3 ms·

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

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
>Knowledge is a good unto itself This is a fallacious claim in an age of information overload.
- openasocket 9y ago
  I don't see how that follows. By "knowledge is a good unto itself" I mean that it is always better to know something than to be ignorant of something. Sure, some pieces of knowledge are more valuable than others, and we have a limited capacity for how much knowledge we can absorb and hold, but that doesn't contradict the premise, that having knowledge is a good thing. It just means we have to prioritize what knowledge to gain. Which is why, in that same sentence, I go on to explain why knowledge of current events is important.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
rossdavidh 9y ago
If you need to be watching/reading the news more than about once a month, in order to know what way to vote, I would be curious as to why. Once a month (that is, a tiny fraction of the normal amount) is more than sufficient to learn all that you can learn from that source of information. There are way better methods for becoming an informed citizen, than the news.
- openasocket 9y ago
  It's about more than knowing which way to vote, it's about developing awareness of issues. People affect democracy in more ways than just voting and political action like protests. Politicians constantly run polls to take the temperature of the people on various issues, and adjust their positions and priorities accordingly. Which isn't to denigrate actual political action, but to demonstrate that awareness can intrinsically affect the government. What do you think would be a better way to become an informed citizen than watching the news?

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

>Knowledge is a good unto itself This is a fallacious claim in an age of information overload.

openasocket 9y ago
I don't see how that follows. By "knowledge is a good unto itself" I mean that it is always better to know something than to be ignorant of something. Sure, some pieces of knowledge are more valuable than others, and we have a limited capacity for how much knowledge we can absorb and hold, but that doesn't contradict the premise, that having knowledge is a good thing. It just means we have to prioritize what knowledge to gain. Which is why, in that same sentence, I go on to explain why knowledge of current events is important.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

rossdavidh 9y ago

If you need to be watching/reading the news more than about once a month, in order to know what way to vote, I would be curious as to why. Once a month (that is, a tiny fraction of the normal amount) is more than sufficient to learn all that you can learn from that source of information. There are way better methods for becoming an informed citizen, than the news.

openasocket 9y ago
It's about more than knowing which way to vote, it's about developing awareness of issues. People affect democracy in more ways than just voting and political action like protests. Politicians constantly run polls to take the temperature of the people on various issues, and adjust their positions and priorities accordingly. Which isn't to denigrate actual political action, but to demonstrate that awareness can intrinsically affect the government. What do you think would be a better way to become an informed citizen than watching the news?