13 ms·

I stopped reading the news about a year ago. I felt like my emotions were being manipulated by a sharply-honed system built precisely to invoke outrage and draw

I stopped reading the news about a year ago. I felt like my emotions were being manipulated by a sharply-honed system built precisely to invoke outrage and draw you in to read more and more of it. I've been able to direct my focus and energy to much more productive tasks since I disconnected. Of course I entirely missed that whole Supreme Court thing until after it was over, and I have no idea what people around me are talking about when they discuss some iteration of the most recent outrage. To some extent it's like they're living in a different culture than I am. I still feel that it was a good decision, and I continue to ignore the news. I might come back if enough journalism sources can take the New Yorker's suggestion to heart.

clay_the_ripper 8y ago
Did the same thing about 4 years ago and haven’t looked back. I find though that a lot of people are actually offended by it since I have no clue what thing they and everyone else is outraged about. I get accused of not caring, being disengaged, blah blah blah. It’s difficult to explain to people who are still deep in outrage mode, so I mostly avoid taking about it. My life is so much better since cutting out the news. I am happier, more focused and able to actually concentrate on the things that I care about. I prefer to think about how I can positively impact people around me and my local community, rather than embracing the culture of outrage about things happening thousands of miles away that are ultimately irrelevant.
- irq 8y ago
  Honest question, how do you turn off your empathy for the suffering of your fellow countrymen? Which is what ignoring their plight would require (at least, it would for me).
  - narrator 8y ago
    There is a lot of bad stuff going on all over all the time. Focus is what's important. There are billions of people on this earth. You could cry at hundreds of stories every day if they were told in great enough detail. Those stories could be embellished or made up, paid for by someone with an agenda to promote and you wouldn't know the difference. Save your outrage for things you have first hand knowledge of or knowledge of through trusted contacts. The world did ok before 24/7 news, so it's not like you, king of the world, need to be up to the minute informed on whatever thing you're supposed to take your outrage vengence upon today.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      >There is a lot of bad stuff going on all over all the time. Focus is what's important. I mean starting with people who are in close proximity to you seems like an important thing. Especially given the abundance of food and capital we have? And the fact that our government implicitly relies on voters making informed choices to elect representatives that can then practically the address issues you know/care about? >Save your outrage for things you have first hand knowledge of or knowledge of through trusted contacts. I mean, that's what news organizations are. And we even used to have regulations governing them to ensure they could be trusted. >The world did ok before 24/7 news Well we're talking about slower news. Not no news. And certainly not 24/7 news. Because this article is about slowing things down. And the world wasn't really okay for the longest time. All in all your post is "I'm fine, so shit happens." Kind of crappy.
      - misterprime 8y ago
        >God, give me grace to accept with serenity, the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. I think this is a case of these people realizing that they cannot change the world in such a way to solve each and every problem that is presented to them in the news. As such, they choose to focus on their own personal lives and they people they come across in their day to day lives. I hope this helps. It's not that they just don't care, it's that caring is damaging their psyche and performance. They've learned it's healthier to tune most of that noise out.
        kadendogthing 8y ago
        >God, give me grace to accept with serenity, the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. I'm not sure what whimsical platitudes that essentially absolve you of your civic duty have to do with this conversation, or how it could possibly negate anything that was said. >I hope this helps. No it just solidifies what I think about the type of people that harbor such opinions.
  - dannykwells 8y ago
    I don't think that reading or not reading the news is engaging with the plight of "my fellow countrymen". We all ignore the plight of millions/billions of people every day. That is the way life has always been.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      I remember someone coined a concept recently that when you read about a problem in the world that you can help alleviate then you become morally responsible. It’s liks quantum entanglement but with ethics. Found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949572 What about that? Coming upon news where you can make a difference right now, by sending money to NGOs with workers on the ground.
      - roenxi 8y ago
        That is an impractical argument. Say there is a situation that Alfred have the power to effect. To reliably cause change for the good Alfred must: (1) Identify a problem and its root cause (2) Change the root cause (3) Confirm that the problem is solved. There are people who claim you can leap straight to (2) and skip (3). These are people who (if they ever honestly checked) would discover that they are not responsible for very much positive, meaningful change. They are flailing, looking busy and have the best of intentions. For anything reported in the news step (1) represents a huge investment of time because the news has probably got the situation at least somewhat wrong. To say Alfred has a moral responsibility to do something is equivalent to saying Alfred has a moral responsibility not to read the news; because Alfred doesn't have enough time or resources to confirm what the problem is for all the sad stories he can read about. In your specific example - 'sending money to NGOs with workers on the ground' - Alfred would probably divert a lot of money to organisations who are good at emotive advertising campaigns with administrative costs verging on embezzlement. We have good historical evidence that Alfred's best bet is to go all-in on capitalism, make a fortune, and then do some philanthropy to maximise his impact. Giving to a worthy cause creates incentives that are terrible. I can't be convinced that it is a good idea. I have a lot more respect for people who volunteer time, but even then I'm suspect of their ability to correctly diagnose the problem they are trying to fix.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsloth 8y ago
    Um, how does watching news help anyone’s plight, precisely?
    - mike00632 8y ago
      You can't do anything if you're not even informed about it. There are numerous examples of the public giving enormous amounts of money and relief to victims of, for example, natural disasters.
      - fsloth 8y ago
        Surely one can do much more good through their daily conduct, rather than only chipping in in exceptional circumstances? And if a person is improving their community by their conduct, they recieve their information through direct interaction, rendering news irrelevant.
  - zwkrt 8y ago
    I think having empathy for those directly around you is a good start. The saying "all politics are local" goes the other way around as well, that most change is local change. It is unlikely that I can help people gain asylum from oppressive regimes, but it is very likely that my donations to local charities and volunteer work is directly helping those around me. In a categorical imperative sense, if more people acted this way fewer things would be so bad about the world.
  - leftyted 8y ago
    I don't experience this kind of empathy very often. For example, I don't get upset when a plane crashes or there's a mass shooting. I can imagine myself in the position of the victims. I can imagine if someone I loved died in a situation like that and I can simulate some of the grief and anger I think I'd feel. But that exercise seems sort of selfish to me. In general, these kind of tragic events don't affect my mood. I do sometimes experience this kind of empathy when I'm reading history or a human-interest story about some tragic or unfair situation. It seems to me that many people assume that all good behavior flows from empathy. I don't think this is true. I use various philosophical viewpoints to justify (or rationalize) my behavior: sometimes utilitarianism, sometimes the categorical imperative, and often a vague sort of humanism.
  - irq 8y ago
    I wanted to start an honest discussion but my thread seems to have quickly devolved into the haves vs have nots of a capacity for empathy. Which is not my intention. This is probably my fault, for not considering enough viewpoints before writing my question. Let’s consider starting from this standpoint instead: Everyone has differing levels of empathy and it’s not going to be the same for every person. Despite this, we all need to get along and work towards whatever our individual goals are peacefully. Given this vast spectrum of empathy, advice from the extreme edges of that spectrum (“just tune out all news 100%” on one end, “cry for every single suffering being everywhere” on the other end) is particularly useless, because the only reason this situation even exists in the first place is because of extremism / polarization. Where do we go from here?
  - iamkroot 8y ago
    Who said anything about ignoring the plight of others? The news does nothing at all to aid me in helping other people. Indeed, most of the time it distracts me and keeps me from being aware of all the myriad ways I can give back to the community. I volunteer lots of my time with various organizations and I didn't need anyone in the news media to tell me that what I'ma doing is important and valuable.
- GordonS 8y ago
  I did the same 1-2 years ago, and haven't regretted it. Interestingly, I've experienced the same thing where others seem offended by decision, and I also get accused of being insular and "living in my own little bubble". I just don't get this though - what exactly am I losing out on?
  - ghthor 8y ago
    Being stressed out and dying early is what you're losing out on. Also being in pain and unhappy.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Being stressed out and dying early is also a likely result for an apathetic population.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - enumjorge 8y ago
    I do agree that paying too much attention to the crazy that’s going on is not constructive or healthy. But you can definitely overcorrect. If you completely disconnect you have no data with which to make your decisions come election time. A lot of what’s happening in politics does affect you directly. Changes to tax code, the budget, deregulation of industries (e.g. net neutrality). And some of it may not affect you directly but affects people in the communities you live in. A Supreme Court nominee had allegations of sexual assault and gambling problems brought against him. Regardless of what you believe, it behooves you to be aware that this is happening. If the accusations were true don’t you want to know? It affects the women in your life to have someone like that be given a lifelong appointment to the most powerful court of the land. If the accusations weren’t, wouldn’t that be important too? If you’re taking a break to maintain sanity I can understand that. But if you’re simply shrugging your shoulders at what’s happening simply because it doesn’t affect you right now—and trust me, some of the policies this administration is adopting are having a big impact on some—then I think that’s a pretty shitty, selfish attitude to have.
- ip26 8y ago
  I prefer to think about how I can positively impact people around me and my local community Given that, isn't (local) news still relevant?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Sometimes, sort of. If you think about the things you read on the news, you'll notice that 99%+ ends up being of no consequence for anything. A lot of what people get outraged about daily is total bullshit, and it gets forgotten the very next day, but even the more important-seeming issues really average out to zero impact on the community. In terms of information, the news is a channel with absurdly low signal/noise ratio. If you want to positively impact people, your first job should be finding a channel with higher SNR. There's a secondary value to news (or rather primary, in terms of value delivered) - social objects. Most people know what's currently on the news, so even though the raw information value is near-zero, it becomes a great conversation starter.
    - ip26 8y ago
      Local news is how I find out about ballot issues, restaurant closures and openings, new public works projects, etc, as well as more sordid things like failed health inspections or the deep dysfunction at a neighborhood school we might have sent our kid to... The SNR might not be super high but it seems useful.
      - jiggunjer 8y ago
        Most items of local news are highly relevant to a small proportion of locals. E.g. roadworks probably just affect a few % of people using that road. Then there are shock-news stories like violent crime. How is it relevant to know some kid from my street stabbed another kid over a pack of gum? If I want to know how safe my area is I'd look at crime statistics collected over years and compare it to other areas.
- Faark 8y ago
  How do you know whom to vote for? I understand the US doesn't have a lot of choice on the ballot, political news is highly polarized and latest/developing news is probably not worth following. But somewhat keeping up with what your government does so you can hold it accountable seems like a civic duty to me. And what better way to do this than news?
  - iamkroot 8y ago
    When it comes time to vote I research each candidate and ballot measure and make an informed decision with the information that I find. I don't need to be plugged into to every daily scandal to know that I fundamentally disagree with Trump's policies, a few minutes of research will tell me that just fine.
    - jiggunjer 8y ago
      You'd be surprised how even fascists can portray themselves as reasonable on their own websites, or how lacking wikipedia is on some parties. Ballot measures only address a small subset of policies, and they don't exist in many places. From what I understand making a 360 turn on them after being elected isn't uncommon either. So your 'informed' decision is probably just as biased as someone who bases their decision on news.
      - iamkroot 8y ago
        I would never use someone's own website as my sole source of information, that's just begging for trouble. I search out as many different sources as I can find, including voting history, town hall transcripts, interviews, endorsements, etc. etc. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying nobody can ever know enough to vote responsibly?
        Faark 8y ago
        I'd say the easiest source is the archive of a reputable news site, since journalists are historically responsible for collecting and refining this information. Thus we are back at the initial question: How to get Slower, Better News?
- sigi45 8y ago
  Not reading anything will not allow you the relevance of climate change. I prefer to read specific things to stay in the loop and I see it as a responsibility to be aware of things as my position in our society allows me to do so.
- mruts 8y ago
  Wouldn't a better solution be to read news but not be outraged by it?
edpichler 8y ago
Be careful about what kind of news you ignore. The punishment to who ignore politics, per example, is being governed by who cares.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  In 2019, Be careful about what kind of news you uncritically believe. The punishment to those who ignore due skepticism, is being governed by those who will manipulate.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    Too true... I can't stand Trump on a personal level... but he's right about one thing. There's a lot of manipulation and outright falsities in news, and almost no research or fact checking in the twitter sphere.
    - cbHXBY1D 8y ago
      As a socialist, the constant stream of Russiagate news and imperialist rhetoric about Venezuela was a reminder that the mainstream media has learned nothing from the past few years. In fact, they seem to have doubled down
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - thirdsun 8y ago
      > There's a lot of manipulation and outright falsities in news, and almost no research or fact checking in the twitter sphere. I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's the one benefitting the most from the lack of fact checking.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's the one benefitting the most from the lack of fact checking. Not safe at all. (Covington Kids, for one thing.) The groupthink among the left-leaning media, particularly the news, is pretty egregious. The degree to which they communicate with each other using electronic networks and create their thought bubbles is well documented at this point. If you "follow the money," to figure out who benefits, then it turns out, it's Far Left activists who benefit by getting to push their agenda and set the narratives. This even results in monetary benefit through fundraising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aid0V7IHOE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aid0V7IHOE4
stcredzero 8y ago
I stopped reading the news about a year ago. I felt like my emotions were being manipulated by a sharply-honed system built precisely to invoke outrage and draw you in to read more and more of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- 1two1one 8y ago
  Can you add some context for those who don't want to / are not able to watch the youtube video?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Tim Pool was falsely tarred by the SPLC as a speaker at a Holocaust Denial conference. The only citation given by the SPLC for this was an unvetted web page from a white supremacist website. Turns out, this was (yet another) bald-faced lie. However, it's his words as a commentator in this video which I find the most informative.
ghda 8y ago
I’ve managed to cut down my news diet to financial papers (the Australian Financial Review in my case). All the important news filters through eventually, and most of the filler content is emotionally neutral (“some company you don’t own launches takeover bid for some other company you don’t own”) instead of outrage-porn click bait (“this sign spotted by a twitter user in the bathroom at a bakery in Des Moines will either outrage you or else the fact that other people are outraged about it will!”)
joe-collins 8y ago
At the risk of sounding glib, your presence on this site would seem to imply that you've not, in fact, stopped reading the news.
- enchiridion 8y ago
  Just noticed your username. Are you the YouTuber?
  - joe-collins 8y ago
    I am unaware of such a person.
    - enchiridion 8y ago
      He makes pretty good coding tutorials.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I was just about to make that comment. Anyone on Hacker News, has not "stopped reading the news". Maybe they stopped looking at the FOX news website? Or maybe they stopped looking at the CNN website? Or what have you. But they consume a lot of news every day. The reality is that a very large percentage of the front page of HN is political type stuff: "US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums" Or stuff intended to trigger discussions of political type stuff: "Big Tech Helps China Censor People" etc, etc etc. There is a lot of negative, outrage focused, news on HN.
- clay_the_ripper 8y ago
  True. Hacker news is the only news I read. Because it mostly filters out the stuff I don’t care about. Pretty much every “traditional news” headline basically says to me: “This horrible thing happened somewhere that has no bearing on your life!” That’s the kind of “news” I try to avoid.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  Not the OP and I haven't stopped reading the news entirely, but actually on HN, I do not usually read the articles (horror!). I especially don't read articles from the major news outlets. I come to HN for the comments and links to blog posts about programming. And, no, I did not read TFA ;-). I was just curious if anyone had comments on finding slower, better news.
throwaway5752 8y ago
I pay a news site and I get high quality news from them that is curated. And since they make money from subscriptions, the need for eyeballs and page views is not a factor. Something to consider.
- chillfox 8y ago
  Care to share what news site that is?
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    Well, I'll just say this article (and a lot of them from the author) about the independent journalism business are worth reading: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/nuts-and-bolts-of-prime-and-tpm https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/nuts-and-bolts-of-prime...
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    Not OP, but for me it's an economist subscription. I've also dropped most of my news app usage (I feel disconnecting from the news altogether is a little too drastic) but I definitely feel less irritated without missing too much.
    - lenocinor 8y ago
      Same for me (reading The Economist). Having a few days or a week to filter news down means I still hear about things in a semi-timely manner but that I don't seem to get caught up in most media's daily churn.
    - throwaway5752 8y ago
      I pay for certain categories: some software (eg, lwn), some industry associations, government/law, and economics (Economist is not one, but is a great idea).
  - TimJRobinson 8y ago
    The Economist and Stratechery for me. Also CaspianReport for bigger picture geopolitical stuff. CaspianReport is free, but I give on Patreon which ensures he can focus on quality content rather than attracting advertisers. I really like the Patreon model, I give to 20+ different Youtubers and writers because I hate what advertisers and corporations have done to modern day media, making it all about eyeballs instead of education.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Pharmakon 8y ago
Have you ever read the Financial Times? More broadly, in addition to FT I try to get a multitude of perspectives without straying too far into extremes (so no Fox News, no CNN) and I try to rely on single-topic sites. FT, NYT, Jerusalem Post, AlJazeera, Aviation Week, BBC, SkyNews, a handful of science and tech journals, HN, and some others. You can get a fairly balanced (not perfect) perspective without the kind of moral panicking and clickbait you’d often find. BBC and Sky being exceptions, but that’s my local news.
Kye 8y ago
I don't have a choice but to follow some news. For example: I want to know when politicians are trying to ban me from public life. That's a regular occurrence. Following the ACLU and SCOTUSblog will get you enough of the news that matters.
slg 8y ago
It needs to be pointed out that this is an option that originates from privilege. Ignoring the news means ignoring politics. Ignoring politics is tacit support of the status quo. The status quo does not put everyone on equal footing. Disadvantaged people would therefore suffer more from disengaging with the news than people of privilege.
- netfl0 8y ago
  Why is ignoring media tacit support of the status quo?
  - jdhawk 8y ago
    how else do you make an informed vote?
    - mixmastamyk 8y ago
      "News" in its most common form has little to do with being an informed citizen. The library would be a better bet.
      - AWildC182 8y ago
        So we should just never read any news again because someone wrote a click-bait article? I don't know if you've been to a library...but they usually have newspapers.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        rayiner 8y ago
        Most articles are little better than click bait. Journalists writing about X usually aren’t trained in X and usually have little time to build expertise in X. They are by training writers, so for the most part they’re reduced to parroting the narratives peddled by this or that group or political party. It’s very rare I read a general news article within my areas of subject matter knowledge and think “oh, this writer really understands and has highlighted the important issues.” I have to assume the same is true for subject matter I’m not familiar with, like tax policy. In reality, for a lot of these subjects, nobody knows the answers, not even the “experts.” For those things, journalists have neither the space, time, or education to even do a good job raising the relevant issues, much less elucidating the answers.
dba7dba 8y ago
I have been reading news (news on real paper) since I could barely understand what I was reading about. I read news often just for reading. But I have also stopped reading/watching/hearing news. When election time comes, I will read the laws being proposed, do some google search and pick a candidate or yay/nay a proposition (I live in California). Just step back and reconsider what 'news' is trying to tell you from a 3rd person view. Ultimately you are being manipulated, imho. To vote for a candidate and/or clicks so that ads can be sold. Just check this book out. Or at least read reviews of the book. > How the News Makes Us Dumb: The Death of Wisdom in an Information Society Paperback – March 17, 1999 by C. John Sommerville (Author)
- jiggunjer 8y ago
  You read the law proposals? I don't have weeks to decipher and interpret dry verbose text and cross-reference each party's stance on it by sending emails. Especially since my country has 10+ national fractions. In general, I try to understand their underlying values by reading discussions and previous news items. I vote based on values, not legislation snapshots.
  - dba7dba 8y ago
    In California, weeks before an election each voter gets mailed a booklet listing each proposition (proposed law that citizen or groups got on ballot) with argument from groups advocating both yay and nay. Quite handy to view. And you can get the value each group advocating yah/nay also. Same with candidates for elected positions. No average voter can read all proposed laws and hope to understand it. And most definitely no news articles can help anyone to do so imho.
RickJWagner 8y ago
I've recently let a couple of subscriptions (a local newspaper, and a car magazine of all things) because I also sensed that politics were being inserted where they didn't belong. I'd gladly pay a slight premium for news content that's completely politically neutral. I long for the good old days where you couldn't tell where the news presenter fell on the political scale.
nicklaf 8y ago
I would be inclined to read past the headlines if I received it as plain text, via email. I might even pay for it if that's all it was, and contained absolutely no ads or even links. That said, I don't know that I'd actually read it, since most news strikes me as obscenely polemical, even when it feigns objectivity. Even the New York Times rubs me the wrong way in this regard.
baroffoos 8y ago
I think that 90% of news is totally unimportant. Its just non stop bad news about stuff that doesn't affect me and I can't do anything about. I would like to stay informed about some level of politics so that I can make informed voting choices but it seems hard to find the worthwhile news and cut through the crap.
thinkersilver 8y ago
I did this about 4 years ago as well and haven't looked back either. The habits I'd formed around news reading just were not helpful or useful. If you think about it for it a second there is very little informational value given by news articles. The who, where, what, why can be done in a paragraph, the implications and future projects can be done in an opinion piece, because any forward future looking projection is 'opinion' and has error, bias embedded in it. All of this is cheekily now lumped into one. Well that's my view. I've seen my colleagues go through the most anguishing emotional roller coaster over the the last 3 months with the brexit madness. I've seen emotions run high, I've seen the highs and lows. Everyone is stressed and I'm blissfully content. I'm yet to experience a life altering impact from skipping the news.
lordgrenville 8y ago
I'm with you that disengaging from the news can be a good idea and make one happier, but I strongly disagree that this is owing to journalism having gotten worse. I think that the point of journalism should be to find things that make people outraged, and while this may not be so healthy for an individual, it is healthy on a societal level. This is how scandals are dug up and the powerful held to account. The print news industry isn't inherently less scandal-oriented than digital (at least if you compare apples to apples), it just isn't as fast. I had a similar reaction reading Aaron Swartz's post on why he hates the news[1]. I'm sure Thoreau would have had the same view of the news in his time. Sure, you are unquestionably better off and probably happier learning Japanese or PDE instead of the daily newspaper. But it still has an important function. [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

clay_the_ripper 8y ago

Did the same thing about 4 years ago and haven’t looked back. I find though that a lot of people are actually offended by it since I have no clue what thing they and everyone else is outraged about. I get accused of not caring, being disengaged, blah blah blah. It’s difficult to explain to people who are still deep in outrage mode, so I mostly avoid taking about it. My life is so much better since cutting out the news. I am happier, more focused and able to actually concentrate on the things that I care about. I prefer to think about how I can positively impact people around me and my local community, rather than embracing the culture of outrage about things happening thousands of miles away that are ultimately irrelevant.

irq 8y ago
Honest question, how do you turn off your empathy for the suffering of your fellow countrymen? Which is what ignoring their plight would require (at least, it would for me).
- narrator 8y ago
  There is a lot of bad stuff going on all over all the time. Focus is what's important. There are billions of people on this earth. You could cry at hundreds of stories every day if they were told in great enough detail. Those stories could be embellished or made up, paid for by someone with an agenda to promote and you wouldn't know the difference. Save your outrage for things you have first hand knowledge of or knowledge of through trusted contacts. The world did ok before 24/7 news, so it's not like you, king of the world, need to be up to the minute informed on whatever thing you're supposed to take your outrage vengence upon today.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >There is a lot of bad stuff going on all over all the time. Focus is what's important. I mean starting with people who are in close proximity to you seems like an important thing. Especially given the abundance of food and capital we have? And the fact that our government implicitly relies on voters making informed choices to elect representatives that can then practically the address issues you know/care about? >Save your outrage for things you have first hand knowledge of or knowledge of through trusted contacts. I mean, that's what news organizations are. And we even used to have regulations governing them to ensure they could be trusted. >The world did ok before 24/7 news Well we're talking about slower news. Not no news. And certainly not 24/7 news. Because this article is about slowing things down. And the world wasn't really okay for the longest time. All in all your post is "I'm fine, so shit happens." Kind of crappy.
    - misterprime 8y ago
      >God, give me grace to accept with serenity, the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. I think this is a case of these people realizing that they cannot change the world in such a way to solve each and every problem that is presented to them in the news. As such, they choose to focus on their own personal lives and they people they come across in their day to day lives. I hope this helps. It's not that they just don't care, it's that caring is damaging their psyche and performance. They've learned it's healthier to tune most of that noise out.
      - kadendogthing 8y ago
        >God, give me grace to accept with serenity, the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. I'm not sure what whimsical platitudes that essentially absolve you of your civic duty have to do with this conversation, or how it could possibly negate anything that was said. >I hope this helps. No it just solidifies what I think about the type of people that harbor such opinions.
- dannykwells 8y ago
  I don't think that reading or not reading the news is engaging with the plight of "my fellow countrymen". We all ignore the plight of millions/billions of people every day. That is the way life has always been.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    I remember someone coined a concept recently that when you read about a problem in the world that you can help alleviate then you become morally responsible. It’s liks quantum entanglement but with ethics. Found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949572 What about that? Coming upon news where you can make a difference right now, by sending money to NGOs with workers on the ground.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      That is an impractical argument. Say there is a situation that Alfred have the power to effect. To reliably cause change for the good Alfred must: (1) Identify a problem and its root cause (2) Change the root cause (3) Confirm that the problem is solved. There are people who claim you can leap straight to (2) and skip (3). These are people who (if they ever honestly checked) would discover that they are not responsible for very much positive, meaningful change. They are flailing, looking busy and have the best of intentions. For anything reported in the news step (1) represents a huge investment of time because the news has probably got the situation at least somewhat wrong. To say Alfred has a moral responsibility to do something is equivalent to saying Alfred has a moral responsibility not to read the news; because Alfred doesn't have enough time or resources to confirm what the problem is for all the sad stories he can read about. In your specific example - 'sending money to NGOs with workers on the ground' - Alfred would probably divert a lot of money to organisations who are good at emotive advertising campaigns with administrative costs verging on embezzlement. We have good historical evidence that Alfred's best bet is to go all-in on capitalism, make a fortune, and then do some philanthropy to maximise his impact. Giving to a worthy cause creates incentives that are terrible. I can't be convinced that it is a good idea. I have a lot more respect for people who volunteer time, but even then I'm suspect of their ability to correctly diagnose the problem they are trying to fix.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- fsloth 8y ago
  Um, how does watching news help anyone’s plight, precisely?
  - mike00632 8y ago
    You can't do anything if you're not even informed about it. There are numerous examples of the public giving enormous amounts of money and relief to victims of, for example, natural disasters.
    - fsloth 8y ago
      Surely one can do much more good through their daily conduct, rather than only chipping in in exceptional circumstances? And if a person is improving their community by their conduct, they recieve their information through direct interaction, rendering news irrelevant.
- zwkrt 8y ago
  I think having empathy for those directly around you is a good start. The saying "all politics are local" goes the other way around as well, that most change is local change. It is unlikely that I can help people gain asylum from oppressive regimes, but it is very likely that my donations to local charities and volunteer work is directly helping those around me. In a categorical imperative sense, if more people acted this way fewer things would be so bad about the world.
- leftyted 8y ago
  I don't experience this kind of empathy very often. For example, I don't get upset when a plane crashes or there's a mass shooting. I can imagine myself in the position of the victims. I can imagine if someone I loved died in a situation like that and I can simulate some of the grief and anger I think I'd feel. But that exercise seems sort of selfish to me. In general, these kind of tragic events don't affect my mood. I do sometimes experience this kind of empathy when I'm reading history or a human-interest story about some tragic or unfair situation. It seems to me that many people assume that all good behavior flows from empathy. I don't think this is true. I use various philosophical viewpoints to justify (or rationalize) my behavior: sometimes utilitarianism, sometimes the categorical imperative, and often a vague sort of humanism.
- irq 8y ago
  I wanted to start an honest discussion but my thread seems to have quickly devolved into the haves vs have nots of a capacity for empathy. Which is not my intention. This is probably my fault, for not considering enough viewpoints before writing my question. Let’s consider starting from this standpoint instead: Everyone has differing levels of empathy and it’s not going to be the same for every person. Despite this, we all need to get along and work towards whatever our individual goals are peacefully. Given this vast spectrum of empathy, advice from the extreme edges of that spectrum (“just tune out all news 100%” on one end, “cry for every single suffering being everywhere” on the other end) is particularly useless, because the only reason this situation even exists in the first place is because of extremism / polarization. Where do we go from here?
- iamkroot 8y ago
  Who said anything about ignoring the plight of others? The news does nothing at all to aid me in helping other people. Indeed, most of the time it distracts me and keeps me from being aware of all the myriad ways I can give back to the community. I volunteer lots of my time with various organizations and I didn't need anyone in the news media to tell me that what I'ma doing is important and valuable.
GordonS 8y ago
I did the same 1-2 years ago, and haven't regretted it. Interestingly, I've experienced the same thing where others seem offended by decision, and I also get accused of being insular and "living in my own little bubble". I just don't get this though - what exactly am I losing out on?
- ghthor 8y ago
  Being stressed out and dying early is what you're losing out on. Also being in pain and unhappy.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Being stressed out and dying early is also a likely result for an apathetic population.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- enumjorge 8y ago
  I do agree that paying too much attention to the crazy that’s going on is not constructive or healthy. But you can definitely overcorrect. If you completely disconnect you have no data with which to make your decisions come election time. A lot of what’s happening in politics does affect you directly. Changes to tax code, the budget, deregulation of industries (e.g. net neutrality). And some of it may not affect you directly but affects people in the communities you live in. A Supreme Court nominee had allegations of sexual assault and gambling problems brought against him. Regardless of what you believe, it behooves you to be aware that this is happening. If the accusations were true don’t you want to know? It affects the women in your life to have someone like that be given a lifelong appointment to the most powerful court of the land. If the accusations weren’t, wouldn’t that be important too? If you’re taking a break to maintain sanity I can understand that. But if you’re simply shrugging your shoulders at what’s happening simply because it doesn’t affect you right now—and trust me, some of the policies this administration is adopting are having a big impact on some—then I think that’s a pretty shitty, selfish attitude to have.
ip26 8y ago
I prefer to think about how I can positively impact people around me and my local community Given that, isn't (local) news still relevant?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Sometimes, sort of. If you think about the things you read on the news, you'll notice that 99%+ ends up being of no consequence for anything. A lot of what people get outraged about daily is total bullshit, and it gets forgotten the very next day, but even the more important-seeming issues really average out to zero impact on the community. In terms of information, the news is a channel with absurdly low signal/noise ratio. If you want to positively impact people, your first job should be finding a channel with higher SNR. There's a secondary value to news (or rather primary, in terms of value delivered) - social objects. Most people know what's currently on the news, so even though the raw information value is near-zero, it becomes a great conversation starter.
  - ip26 8y ago
    Local news is how I find out about ballot issues, restaurant closures and openings, new public works projects, etc, as well as more sordid things like failed health inspections or the deep dysfunction at a neighborhood school we might have sent our kid to... The SNR might not be super high but it seems useful.
    - jiggunjer 8y ago
      Most items of local news are highly relevant to a small proportion of locals. E.g. roadworks probably just affect a few % of people using that road. Then there are shock-news stories like violent crime. How is it relevant to know some kid from my street stabbed another kid over a pack of gum? If I want to know how safe my area is I'd look at crime statistics collected over years and compare it to other areas.
Faark 8y ago
How do you know whom to vote for? I understand the US doesn't have a lot of choice on the ballot, political news is highly polarized and latest/developing news is probably not worth following. But somewhat keeping up with what your government does so you can hold it accountable seems like a civic duty to me. And what better way to do this than news?
- iamkroot 8y ago
  When it comes time to vote I research each candidate and ballot measure and make an informed decision with the information that I find. I don't need to be plugged into to every daily scandal to know that I fundamentally disagree with Trump's policies, a few minutes of research will tell me that just fine.
  - jiggunjer 8y ago
    You'd be surprised how even fascists can portray themselves as reasonable on their own websites, or how lacking wikipedia is on some parties. Ballot measures only address a small subset of policies, and they don't exist in many places. From what I understand making a 360 turn on them after being elected isn't uncommon either. So your 'informed' decision is probably just as biased as someone who bases their decision on news.
    - iamkroot 8y ago
      I would never use someone's own website as my sole source of information, that's just begging for trouble. I search out as many different sources as I can find, including voting history, town hall transcripts, interviews, endorsements, etc. etc. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying nobody can ever know enough to vote responsibly?
      - Faark 8y ago
        I'd say the easiest source is the archive of a reputable news site, since journalists are historically responsible for collecting and refining this information. Thus we are back at the initial question: How to get Slower, Better News?
sigi45 8y ago
Not reading anything will not allow you the relevance of climate change. I prefer to read specific things to stay in the loop and I see it as a responsibility to be aware of things as my position in our society allows me to do so.
mruts 8y ago
Wouldn't a better solution be to read news but not be outraged by it?

edpichler 8y ago

Be careful about what kind of news you ignore. The punishment to who ignore politics, per example, is being governed by who cares.

stcredzero 8y ago
In 2019, Be careful about what kind of news you uncritically believe. The punishment to those who ignore due skepticism, is being governed by those who will manipulate.
- tracker1 8y ago
  Too true... I can't stand Trump on a personal level... but he's right about one thing. There's a lot of manipulation and outright falsities in news, and almost no research or fact checking in the twitter sphere.
  - cbHXBY1D 8y ago
    As a socialist, the constant stream of Russiagate news and imperialist rhetoric about Venezuela was a reminder that the mainstream media has learned nothing from the past few years. In fact, they seem to have doubled down
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - thirdsun 8y ago
    > There's a lot of manipulation and outright falsities in news, and almost no research or fact checking in the twitter sphere. I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's the one benefitting the most from the lack of fact checking.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's the one benefitting the most from the lack of fact checking. Not safe at all. (Covington Kids, for one thing.) The groupthink among the left-leaning media, particularly the news, is pretty egregious. The degree to which they communicate with each other using electronic networks and create their thought bubbles is well documented at this point. If you "follow the money," to figure out who benefits, then it turns out, it's Far Left activists who benefit by getting to push their agenda and set the narratives. This even results in monetary benefit through fundraising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aid0V7IHOE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aid0V7IHOE4

stcredzero 8y ago

1two1one 8y ago
Can you add some context for those who don't want to / are not able to watch the youtube video?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Tim Pool was falsely tarred by the SPLC as a speaker at a Holocaust Denial conference. The only citation given by the SPLC for this was an unvetted web page from a white supremacist website. Turns out, this was (yet another) bald-faced lie. However, it's his words as a commentator in this video which I find the most informative.

ghda 8y ago

I’ve managed to cut down my news diet to financial papers (the Australian Financial Review in my case). All the important news filters through eventually, and most of the filler content is emotionally neutral (“some company you don’t own launches takeover bid for some other company you don’t own”) instead of outrage-porn click bait (“this sign spotted by a twitter user in the bathroom at a bakery in Des Moines will either outrage you or else the fact that other people are outraged about it will!”)

joe-collins 8y ago

At the risk of sounding glib, your presence on this site would seem to imply that you've not, in fact, stopped reading the news.

enchiridion 8y ago
Just noticed your username. Are you the YouTuber?
- joe-collins 8y ago
  I am unaware of such a person.
  - enchiridion 8y ago
    He makes pretty good coding tutorials.
bilbo0s 8y ago
I was just about to make that comment. Anyone on Hacker News, has not "stopped reading the news". Maybe they stopped looking at the FOX news website? Or maybe they stopped looking at the CNN website? Or what have you. But they consume a lot of news every day. The reality is that a very large percentage of the front page of HN is political type stuff: "US Workers Are Highly Taxed If You Count Premiums" Or stuff intended to trigger discussions of political type stuff: "Big Tech Helps China Censor People" etc, etc etc. There is a lot of negative, outrage focused, news on HN.
clay_the_ripper 8y ago
True. Hacker news is the only news I read. Because it mostly filters out the stuff I don’t care about. Pretty much every “traditional news” headline basically says to me: “This horrible thing happened somewhere that has no bearing on your life!” That’s the kind of “news” I try to avoid.
mikekchar 8y ago
Not the OP and I haven't stopped reading the news entirely, but actually on HN, I do not usually read the articles (horror!). I especially don't read articles from the major news outlets. I come to HN for the comments and links to blog posts about programming. And, no, I did not read TFA ;-). I was just curious if anyone had comments on finding slower, better news.

throwaway5752 8y ago

I pay a news site and I get high quality news from them that is curated. And since they make money from subscriptions, the need for eyeballs and page views is not a factor. Something to consider.

chillfox 8y ago
Care to share what news site that is?
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Well, I'll just say this article (and a lot of them from the author) about the independent journalism business are worth reading: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/nuts-and-bolts-of-prime-and-tpm https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/nuts-and-bolts-of-prime...
- Barrin92 8y ago
  Not OP, but for me it's an economist subscription. I've also dropped most of my news app usage (I feel disconnecting from the news altogether is a little too drastic) but I definitely feel less irritated without missing too much.
  - lenocinor 8y ago
    Same for me (reading The Economist). Having a few days or a week to filter news down means I still hear about things in a semi-timely manner but that I don't seem to get caught up in most media's daily churn.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    I pay for certain categories: some software (eg, lwn), some industry associations, government/law, and economics (Economist is not one, but is a great idea).
- TimJRobinson 8y ago
  The Economist and Stratechery for me. Also CaspianReport for bigger picture geopolitical stuff. CaspianReport is free, but I give on Patreon which ensures he can focus on quality content rather than attracting advertisers. I really like the Patreon model, I give to 20+ different Youtubers and writers because I hate what advertisers and corporations have done to modern day media, making it all about eyeballs instead of education.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Pharmakon 8y ago

Have you ever read the Financial Times? More broadly, in addition to FT I try to get a multitude of perspectives without straying too far into extremes (so no Fox News, no CNN) and I try to rely on single-topic sites. FT, NYT, Jerusalem Post, AlJazeera, Aviation Week, BBC, SkyNews, a handful of science and tech journals, HN, and some others. You can get a fairly balanced (not perfect) perspective without the kind of moral panicking and clickbait you’d often find. BBC and Sky being exceptions, but that’s my local news.

Kye 8y ago

I don't have a choice but to follow some news. For example: I want to know when politicians are trying to ban me from public life. That's a regular occurrence. Following the ACLU and SCOTUSblog will get you enough of the news that matters.

slg 8y ago

It needs to be pointed out that this is an option that originates from privilege. Ignoring the news means ignoring politics. Ignoring politics is tacit support of the status quo. The status quo does not put everyone on equal footing. Disadvantaged people would therefore suffer more from disengaging with the news than people of privilege.

netfl0 8y ago
Why is ignoring media tacit support of the status quo?
- jdhawk 8y ago
  how else do you make an informed vote?
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    "News" in its most common form has little to do with being an informed citizen. The library would be a better bet.
    - AWildC182 8y ago
      So we should just never read any news again because someone wrote a click-bait article? I don't know if you've been to a library...but they usually have newspapers.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 8y ago
        Most articles are little better than click bait. Journalists writing about X usually aren’t trained in X and usually have little time to build expertise in X. They are by training writers, so for the most part they’re reduced to parroting the narratives peddled by this or that group or political party. It’s very rare I read a general news article within my areas of subject matter knowledge and think “oh, this writer really understands and has highlighted the important issues.” I have to assume the same is true for subject matter I’m not familiar with, like tax policy. In reality, for a lot of these subjects, nobody knows the answers, not even the “experts.” For those things, journalists have neither the space, time, or education to even do a good job raising the relevant issues, much less elucidating the answers.

dba7dba 8y ago

I have been reading news (news on real paper) since I could barely understand what I was reading about. I read news often just for reading. But I have also stopped reading/watching/hearing news. When election time comes, I will read the laws being proposed, do some google search and pick a candidate or yay/nay a proposition (I live in California). Just step back and reconsider what 'news' is trying to tell you from a 3rd person view. Ultimately you are being manipulated, imho. To vote for a candidate and/or clicks so that ads can be sold. Just check this book out. Or at least read reviews of the book. > How the News Makes Us Dumb: The Death of Wisdom in an Information Society Paperback – March 17, 1999 by C. John Sommerville (Author)

jiggunjer 8y ago
You read the law proposals? I don't have weeks to decipher and interpret dry verbose text and cross-reference each party's stance on it by sending emails. Especially since my country has 10+ national fractions. In general, I try to understand their underlying values by reading discussions and previous news items. I vote based on values, not legislation snapshots.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  In California, weeks before an election each voter gets mailed a booklet listing each proposition (proposed law that citizen or groups got on ballot) with argument from groups advocating both yay and nay. Quite handy to view. And you can get the value each group advocating yah/nay also. Same with candidates for elected positions. No average voter can read all proposed laws and hope to understand it. And most definitely no news articles can help anyone to do so imho.

RickJWagner 8y ago

I've recently let a couple of subscriptions (a local newspaper, and a car magazine of all things) because I also sensed that politics were being inserted where they didn't belong. I'd gladly pay a slight premium for news content that's completely politically neutral. I long for the good old days where you couldn't tell where the news presenter fell on the political scale.

nicklaf 8y ago

I would be inclined to read past the headlines if I received it as plain text, via email. I might even pay for it if that's all it was, and contained absolutely no ads or even links. That said, I don't know that I'd actually read it, since most news strikes me as obscenely polemical, even when it feigns objectivity. Even the New York Times rubs me the wrong way in this regard.

baroffoos 8y ago

I think that 90% of news is totally unimportant. Its just non stop bad news about stuff that doesn't affect me and I can't do anything about. I would like to stay informed about some level of politics so that I can make informed voting choices but it seems hard to find the worthwhile news and cut through the crap.

thinkersilver 8y ago

I did this about 4 years ago as well and haven't looked back either. The habits I'd formed around news reading just were not helpful or useful. If you think about it for it a second there is very little informational value given by news articles. The who, where, what, why can be done in a paragraph, the implications and future projects can be done in an opinion piece, because any forward future looking projection is 'opinion' and has error, bias embedded in it. All of this is cheekily now lumped into one. Well that's my view. I've seen my colleagues go through the most anguishing emotional roller coaster over the the last 3 months with the brexit madness. I've seen emotions run high, I've seen the highs and lows. Everyone is stressed and I'm blissfully content. I'm yet to experience a life altering impact from skipping the news.

lordgrenville 8y ago

I'm with you that disengaging from the news can be a good idea and make one happier, but I strongly disagree that this is owing to journalism having gotten worse. I think that the point of journalism should be to find things that make people outraged, and while this may not be so healthy for an individual, it is healthy on a societal level. This is how scandals are dug up and the powerful held to account. The print news industry isn't inherently less scandal-oriented than digital (at least if you compare apples to apples), it just isn't as fast. I had a similar reaction reading Aaron Swartz's post on why he hates the news[1]. I'm sure Thoreau would have had the same view of the news in his time. Sure, you are unquestionably better off and probably happier learning Japanese or PDE instead of the daily newspaper. But it still has an important function. [1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews