3 ms·

I have to ask a question,and this question has bothered me for a while: Do we absolutely have to have breaking news at the speed of light? Can most people not

I have to ask a question,and this question has bothered me for a while: Do we absolutely have to have breaking news at the speed of light? Can most people not wait a couple of hours before they hear about the latest tragedy or event? All I've ever seen from citizen journalists (on Reddit/Twitter/etc.) is a bunch of typically wrong rumors, data and analysis. Every once in a while they get it right, but that's the rare exception. The reason people watch CNN et al is because biases or not, they're somewhat trusted to at least get the majority of their facts correct (and see below as to why I think all of these wishy washy adjectives). I think this goes back into the curse of the 24 hour news cycle. It creates demand for sensationalism, "breaking" news. The speed that these news networks feel that they have to be have the exclusive does lead to errors, which leads to less trustworthiness in their reporting. I just don't see the necessity of constant up to the minute news reporting. I consider myself a news junkie, but to me the important questions are usually answered after the fact anyways: "Why did this happen and what does it mean?" I also have to wonder if this is part of our Constantly Connected Culture. People have to have their smart phone and be connected to every event constantly. I don't know if these phenomenon are somehow connected, but I would guess they are. But again, are people that impatient about facts?

abhirag 8y ago
You are not alone in thinking this -- [https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/]
richjdsmith 8y ago
Last September, my fiance and I made a rule: no more phones in the bedroom. That small decision has been life-changing. Right away it had a couple interesting effects; I ended up reading (novels) about 3x more, we chatted more, there was more sex, and I stopped starting my day out with the news. That last point has had the largest impact on my life. By not starting my day with what inevitably ends up being something negative (Oh Joy, what industry am I as a millennial ruining today and how many times has the president tweeted about it?), I quickly noticed that my morning mood had improved. First I started reading the news once I got out of my room making breakfast, then that became reading it after breakfast and eventually that became catching up on the news after lunch. About 3 months later, I was catching up on the world around me later on in the day, and in smaller bits. I was also noticeably happier. While I'm all for carefully examining causul vs correlation, and am keenly aware of the biases, it didn't take a lot of reading a couple papers to see that, surprise surprise, the news is depressing. Then I had a realization when hanging out with my grandpa, who frankly, is all out of fucks to give. While extremely well read, he gets all of his news from the few magazines he is subscribed to (The Economist, Bloomberg and Maclean’s) and therefore only hears things sometimes two weeks after they happen. And it didn't matter. He's just as well read on world events, he's not living in a cave or under a rock, he just isn't stuck in this cycle of fear of missing out on being in the know. He doesn't care. So three months ago, I quit reading the news. I set a couple of redirects on my computer so that whenever I tried to visit a few of the places I used to frequent, I was redirected to either here, HN, where I enjoy the comments, or to Pocket. Every Sunday since then, I take the time to sit down in the morning, and read through The Economist, which I am a subscriber to. That's it. That is my only source of news - well, that and what I read on here or twitter. Sure I still hear about major events (and unfortunately, school shootings tend to make their rounds on twitter). I am keenly aware that like all news sources, the economist is biased. I try to balance that out by following a few tweet-happy people with opposing views. But let me tell you, being unplugged from the Breaking News! cycle and the continuous back and forth between the talking heads is the most refreshing thing I've ever done for my mental health. It may not be for everyone, and I may not do it forever, but for now, I have no intentions on going back to reading the news.
MR4D 8y ago
Yes they are. Next time you're in a public place, look at all the people surfing on their phone. They're going after the immediate dopamine hit that you get from little tiny updates of new information. [1] So, yes, many (most?) people actually do need it, or they will suffer withdrawal symptoms from the lack of dopamine. If you're a news channel without frequent updates, then you get lost in the dust, apparently. Interestingly (from my perspective at least), it seems that the info doesn't even have to be correct, but just what I call "gap-filler" (think of all the talking heads who speculate on things endlessly before the facts start to come in), and you can still make money - you just have to have information (no matter how irrelevant it is). To me it surely looks like a lost cause unless we can start to wake up out of this trance. Where's Wesley Crusher when we need him? [2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/exploiting-the-neuroscience-of-internet-addiction/259820/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/exploitin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_...
- 5555624 8y ago
  > Next time you're in a public place, look at all the people surfing on their phone. But are they looking at the news? While I see people surfing on their phones, when I do see their screens they're texting, looking at Facebook, playing a game -- they aren't on CNN (or some other news site). Other than breaking news, how often does the news get updated on a newspaper's web site? While FoxNews updates articles throughout the day (or at least moves them around); I don't see a lot of new articles on "The Washington Post" web site throughout the day.
wilsonnb 8y ago
At least one organization agrees with you and is trying to do something about it. https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/

abhirag 8y ago

You are not alone in thinking this -- [https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/]

richjdsmith 8y ago

Last September, my fiance and I made a rule: no more phones in the bedroom. That small decision has been life-changing. Right away it had a couple interesting effects; I ended up reading (novels) about 3x more, we chatted more, there was more sex, and I stopped starting my day out with the news. That last point has had the largest impact on my life. By not starting my day with what inevitably ends up being something negative (Oh Joy, what industry am I as a millennial ruining today and how many times has the president tweeted about it?), I quickly noticed that my morning mood had improved. First I started reading the news once I got out of my room making breakfast, then that became reading it after breakfast and eventually that became catching up on the news after lunch. About 3 months later, I was catching up on the world around me later on in the day, and in smaller bits. I was also noticeably happier. While I'm all for carefully examining causul vs correlation, and am keenly aware of the biases, it didn't take a lot of reading a couple papers to see that, surprise surprise, the news is depressing. Then I had a realization when hanging out with my grandpa, who frankly, is all out of fucks to give. While extremely well read, he gets all of his news from the few magazines he is subscribed to (The Economist, Bloomberg and Maclean’s) and therefore only hears things sometimes two weeks after they happen. And it didn't matter. He's just as well read on world events, he's not living in a cave or under a rock, he just isn't stuck in this cycle of fear of missing out on being in the know. He doesn't care. So three months ago, I quit reading the news. I set a couple of redirects on my computer so that whenever I tried to visit a few of the places I used to frequent, I was redirected to either here, HN, where I enjoy the comments, or to Pocket. Every Sunday since then, I take the time to sit down in the morning, and read through The Economist, which I am a subscriber to. That's it. That is my only source of news - well, that and what I read on here or twitter. Sure I still hear about major events (and unfortunately, school shootings tend to make their rounds on twitter). I am keenly aware that like all news sources, the economist is biased. I try to balance that out by following a few tweet-happy people with opposing views. But let me tell you, being unplugged from the Breaking News! cycle and the continuous back and forth between the talking heads is the most refreshing thing I've ever done for my mental health. It may not be for everyone, and I may not do it forever, but for now, I have no intentions on going back to reading the news.

MR4D 8y ago

Yes they are. Next time you're in a public place, look at all the people surfing on their phone. They're going after the immediate dopamine hit that you get from little tiny updates of new information. [1] So, yes, many (most?) people actually do need it, or they will suffer withdrawal symptoms from the lack of dopamine. If you're a news channel without frequent updates, then you get lost in the dust, apparently. Interestingly (from my perspective at least), it seems that the info doesn't even have to be correct, but just what I call "gap-filler" (think of all the talking heads who speculate on things endlessly before the facts start to come in), and you can still make money - you just have to have information (no matter how irrelevant it is). To me it surely looks like a lost cause unless we can start to wake up out of this trance. Where's Wesley Crusher when we need him? [2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/exploiting-the-neuroscience-of-internet-addiction/259820/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/exploitin... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_...

5555624 8y ago
> Next time you're in a public place, look at all the people surfing on their phone. But are they looking at the news? While I see people surfing on their phones, when I do see their screens they're texting, looking at Facebook, playing a game -- they aren't on CNN (or some other news site). Other than breaking news, how often does the news get updated on a newspaper's web site? While FoxNews updates articles throughout the day (or at least moves them around); I don't see a lot of new articles on "The Washington Post" web site throughout the day.

wilsonnb 8y ago

At least one organization agrees with you and is trying to do something about it. https://www.slow-journalism.com/ https://www.slow-journalism.com/