knows what cambridge analytica is yet) and he tells me all the time how doom and gloom I am just from reading hacker news.

brownbat 9y ago

I just listened to a podcast with Laurie Santos, all about her course on happiness research, which quickly became the most popular course ever taught at Yale. https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136 https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136 A shortened version of the course is available on Coursera: https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well-being https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well-being It's surprising how much the research validates things we all intuitively know or suspect about happiness, but routinely fail to put into practice. Exercise. Sleep. Mindfulness. Human interactions. Have some free time. "Avoid news" seems like it might fit too.

ragequitta 9y ago
Thanks for this. Watched the course intro and I'm definitely enrolling for April 9th.

w23j 9y ago

What do you guys do if you need a short break from work? Between tasks or if I have finished something mentally demanding, I will often skim some news sites or hacker news. Any recommendation what else to do as a quick break between programming tasks?

icebraining 9y ago
I prepare a cup of tea and stare out the window.
- dehef 9y ago
  Yeah I just go outside pretending taking a mental cigarette, And water is better than tea also
  - icebraining 9y ago
    water is better than tea also Not for my enjoyment. Though by "tea" I mean an infusion, not necessarily tea itself. I actually prefer mint.
  - haggy 9y ago
    > water is better than tea also What are you basing this off of? How are the comparisons being done? Tea has many benefits provided its not "fake" sugar-riddled tea. Don't make a comment telling someone else to "stop doing something" without any context about why you're suggesting it.
paulgb 9y ago
I think a lot of the (very valid) points in the article apply more to mainstream news than industry-focused news like HN. That said, https://news.ycombinator.com/best https://news.ycombinator.com/best acts as a good low-pass filter for the "wrong" type of news.
lemonberry 9y ago
On a recommendation from someone somewhere I pick up a book, typically fiction, to get my brain somewhere else. Or a brisk walk.

mark_l_watson 9y ago

This is what I have been telling family and friends for years! Life is about personal connections and leading a productive life. News ingestion is harmful to both activities. Ironic, Guardian warns us about news consumption and I donate $5/month to them because next to NPR they are the best news source for me.

JepZ 9y ago

The Guardian just publishes that story because know we can't resist :D

coldcode 9y ago

Right and when the secret police come to your door you will be surprised. Wait, you say, when did we get taken over by a dictator? What happened to our democracy? Why is my internet suddenly riddled with NO everywhere? How come my job vanished? Why are my children suddenly forced to eat dirt? Why do I live in a crime infested neighborhood that used to be safe? Why did evil people destroy my environment? Oh yeah, I didn't pay attention. It's not News you should be looking for, but information, and that's the real problem. If you ignore what is going on in the world because you don't want o hear anything hard you may be blissful, but you are just not involved, and all of us will suffer because you did not care to participate. If finding your information in "News" which is determined to give you false information is bad, ignoring what is going on in life is worse, because the only people who will change things are the very people you don't want doing it. I remember voting in a bond election in a city of 500,000. Only a few hundred voted. We spent $50M of the people's money because they didn't care. Ignoring News is fine, ignoring what is going on is not.

icebraining 9y ago
Hence the penultimate paragraph, no? "Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too."
- openasocket 9y ago
  Which seemed like a non-sequitur to me. How is investigative journalism not news? Virtually every one of his arguments applies equally to investigative journalism, and the fact that he explicitly overrides those arguments demonstrates their weakness.
JohnBooty 9y ago
> It's not News you should be looking for, but information, and that's the real problem This is an excellent distinction! > I remember voting in a bond election in a city of 500,000. Only a few hundred voted. We spent $50M of the people's money because they didn't care. Ignoring News is fine, ignoring what is going on is not. I'm guilty of not following my own advice here, but anybody who feels utterly overwhelmed and powerless by national/world politics can definitely be involved or at least informed at the local level!

sureaboutthis 9y ago

When I worked in television news, long ago, it was under the wing of the independent news department. TV news, now, is under the programming department and beholding to marketing. Thus, you'll find "news" stories about products being introduced--even promoted--by "news stories" and pretty boys and girls. Especially on local TV shows where money is tighter and few stations employ full-time news personnel to actually dig into a story and are only "rip-and-readers" as we called them back in the day.

lovelearning 9y ago

Giving up political news didn't make me happier, but it certainly reduced that niggling feeling that everything is headed towards doom. It's said that "an informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy", and that's probably why many of us consume so much political news. However, I feel seeing the news and expressing outrage privately or on social media have become low-effort excuses for not doing things that can actually improve our governments. Outrage does not affect anything except our own peace of mind and health. As far as I can tell, atleast in my country, only two things lead towards any real change - 1)protests and 2)money. Either I should put in the effort to organize people and protest, or I should spend money trying to influence decision makers. Since I suck at the first and lack in the second, I decided to be apathetic towards everything political.

gtirloni 9y ago
The average citizen (not organizing protests and keeping away from fruitless online outrage) can probably catch up with all relevant political news in 1-2 hours/month of concentrated effort. I've started doing just that and it has had great impact on my mental health. I don't feel any less prepared to make an impact when the time comes (elections, sporadic talks with friends and family). Should I be more engaged? Surely. But I just look at all of it and think it's a necessary evil and I'm happy other people feel more inclined to participate heavily. I just don't have the mental skills to keep up and be sane.
- sk1pper 9y ago
  What sources do you use to catch up?
  - gtirloni 9y ago
    It's highly centered on my country so I'm not sure it's of use to a global audience. But it's a mix of filtering actual facts from newspaper articles on both sides of the spectrum (they usually carry very little information and mostly repeat words to fill up screen space), then check a few respected journalists publishing analysis after a few weeks (again, from left/right). They will be biased, like anything, but there's a kernel of Truth even when I disagree. So that's useful for informing my thoughts.

cirrus-clouds 9y ago

Of course you need to read the news. Select your news sources carefully and limit or eliminate your exposure to social media discussions of the news. I understand the sentiment that news can make you depressed, but reading the news can also spur people to act positively in a multitude of ways. When a natural disaster strikes and the news is filled with stories of anguish and despair in the aftermath, people donate to charities because of the news reports they've seen. Imagine if we never read the news because such stories were too depressing? Imagine if this young student had never seen a harrowing news report about the Syrian war? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968

bovermyer 9y ago
I've become very jaded about the world in general largely because I used to read the news every day. News that I actually care about is the stuff I learn by talking to people in person. It's also a lot less likely to be negative news. Then, once it's been established that I care about it, I'll do research about it - whether that's talking to friends about personal news, or reading online about a new bill that would affect people I care about.
ntsplnkv2 9y ago
> eliminate your exposure to social media discussions of the news. Sadly most news has become a newsfeed. CNN, Fox, etc are all newsfeeds-breaking news! new update! new notification! here are some pundits talking about it. The reality is we need news-we don't need a 24/7 news cycle.
base698 9y ago
You may read this tariff story and think, what’s the big deal? The story’s not bad. Isn’t it reasonable to talk about effects of current events in this way? I answer, absolutely not. Such speculation is a complete waste of time. It’s useless. It’s bullshit on the front page of the Times. http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/

oftenwrong 9y ago

Also relevant, Aaron Swartz' I Hate the News post: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews Basically: Less news, more books.

donw 9y ago

It's not just news. I cut out mainstream media several years ago, and noted a definite improvement in my psychological well-being. As of the end of last year, I stopped engaging in mainstream social media. So much better. I still keep a Facebook account for Messenger and Events, but don't post, read timelines, or participate. Not only do I have more time to read books and learn new things -- made pita bread from scratch for the first time this week -- but I am in general, notably happier and more focused. I suspect that information hygiene is going to be one of the great underrated skills of the digital age. Hacker News is an exception that I indulge in maybe once a week or two -- today's the day! -- as most of what ends up on here is worthwhile, and the moderation team has done an excellent job of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high. Quora also tends to be good, between Be Nice Be Respectful (BNBR), and the Real Name policy, although they recently went downhill by interleaving the standard cesspool that is mainstream news in the Quora feed. Reddit... there are a few gold nuggets (/r/writingprompts), but overall it's just a crapfest.

nealdt 9y ago
I like your term 'information hygiene'. Very relevant to staying focussed.
darepublic 9y ago
I feel like the signal to noise ratio has suffered in recent weeks because of the mainstream media attack on tech companies
- FLUX-YOU 9y ago
  We've been in breaking news hell ever since Trump was elected and because eleventy billion scandals are being found.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Hate to point it out but the 24 hour news cycle and hell of continuous breaking news predates the Trump presidency by several decades. I recall being disgusted by it during the late nineties when cable news started being a big thing, but it probably started even before that.

flr03 9y ago

If being happy is your ultimate life goal then it's probably right. Although the quest for happiness should not be the only thing we work for. Personally I think this is a very selfish way of thinking. Being informed and capable of logical thinking considering your environment is equally important. That said, we should seek for good quality news and I agree with the article on this point about investigation journalism. But this is like research, it is essential, has a cost and not all the time succeeds. As a citizen it's a duty to be well informed so we can participate in democracy efficiently (Quoting Greek philosophers here).

tvanantwerp 9y ago
This assumes that consuming the news equates to being well informed. I certainly doubt that assumption. Journalism relating to areas I know well is often woefully inaccurate, if it even is reporting rather than opinion. And keeping in mind the Gell-Mann Effect, I should probably not give the stories about topics beyond my expertise the benefit of the doubt.
BaronSamedi 9y ago
Almost everyone would agree that being informed is important. The question is whether the news leads to being informed. Many would argue that daily news consumption has the opposite effect.

ponderatul 9y ago

It's great to see this in the Guardian. I use some of these publications as a litmus test for when a concept has finally gained broad appeal.

return0 9y ago

but what is life without drama?

randomsearch 9y ago

I think that being ignorant of current events in the world around you is irresponsible and selfish. It undermines democracy and prevents you from addressing problems in society where you could make a difference. A better suggestion is to focus on higher quality news sources: I'd recommend Reuters (try the iOS app) and the Economist, and Channel 4 News in the UK.

ekianjo 9y ago
> It undermines democracy and prevents you from addressing problems in society where you could make a difference. There are plenty of people undermining democracy while being well aware of what's happening around them. Moot point.
- randomsearch 9y ago
  Because another person is doing something bad does not allow you to absolve yourself of social responsibility.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    My point is having access of information is not a useful variable to define enlightment.

ekianjo 9y ago

> happier Seeking happiness is a trap in itself though. This has been extensively discussed by centuries of philosophers. Happiness is transitory and can never be sustained.

sethammons 9y ago
What counts as sustained? Does a bad day, week, month, or year disrupt it? Or is a year or decade of general happiness mean it is sustained? Does it have to last until your death? Maybe it requires the context of your first sentence about seeking happiness. For myself, I would not say I seek it, but that I chose it. I feel I've been generally happy nearly always. Sure, there have been stresses, losses, tragedies, tears, and such. There have been extended periods of feelings of inadequacy and of being trapped. Yet, even through all such events and periods, I'd say I tend to be happy. And the last major part of a decade has been the most fulfilling and blessed part of my life yet. Sure, it could come crashing down. Or it could get even better! I chose to be happy with where I have been, where I am at, and look forward to where I'll go.

trisimix 9y ago

Seems like an uninformed population will be even more umhappy when they are inevitably taken advantage of.

simonh 9y ago
I’d really recommend reading the article. I think it addresses this issue very well.

monster_group 9y ago

The problem is that some news is relevant. One of my friends has given up reading or watching any kind of news altogether. At first this seems impressive but when I asked him about how far his house was from the wildfire, he was like "Umm - what wildfire?". He was oblivious to the fact that country's biggest wildfire was just three miles away from his house. He is a very smart and successful guy and it really jolted me how a guy like him could be oblivious to such an important event that could impact his life. The reason - he doesn't watch news.

slaydemons 9y ago
But he did find out since you told him. That's the whole reason you don't need to read news because if something in the news is actually important you will find out from people talking about it.
roryisok 9y ago
Three miles? Did he also give up looking out the window?
- jensvdh 9y ago
  Or talking to people in general? That seems incredibly odd.
  - monster_group 9y ago
    I asked him about if he could not see the smoke. He said the wind direction took the smoke away from his house and some hills obstructed his view. He had just moved into the neighborhood so he wasn't friends with the neighbors quite yet.
    - jackhack 9y ago
      Wow! I would think the logjam of people stuffing their cars with possessions and getting the hell out of there would have been a clue that something, possibly, was happening that might warrant some further investigation. There's apparently a fine line between "not ardently following the news" and "not paying attention at all."

fredley 9y ago

I gave up news last year. It was really hard, I instinctively and habitually checked various news sources, so it was hard to fight this back. I've also removed my Facebook news feed. Now all I consume are HN and Twitter (from which I cull anything political or current affairsy). I have a subscription to Delayed Gratification[1], and am a lot more content now than I used to be. 1: https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

habosa 9y ago

For a less radical step than giving up news completely, try just giving up 'push' news. For me this meant disabling my Google Now feed, turning off NYTimes notifications, unfollowing all non-human accounts on Facebook, and unsubscribing from some email digests. Oh and check out the 'noprocrast' settings on Hacker News. Now I read the news exactly when I want to and from sources I enjoy. I still probably know more than I'd like to about the whims of the president, but I notice that I'm probably 20% happier and 5% less informed than when I started. A good trade.

openasocket 9y ago

I found this article really unconvincing. It lashes out at random things like the number of hyperlinks in an article, and has completely unsubstantiated claims like the following: "Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed." This claim stops just short of saying watching the news causes ADHD, from a self-styled "self-help guru" with no expertise in neurology or psychology, without any sort of citation. There's also specious logic like this: "I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter" I also find the question "Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your life" to be poorly founded. Knowledge is a good unto itself, and simply raising awareness of issues can lead to action, even if the majority do nothing concrete to help. Simply seeing the change in polling data can cause politicians to enact legislation (though, obviously, donating to a lobbying group or contacting your representative are more effective). Moreover, I think the fundamental idea asserted here is dangerous. Limiting your news intake is one thing, but forgoing it entirely?. The cornerstone of democracy is an informed public. Keeping people aware of the actions being taken at and highest and lowest levels of government is the only way to keep it accountable. And on a personal note I think it is immoral for people who are relatively well off to ignore the problems plaguing others.

arrythur 9y ago
"The cornerstone of democracy is an informed public." Absolutely agree with this. We have to elect our representatives based off of the knowledge we have of their actions and the policies they hold. Covering your ears and closing your eyes just makes you a less informed voter when the time comes. I think the need to shut out the news from one's life is perfectly acceptable, but at the very least, one should read some headlines at least once a week to get an idea of whats going on outside of their own personal world.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago

KirinDave 9y ago

Look, I think this is great and all, but I'm pretty skeptical of this chant, "If the news bothers you so much because of what you're reading, just stop reading. It's not like you can change it." Obviously, events that already happened can't be changed. But a lot of what upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy. These things are changeable, and direct (and/or collective) action can change them. When you're in a position where by default things go your way (dominant gender, dominant sexual orientation, dominant phenotype/race in local community) then yeah, you can just disengage and suspect that things are ticking over nicely for you. That's not the case for people outside this happy intersection. It certainly reads to me, as someone out of one of those bounds like you're telling me to disengage while people actively trying to shape law to marginalize me certainly won't. Further, resistance to propaganda and misinformation is not an attribute of mentality. It's a combination of learned skills and _context_. By yielding all current contextual information, you are severely damaging your ability to process current events. This is in sharp contrast to the arguments put forth here and in the article that often lament the lack of skills (e.g., statistical thinking) that you can both learn and maintain in isolation. I agree that controlling your media consumption is important and some folks (including myself) sometimes go off on media benders, getting very stressed. But the second assumption (that it's pointless) is wrong. My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money, time and emotional support.

edgarvaldes 9y ago
I check news once a week, sometimes less. I mean reading newspapers, opinion articles, news on television, the subreddit of my country. The most relevant news come to me through comments from friends or family, in the after-dinner talks or meetings. With that combination, I am well informed of current events, and I am not overwhelmed by what I consider repetitive or irrelevant information.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  That's fascinating, but neither the subject of the article nor my comment. Thank you.
9y ago

stochastic_monk 9y ago

"But at least we still have a hand with which to switch channels or turn off altogether. I tell my lecture audiences to never, ever watch local TV news." - Ray Bradbury, 1996 Playboy Interview

scottmsul 9y ago

> Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your life, Yes, there was an article on HN a couple weeks ago. Pork treated with nitrates increases the chance of colon cancer as much as smoking increases the chance of lung cancer (but pork treated with salt is ok).

gowan 9y ago
interesting... can you provide a link?
- avtar 9y ago
  Possibly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149
- Symbiote 9y ago
  I think it's reasonable to make at least some attempt before asking… http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pork+nitrates+hacker+news http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pork+nitrates+hacker+news
rossdavidh 9y ago
Hacker News definitely seems to work better than conventional news sources, as far as filtering to what is actually informative.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

Mainstream media/news is the fast food of information. It's super cheap, easy to get, and it gives you a quick high like you get from all the sugar and fat in fast food, but you'll invetably feel worse after doing so. Cooking a healthier meal by yourself and doing your own independent research and investigations takes much more time, but also has a much greater reward.

Yetanfou 9y ago

Mainstream media in my part of the world - north-western Europe in general, Sweden and the Netherlands to be more specific - seems to have forgotten that it is the fiduciary duty of the news media to keep watch over those in power, instead turning their gaze on those who oppose the government position. While some critical journalism still exists in the main stream media, especially in Sweden this has mostly moved to what for some reason is called 'alternative media' Given this lack of critical opinions in main stream media it is rather pointless to rely on them to keep informed. The 'alternative' media often offers a more critical voice but that voice often comes with an agenda and an accompanying myopic view which makes it as unwise to rely on any single 'alternative' source as it is to rely on main stream sources. The solution to this conundrum is most emphatically not to 'stick your head in the sand' (i.e. giving up on reading news) as that just makes you less informed and with that less prepared to make rational decisions. This goes from the small - missing the small article hidden on page 7 in the local paper where the council declares its intention to close down the school you planned to send your children to because they claim to need the building for other purposes (this happened where I live, those who did read the news gathered to protest leading to the decision to be suspended) - to the large ('brexit', 'Russia is the new/old enemy', etc). Is there an easy solution? No, I don't think there is. Finding truth in the media is like finding a needle in a haystack full of pins. What I do is use a news reader (the News app for Nextcloud, think 'Google Reader' but under private regime) with a select list of subscriptions from both 'alternative' as well as main stream sources. Reading the headlines gives an idea of what is being reported, comparing how what is being reported between sources gives an impression of what really happens or happened.

enraged_camel 9y ago

I'm of the firm opinion that it is everyone's civic duty to stay informed of what is going on around them, even if news coverage is negative and biased. The alternative - sticking one's head in the sand - is selfish. In the short run it can make you happier and give you the ability to focus on your personal affairs, but in the long run it makes you more and more isolated and contributes to the degradation of the social fabric. You don't have to remain immersed in breaking news for hours and hours, but even 15-20 minutes browsing headlines and skimming through select articles can go a long way towards what I call "civic awareness".

newscracker 9y ago

I stopped getting the newspaper more than a year ago, and have consciously reduced using Facebook (which was already limited to specific topics related to "greater good", to put it in words that don't expose too much). Since I don't have cable at home, there's nothing blaring in the background with a regurgitation of the same stuff and flashy animations about some "breaking news" that's mostly of no practical value. Many a times it just increases frustration and stress over things you don't generally care about or can't really do something about. I don't mind not having anything to gossip about with co-workers. There's enough going on in general anyway, without mainstream news adding to it. I've seen that life does actually get a bit difficult in certain ways when one doesn't keep up with news, especially anything related to taxation and other policies (related to real estate, automobiles). So I still check a few online news sites once every two days or so for the headlines alone. In general, staying away from these sources reduces what I feel as "internal agitation" that usually bleeds into many other activities (while being in the background). I would anyday recommend people to get off standard cable TV and also news, and instead making choices that are a bit more involved. The mental peace thus obtained alone is worth it! P.S.: Slightly related is giving up surfing the web itself, which my mind (that's been modified to have a low attention span due to years on the web) would probably benefit a lot more from.

hemantv 9y ago

My biggest question is how do you keep up if you cut news. I would definitely like to quit checking HN also but FOmo of new technologies keep me coming.

Sileni 9y ago
Set aside a specific time each week to scan the headlines and pick out the most interesting. For HN or most content aggregation sites, if something is particularly important, it'll stay on the first 5-6 pages for more than a week. Scan the first few pages, pick out 5-10 articles, read for an hour or two. You'll be at least 80% as informed as if you had checked in every day. This also lets you deep dive into any of the ideas if they're particularly interesting, because it's such a small list of mental options. One of my worst problems is ending up with a notebook page of 40 items that I found interesting. I never go back and learn more about them because I can't really decide what's the most interesting. Cull options ruthlessly until you have a manageable set of options.
_rpd 9y ago
http://www.hackernewsletter.com/ http://www.hackernewsletter.com/ does a good job.

kev6168 9y ago

Regarding news, I have had this self-imposed rule: * Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and no clicking links.* Implementation details: I keep around 10 news sites in a bookmark folder. Through out a day, I right click on the folder and open all of the sites at once, then spend on average 5 to 10 seconds on each site. Do this three or four times each day. Been pretty happy doing this for a few years now.

ambrosite 9y ago
"Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and no clicking links." I like that rule. One quick check of the news home page should be enough to tell you if there is anything truly important going on that requires your immediate attention.

Rotdhizon 9y ago

I see many people here who have said it, and I will say it; I haven't watched any mainstream news(Fox, CNN, ABC, etc) in years. All it is, is negativity and deception. For the most part, I don't care about what is going on. I get my fill of major events from browsing reddit and HN, and even then I just read the comments, rarely the article. I've never used FB as a source of information, that sounds about as bad of a source as you can get. Back when I used to watch the news, it was always the same. Something like >> Weather >> Death >> Death >> Shooting >> Crime reports >> Crime reports >> Sports >> Empty feel good story(Guy saves kitten, guy donates to charity, etc) >> Ending They focus so much on negativity and toxic behaviors, it's depressing. I don't want to wake up in the mornings and first thing I see is how many people died the previous day from local crimes. Even worse are the minor crimes where people who might not even be guilty get their picture blown up on screen and automatically deemed criminals prior to being convicted. "Man who might have stolen a car is charged, no evidence has yet been presented. So here is his picture, links to his social media accounts, his address, his entire life story. If you ever see him in the future, consider him a criminal" It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore. Every major news outlet leans towards one side or the other. The stations that do try an report unbiased get their funding cut and put in financial ruin.

0x445442 9y ago
Yes... In general I think we're all too concerned about things WAY beyond our spheres of influence. My wife, though she's gotten better, tends to get too emotionally invested in situations abroad. I try to explain to her that I'm not dispassionate but that I realize we live in an imperfect world where bad things are happening all the time and just because people on TV or wherever are bringing it to her attention doesn't mean it's any worse than a similar situation happening some place else that she's not hearing about. The problem is when folks hear about all these negative events they tend to want government to tinker until we reach a utopia where nothing bad happens anymore. The tough question though; how do we create/maintain an optimally informed electorate?
ch4s3 9y ago
> It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore. I'm not so sure that "unbiased information" is a thing that really exists. For example, you would like to know the outside temperature, so you check online. That information comes from a sensor somewhere near where you happen to be. But who placed the sensor there, and why was that location chosen? Was the sensor calibrated? How was it originally designed? What choices were made in the design process, and how did the engineer's biases shape the final product. You could keep going. Obviously, that's a bit absurd, but it's relevant to news. Even a simple reporting of facts about a car crash can be view through numerous lenses. Initial fact gathering by police and emergency workers all add their own perspectives and inputs to the "raw data", and then that has to go through a reporter who is also a person with their own world view, opinions, and experiences. Do they use the word "crash", or "accident"? Both words heavily bias the reporting of a car coming into contact with a guardrail at a particular speed. It would be hard to strip all bias from something so simple. For murkier issues, like the actions of nation states, it is even harder to"stick to the facts". The facts may not even be clear. The data you include in a report has to be curated somehow, and that can't be free from bias. You have to select sources, and again those are decisions made by people. Unbiased information is in my opinion a myth invented largely to discredit the idea that reporting is useful even with bias and that there can exist objective facts. Perhaps there is a problem of propaganda masquerading as news, or heavily biased reporting pretending to be wholly objective, but that's a different thing. Ultimately it's our responsibility as consumers of information to look at the information presented to us with a critical eye.

0x4f3759df 9y ago

News is like art. Anything can be defined as art, anything can be defined as news. Elon Musk tweeted? Lets wrap the tweet in a fluff burrito... Although, Tesla stocks been seeing some tough times, today Elon tweeted X..., in conclusion ... That passes as news, but its just drivel.

letslightafire 9y ago

Most of the times when I watch the "news" it isn't to get more informed, it's more as something to watch, get entertained, and have open in the background. For this reason I like watching local news better as the stories they have are much more focused than CNN or FOX's 100th story about Trump tweets. Most people attack local news but I seem that they have more integrity than the big named channels if you manage to slog through the crappy syndicated ones. Thankfully Sinclair doesn't own any stations in my area. It's nice to at least have news that is more compact and relates more to your life. Traffic, weather, daily minor politics that won't matter outside of your 50 mile radius. All of these are things that remind me that the area I live in is living and breathing and not just a set-piece for the larger and grander story that most national news medias cover.

austinl 9y ago

“And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, - we need never read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?” Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854)

RIMR 9y ago

>Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. Okay... Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected representatives about policies that matter to me. Consuming local news has kept me informed of important happenings in my community - including events that I attended and consider my self better off for going. Consuming industry news has kept me up-to-date on the things that I need to stay aware of at my Cybersecurity job. I find that consuming 24 hour TV news, or consuming and sharing lots of hyper-partisan political news is emotionally taxing. I don't do much of that. I occasionally watch my local news, but mostly consume local newspapers and neighborhood blogs to keep informed of what is happening in my community. Everything else I read online, and I do consume news pretty much every day. I really don't see the point in outright refusing to stay informed of current events. Just don't overindulge in the news/entertainment nonsense that masquerades as real journalism now days.

hueving 9y ago
>Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected representatives about policies that matter to me. Give an example. Otherwise it's a post-hoc hand-waving justification. Also include how you meaningfully communicated with your representative about the issue (e.g. writing a complaint email about the popular news of the day doesn't count).
- RIMR 9y ago
  I wrote to my governor and my districts state reps about making Net Neutrality Washington State law after the FCC repealed those rules. My state is now planning to pass a state law, despite federal law prohibiting us from doing so. I didn't do that alone, but if nobody was paying attention to the news and doing their part, it likely wouldn't have happened.
  - slyall 9y ago
    Where did you hear about that story? TV News, Radio News or the local newspaper?

Tempest1981 9y ago

Slight tangent, but I look at how much time and energy is expended in the tech comment forums, where fanboys argue religiously: Android vs iOS, Windows vs macOS vs Linux, Intel vs AMD vs ARM, Tesla vs Uber vs Waymo. Eventually it degrades into CompanyX sucks; no CompanyY sucks more. I wish I could encourage the fanboys to go out and create something awesome, or be part of something constructive. Vs watching and criticizing from the sidelines.

dv35z 9y ago

Goal: - Stay informed about important world events (for yourself AND for social reasons) - Reduce time & attention spent on "waste" news Challenges: - Most news "as it happens" is inaccurate - Much of the news is colored with story-like "narrative", rather than "just the facts, Jack". - News websites have perverse incentives (attract eyeballs, provoke outrage, etc) - A lot of attention in MSM is paid to irrelevant topics (e.g. personal interest, odd crimes, etc). - Heavy Biases present Solution(s): - Postpone / let it soak: If you see a news article you're interested in, withstand the dopamine - send the article to Pocket. Set aside regular time (end of day, or once a week) to review all postponed news. With any luck, the news story has developed more accurate info - Use non commercial news sources. Example: At the beginning of month, review the WIKIPEDIA current events portal. The assumption is that the news articles & topics there are likely "aged" slightly, and more factual. Examples: News LAST month (Likely fairly relevant & accurate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_20.... News THIS month (reasonably relevant "breaking news"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_20... "Aggregated" news for the YEAR (read the sections by month): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March If you spot-check the above links, you can see that it really does "cover" most of the news that's front of mind in the major news outlets. The difference is, you can click in - read to the depth you prefer - and generally avoid some of the major editorializing / narrative building.

your-nanny 9y ago

There is value in staying informed. However the news cycle ain't healthy. Slow news is the thing to do. The old weekly or monthly news summaries will increase the snr. Or Wikipedia's news entries.

mattbert 9y ago

Ignorance is bliss for the individual, but has steep consequences for society.

chris_va 9y ago

Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have to admit, it's pretty wonderful. And somewhat ironic, given that I used to be the TL of Google News 10 years ago. I still read The Economist weekly, come to HN occasionally, and hear about important/local/political events from friends. I don't, however, have to hear the constant doom bombardment that the media has evolved to produce. Stepping back really highlights how toxic the news can be. We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. Access to the internet and globalization has made people (real people, not the loudest selected subset you see in media) genuinely care about each other everywhere in the world I have traveled. Yet you would never think that just looking at typical media. It isn't a perfect society, and horrible situations still exist that deserve attention, but that will always be true. We still have enormous strides we can make, and that struggle is an important aspect of our society, especially in defending against erosions of personal freedoms. Honestly, though, we are doing really well compared with 100 years ago.

Diederich 9y ago
> We live in a society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now
abrahamepton 9y ago
Hey, Chris! I largely agree with you, and think reading things like the Economist on a weekly basis is salutary - it's weekly, so building a reading habit around it doesn't lead to constant panic. It's broad, covers a lot of what's going on around the world and isn't as obsessed with the trivialities American media focuses on. As a guy who used to work on Google News with you, I always appreciated the effort to get more global news and more global sources integrated into peoples' reading experiences. Where I disagree is that I think being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention so we can vote as informed participants, and I don't know how to do that without reading the news. And it's important to be clear that there's a lot still wrong with the world. The climate is in crisis; more humans are in slavery today than at any time in human history; we're in the midst of one of the great migrant/refugee crises of the modern world. Importantly, many media outlets largely ignore those things, but not all media does.

hitekker 9y ago

The title of the article "News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier", but the HN headline is "Giving up reading news will make us happier". The former says that not reading the news is individually beneficial, whereas latter implies that it is socially beneficial. Those are distinct enough qualities that, when coupled with missing "(2013)", inclines me to believe that the current headline is too misleading. It should be changed to reflect its source.

jwcacces 9y ago

Ignorance is strength

mankash666 9y ago

I read and consume copious amounts of news and I'm perfectly happy. Reason - I curate/choose carefully what I consume.

jancsika 9y ago

xivzgrev 9y ago

A bold piece. I'm glad he was allowed to publish it.

Digit-Al 9y ago

Somewhat ironic that a newspaper is reproducing an article saying you shouldn't read newspapers :-)