8 ms·

Stop Watching the News (2019)

178 points by wellsjosephc 6y ago

djsumdog 6y ago
I love this post. I rarely watch the news any more. I was surprised that during the beginning of this current era, I found myself watching news for the first time (like not just clips posted elsewhere, but explicitly seeking it out) and it's honestly degraded even more than I can imagine. Most major news networks talk to their audience like children. They provide entertainment or promote the agenda of their advertisers. Years ago I stopped watching satire news too. I use to love Colbert and Stewart, but I also realized I was laughing at .. genocide. I thought that such a format might make people more aware and such news more palatable, but I came to believe that it just makes us numb and dumb to some of the harsher realities of the time we occupy. If you do have to listen to something, I suggest the No Agenda Podcast (one of the oldest podcasts in existence) and the Corbet Report. Even then, take them in limited doses.
- d4mi3n 6y ago
  I'd also plug Last Week Tonight if folks are looking for informational satire. John Oliver and his staff do a fantastic job investigating a lot of current and ongoing issues while presenting them in ways that are approachable for a layman.
- californical 6y ago
  I would also highly recommend your local NPR affiliate radio station. They can vary in quality, but tend to be pretty excellent at just telling you "what's happening" without much agenda. I think Colorado has the best NPR affiliate of all time -- they go by CPR. Really popular, even among younger people. Highest quality news and radio... I wonder if any other states/cities have similar quality public radio?
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    I really started to tune out NPR back around 2008 after Inskeep's terrible interview with Ahmadinejad. I wrote about it more in detail back then: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ I use to listen to Democracy Now back then too, but I really don't think either news source as really held up over the years. They're both very polarized, and the quality of their content has gone down as well.
- rr60 6y ago
  +1 for No Agenda. A fantastic podcasts that helps you think about the news in other ways.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Strongly relate. I gave up TV news a long time ago and became an NPR fan for a while, but that grew old after a few years. BBC World Service radio was my last refuge before all of my news consumption became print/reading. I'd still go back to the BBC, but their broadcast schedule doesn't mesh well with US time zones.
tj-teej 6y ago
At the end of the day people do need to be informed. Saying "stop watching the news" is like telling someone who's overweight to "stop eating". As I see it the problem is the junk-news. It presents as news but there's little substance, it doesn't make you more informed, it makes you angry, upset, and most-importantly (to the new station), engaged. Matt Taibbi's new book, Hate Inc does a great job of illustrating how the "junk news" (and he doesn't just go after the Right) industry is rotting our brains: https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Inc-Todays-Despise-Another/dp/1949017257 https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Inc-Todays-Despise-Another/dp/19...
Upvoter33 6y ago
I thought this was going to be a plug for podcasts, which are indeed supplanting some aspects of the news business (see the NYT article about Joe Rogan the other day).
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> If that’s the case, what’re you actually getting from the news? Aggravated? Wound up? Certainly not informed about anything important. This seems like the author is explicitly arguing for the tragedy of the commons. Yes, any one individual getting 'wound up' doesn't accomplish much, but the public 'at large' getting wound up can and does effect real change sometimes. Like, it's very easy to point to a variety of topics, about which there was sufficient public outrage from a news story to cause some change. For example, the recent killing of Ahmaud Arbery, the black jogger in Georgia. Before the public outrage that followed the release of the video, the killers had not even so much as been arrested. If the author here had gotten his way, nobody would've seen the video, nobody would've been outraged, and nothing would've happened after Ahmed was murdered. Am I supposed to believe that this is an improvement?
- bkohlmann 6y ago
  My understanding is that the Arbery murder became widely known because of Twitter, not the "news." The news reported on it after it became a phenomenon, not as the original source. And this is where the "conversation" piece may come in with a 21st century twist. Enough folks highlighted it as the "most important thing" to make it widely known via retweets and likes.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Given the angle the author is taking here, I can hardly believe that he'd be saying "yeah but spending your time on Twitter is good and productive", considering its reputation as a source of constant outrage seems even worse than for internet or TV news. So, the same reasoning applies. You could also look at something covered more by regular news sources, like how the GOP's attempted repeal of Obamacare was blocked by public response once it became clear how many people would lose health insurance coverage. Suddenly, the repeal that was reasonably popular overall (and very popular on the right) was much less so. Would the repeal having quietly passed through Congress because nobody was paying attention to national news have been an improvement? The author's argument is one in favor of selfishness: being a well-informed citizen of your state or country does not benefit you personally, so why bother? I actually think that the logic does hold, it's just that the implication of everyone listening to his advice is that the country becomes less informed as a whole, which sounds really, REALLY bad to me. People's average level of political and current event knowledge already seems dreadfully low, someone pushing to make it lower yet...why?
rglover 6y ago
This is the way to do it. Serious kudos for this post OP. Turn off notifications about "breaking news" on your phone, declutter your inbox by unsubscribing to newsletters from media outlets, and unfollow news co's on social media (hint: using Twitter's keyword filter is a peach for this). Completely and utterly disengage. I've done this for the past year or so and have completely mellowed out and gotten a lot more done. The funny part? Nothing has really changed in the world, even with a pandemic tossed in. Barring opinion pieces and in-depth journalism, it's all a machine designed to keep you angry, helpless, and unthinking.
throw7 6y ago
"It’s perfectly fine to say, “I don’t know enough about it, and I really don’t care to.”" This guy must be loads of fun at dinner parties ;)... i'd say stopping at "i don't know enough about it." would be the perfectly fine thing to say.
- seneca 6y ago
  > This guy must be loads of fun at dinner parties ;) There's nothing wrong with saying "I have no interest in participating in the outrage circus with you". The whole point is that that cycle is not fun, dinner party or not.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Adding "...and I don't really care to" could easily come across as smug and even condescending, though it depends on the tone in which it's delivered.
    - seneca 6y ago
      That's a fair point about tone. In my mind it's the difference, when being asked "Would you like a beer", between answering "No thanks", and "No thanks, I don't drink". One says simply no, the other says no, that's something I specifically abstain from. I suppose that could be seen as smug, and the difference would largely be in tone, as you say.
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    in the first case, you're merely abstaining. In the case you describe, you're passing judgement on the other person. People who pass judgement on other people are unlikely to be much fun to talk to at dinner parties.
wvenable 6y ago
"Millions of Americans staying at home are relying on Amazon" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6U2Un5kEdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6U2Un5kEdI
- djsumdog 6y ago
  The Church committee hearings in 1975 had the CIA admitting they had key people in magazine and print media, but when pressed if they had people in TV, they requested a closed session. If this clip showed just one set of news stations (all NBC stations) saying the same line, that would be one thing (they're just getting phrases to include from higher up) but it's tons of different networks. Sure they could just be cutting up and reporting the same AP article they licensed or a press release (Occam's Razor) but it's also likely this particular narrative is pushed, at best, by advertisers wanting a specific message, and at worst, by the government or the CIA. It has happened before (Operation Mockingbird and COINTELPRO). It's silly to think it's not happening now.
wayupthere 6y ago
For those who still want news, I think reuters provides the most balance. They do still lean left at times though with overuse of phrases like "far right".
- tobltobs 6y ago
  Doing a Google search 'site:reuters.com "far right"' I couldn't find any hit where the "far-right" would be inappropriate. Could you give an example where Reuters is left-leaning in your opinion.
  - downerending 6y ago
    That seems to be true. But partly so because there don't seem to be any hits for "far right" in their coverage of US politics. Good for them. I doubt this would be true for NYT, WaPo, etc., but I am indeed too lazy to look. For those too young to remember what reasonable journalism used to look like, Reuters and AP are probably the closest, in the MSM.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      > That seems to be true. But partly so because there don't seem to be any hits for "far right" in their coverage of US politics. Good for them. How is that a good thing? "Far right" and "far left" are both perfectly fine terms to describe certain political ideologies and movements.
      - downerending 6y ago
        In 2020, "far right" has become a cheap epithet frequently applied to half of the country. (cf "deplorables") As such, it really has no application by a neutral news source anymore. Or, to put it another way, if half of the electorate holds fairly similar views, they cannot reasonably be described as "far right" (or "far left", for that matter). The "far" end would be maybe one percent, not fifty. In any case, I appreciate journalists that simply describe the situation, and allow me to decide for myself what I think about it. Hard to remember now, but that's how it actually used to be.
acomjean 6y ago
I hardly watch the news anymore. I let myself read the papers at night. But I found myself checking and checking, so once a day. (I was photo editor of my college paper, so I have a soft spot for newspapers). I do listen to my local public radio statio. I'm in Boston and WGBH, is pretty good. https://www.wgbh.org/news/ https://www.wgbh.org/news/ They even have a radio talk show (worst title: Boston Public Radio) which has news, events and other discussions. Lots of local (which was more relevent when there where events to discover...) I don't always listen, but it can be pretty funny when people call in. https://www.wgbh.org/news/boston-public-radio https://www.wgbh.org/news/boston-public-radio
Ididntdothis 6y ago
I never look at CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews. I feel sites like reuters.com or apnews.com give me a good level of news without the emotional content. I agree about local newspapers. We should worry more about what's going on close to us versus Washington.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  I've figured it was always sort of true that television news was of generally worse quality than print. They've done good work at times, but it's still TV.
  - Ididntdothis 6y ago
    They go for entertainment and selling ads so they have to make it exciting with a lot of controversy. News is actually quite boring and uneventful if you read only reuters or apnews.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  List of political activities ordered by actual effects on the world, more to less: 1) involvement in local politics (say, with a party or with advocacy groups), 2) voting in local politics, 3) involvement in state or national politics, ... 1,000) voting in state or national elections. You're arguably a better citizen if you ignore everything past your county or metro area entirely but get really involved in the local stuff—internal party activity, commission meetings, GOTV, activism, that kind of thing, maybe even run for office—compared with your average only-votes-every-two-years-at-best-but-reads-the-NYT folks. Caring about Federal politics, unless you get really involved, only makes sense as entertainment or out of some kind of categorical-imperative obligation.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    Interesting take. You've given me pause to think about this some more.
gregmac 6y ago
Ever seen a news broadcast that said "well, nothing really important happened today, so we're not doing a show - instead here's an hour of cat videos instead"? This is 24 times worse with the proliferation of dedicated news channels. At the same time, the recipe for click-bait has been perfected, and that's bled over into TV news as well. Sensationalism and outrage sell. It also seems like there's a strong culture that being first is far more important than being correct, and so even when there is news I might care about, it's hard to get actual details: It's early and inaccurate information, or worse, just various "talking heads" going on for hours speculating but not really adding anything useful.
- wombat-man 6y ago
  24 hour news channels are almost useless. I still like the daily news magazine that's put together by networks, like NBC Nightly news. Weeklies like 60 minutes are usually fine too.
- makomk 6y ago
  Apparently this pretty much happened in the UK in 1930: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603 It's remarkable precisely because it's so hard to imagine today.
IAmEveryone 6y ago
A democracy only works if people know what's going on. Otherwise, the collective decision-making process is no longer connected to politician's actions and the whole process breaks down. That's the most basic theory of any regulated system: air conditioning needs a thermometer. A driver needs to keep their eyes open to stay on the road. Any such system is a feedback loop of actuators (wheels / politicians), sensors, and some sense-making equipment in between. Yes, I know it feels insignificant to cast a ballot once every four years, as one of hundreds of millions. But that election carries a lot of power and recognising and getting over the collective action problem inherent in democracy is sort-of among the duties of being a citizen, as opposed to a mere consumer.
- downerending 6y ago
  On a large scale, perhaps so. But in terms of what I individually can accomplish, the answer is "nothing". The chances that my vote, my petition, my call to a politician, my letter to a newspaper, my post on social media, will affect the world in any way are infinitesimally small. Weighed against near certain negative mental health effects, it makes a lot of sense to just check out. Or at least to stop spending more than a few minutes per month on it. If you really want to make a difference, spend five more minutes each day with your kid. Or checking in with someone in your life that's going through hard times.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >The chances that my vote, my petition, my call to a politician, my letter to a newspaper, my post on social media, will affect the world in any way are infinitesimally small they are but that's not actually participating in politics. Participating in politics can mean joining a party yourself, joining a city council. Running for a local office. Participating in a local activist campaign, and so on. The author's thesis declares news unecessary on the basis that it has no influence on your life. That's only true if you're already detached from public life or citizenship to begin with. The word 'idiot' actually literally translates to 'private person'. In ancient Greece it used to be an epiphet for a person not participating in public life. That's essentially what the author is encouraging, literal idiocy, when the task should be to rekindle participation.
52-6F-62 6y ago
I work in the larger media [Canada], and I am constantly engaged with the news. I like knowing what's going on in the world. I like being current with it. Especially local news. Just the same, it's no less than healthy to unplug... as beautifully put by one of the Nelson boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPrPtDoaB3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPrPtDoaB3s
gtm1260 6y ago
I've never watched the news, but I regularly read sites like HN and Reddit. I feel like from there I get the 'outrage overload' effect as well, but IDK what to do about it. I could stop going on those sites, but then I would truly feel like I'm cut off from an absolute wealth of information. It feels different from being 'cut off' from TV news channels or websites that I would only really read if I was referred from Reddit or HN anyways.
- rantwasp 6y ago
  secret to reddit is to not go with the flow and only watch a small number of high quality subs
  - tentboy 6y ago
    I only go to my homepage which contains about 20 subs I actually care about - and nothing related to news/politics etc. Once I stopped going on r/popular or r/all my mood when using the site improved drastically
    - rantwasp 6y ago
      i have communities that are centered around things i enjoy w/ 2-3-8 subs per community. it's pretty rad
rantwasp 6y ago
also, get off facebook - it's just stealing your attention and rotting your brain. stopped watching the news 15 years ago. this one mostly gets this right. stop watching the news. if something so important happens that you should know about it, other people will tell you about it. also, you can direct your attention to things that do a good job to give you a signal to noise ratios: hackernews and very specific subreddits work wonders.
throw_away 6y ago
Reposting a frequently apropos quote: "To be completely cured of newspapers, spend a year reading the previous week's newspapers." — Nassim Taleb
base698 6y ago
My three favorites, on the topic of the news. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/... http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews https://www.docdroid.net/4wgVecr/why-speculate-michael-crichton-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/4wgVecr/why-speculate-michael-crich...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mshron 6y ago
It seems like a weird time to post this article to HN. Aren't we all living through an extremely good example of why paying attention to the news pays off? Generally speaking, people I know who read the news prepared for SARS-CoV-2 by mid-February, and those who were disconnected from the news were caught off guard a month later when everything shut down. One thing I will happily grant is that _watching_ the news is a terrible idea. TV twists everything into being frivolous entertainment, regardless of the topic. Newspapers aren't much better. Too short a time horizon, too much blow-by-blow, meaning no time for context and low signal to noise. I find that weekly and monthly magazines strike a better balance. Authors have time to write up background and provide context, and little blips and false starts get smoothed over by the passage of time.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  People I know who read the news were prepared in mid-February, but they're now extraordinarily neurotic. One of them won't allow visits from even his girlfriend and expects that American manufacturing will collapse within a few months; another doesn't plan to visit restaurants or stores until 2021. They're the ones who I most want to shake and say, hey, it won't hurt you to stop seeking out bad news.
  - mshron 6y ago
    Yeah, people can take things too far. There are definitely safe ways to go to a store, if the store is taking precautions. I'm not so sure about indoor restaurants right now in the US, but I guess you could make a case for it. On the other hand, I can see why being gaslit for a few months would make lots of people neurotic. The sky was really falling for awhile before anybody in power in the US seemed willing to acknowledge it. Personally, I've lost a lot of faith in our public health departments to have the freedom to tell it like it is, or to have the budget to do anything about it. Being in New York City for the last few months probably doesn't help.
- hirundo 6y ago
  I learned about the risk from individuals on twitter long before mass media took it seriously. A news channel is a pre curated collection of editors and reporters. I don't think many do a good job of it, due to my ideosyncracies and their incentives. I find it much better to curate my own channel from around the web ... like HN. Modern tech makes it easy.
the_af 6y ago
I'm not sure. Is this talking about TV news? If so, I might agree. TV oversimplifies and goes for the sensational and emotional. Plus, they have hours and hours to fill even if there's no content. These days TV news is almost completely a time waster. But other kinds of news? Disagreed. Especially world and national news. Those are the most interesting. If you keep yourself focused on community news -- which are both relevant and at the same time the most inane -- you stay parochial, which is ok if you don't mind it, but I do. I find the world and world news interesting and relevant. My immediate community is not that interesting. Also, the news is not only about taking action (though there is that, too). I can't possibly take action about a nuclear disaster in Japan or a famine in Africa, but I want to know about them. I want to know about world's events as they happen, not only in a documentary years later. This guy Joseph Well runs some kind of writing course, right? Because I'm unimpressed with his essays...
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  > Those are the most interesting. If you keep yourself focused on community news -- which are both relevant and at the same time the most inane -- you stay parochial, which is ok if you don't mind it, but I do. I find the world and world news interesting and relevant. My immediate community is not that interesting. As someone who deals with anxiety, I don't find world news interesting and relevant. I find it panic and anxiety inducing, and it's rarely ever actionable. Local news is generally much more useful and actionable for my daily life. I still find it important to stay informed of general world events, but I just can't mentally follow it on a daily or even weekly basis anymore.
  - the_af 6y ago
    That's ok. What you say makes sense. Note I did mention "actionable" doesn't factor into what I consider interesting. I find the world interesting, I guess. What I find annoying are blanket statements like "don't follow the news". Says who? Who is this guy to tell me what is reasonable to consider interesting, and whether following world news is something I do "to worry"?
gberger 6y ago
> When was the last time you watched the news and thought, “thank God I saw that. Let me go take action.”? > I’ll answer for you: probably never. The article is dated "July 29" so I'll assume 2019. We have a pretty huge counterexample right now: the pandemic has led to a lot of critical information needing to be conveyed to everyone very rapidly. For example, people need to be aware that they cannot leave home, or that they should wear masks when doing so, etc. Often, the government doesn't have a reliable way to reach the entire population quickly. For example, in the UK, the government sent a letter to every household outlining coronavirus guidance. This letter takes a few days to reach everyone. The news can be leveraged by the government to relay important messages to the population without any effort.
- khazhoux 6y ago
  All the info we needed could have fit inside just a few paragraphs, updated each week.
  - gberger 6y ago
    And where do you go to read those paragraphs?
dpix 6y ago
Reminds me of this great piece by the late Aaron Schwartz - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews News (particularly in the US) is so caught up in Politics that no one ever knows what anyone's policies are any more. My favourite part of this article is: There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election. There’s no need to have to suffer through the daily back-and-forth of allegations and counter-allegations, of scurrilous lies and their refutations. Indeed, reading a voter’s guide is much better: there’s no recency bias (where you only remember the crimes reported in the past couple months), you get to hear both sides of the story after the investigation has died down, you can actually think about the issues instead of worrying about the politics.
robomartin 6y ago
I believe Politico got it right in this article dating back to May of 2017, exactly three years ago. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bub... Among other things, it helped me understand why I was seeing and reading what media outlets were producing at the time, before and since then. Until I read this article I didn't understand how we got to the level of disconnect that is so clearly evidenced by US media. Well worth reading for anyone who cares enough to try and understand where this is coming from.
jjice 6y ago
I actively ignore news because it can just lead to me getting upset at something I can't control, just like the author says. I don't advocate this for everyone, but I like it for myself. I've been told that it's my duty as an American citizen to pay attention to the news, but I disagree. My mindset is that, if something really matters, it will make its way into my view. For example, I didn't actively follow COVID-19 before the week prior to the beginning of America's national emergency, but it made enough of a splash on the platforms I use (Reddit and HN) and the people I talk to (friends, family, and coworkers) that I became aware, realized it was something I needed to pay attention to. I don't want to focus on the constant back and forth of political rivalries, because it usually doesn't affect me directly, and why would I cause myself discomfort by indulging in stories I have no control over.
tehjoker 6y ago
"> When was the last time you watched the news and thought, “thank God I saw that. Let me go take action.”? I’ll answer for you: probably never." This is what happens to a depoliticized population. When Trump announced the strike on the Iranian General, we were out on the streets within a few days to protest the possibility of a new war. Not taking action is a symptom of helplessness, apathy, or simply being overwhelmed by life. Alternatively, it can be because you passively support what is happening. You can combat the former ills by being part of a political organization that cares about these issues. That said, I would recommend against TV. There's something about TV that just switches off the mind. The worst journalism is on TV, though it can be useful for monitoring live ongoing events.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ausbah 6y ago
I think I'm sympathetic to much of this post and many of the comments here in how much the news that is consumed and the manner it is consumed is ultimately amounts to nothing more than mindless consumption and / or overblown anger. If you just define news as "whatever has caught everyone's attention on the national or global stage", I still think there is value to be derived in staying at least somewhat upto I still think there is value in being relatively up to date. My biggest reason would simply be whether you like it or not, Americans live in a democracy (for the most part) that is dominated mostly by nation-wide politics, so if you're going to be an informed citizen trying to keep politicians accountable (whatever that may mean to you) on whatever issues have their attention. I don't necessarily like this, but I think this is a necessary evil to a degree. On a more personal note, I still find value in consuming some news because it provides me perspectives of how other people live. Part of that is simply giving me more context to my role in the surrounding world. Another part of it is simply making me aware of a injustices and other tragedies people face that I otherwise never know about. I feel like the news simply helps keep me grounded to the world beyond my immediate vicinity and relative comfortable lifestyle. While I can not do much to fix many of these massive problems I can still do something; donate money, organize a goods drive, or even continue the chain and keep spreading awareness to someone else.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Voting as a block is both less effort and more powerful. Asking your friends what you should vote for builds organization. Having heated debates about how your friends are wrong after reading the news destroys organization. Btw. I don't live like this at all. Just some thoughts I had recently.
lossolo 6y ago
I watch news because I want to know what's going on in my country and globally right now, biographies will not give me that knowledge. You don't need to stop watching the news, you just should detach your feelings from the facts and watch news from different sources. I watch liberal news in my country (equivalent to CNN in US) and conservative news (eq Fox in US I suppose) and I make my own conclusions on how to interpret what I see based on two different views. There is no such thing as unbiased news, everyone have his own views about world and will shape information in such a way to not experience cognitive dissonance.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
raz32dust 6y ago
Stop watching the news for entertainment. Start watching the news as a means of learning the truth. Change passive consumption to active consumption. Involve your critical thinking, discuss it more, understand opposing viewpoints, be really engaged in it. Even if you do the other things the author suggests, as long as you do it passively for entertainment, they would suffer from the same drawbacks. As a by-product, you'd realize that you can only consume so much news in a day, and would automatically optimize for the best quality.
aklemm 6y ago
Better to develop the sophistication to filter out garbage and focus on the significant. It would take a more in-depth treatment than this to disabuse me of the belief that keeping a close on the government and other powerful entities is a fundamental civic responsibility.
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
In the past 2 decades, the trust I had in the mainstream news has completely crumbled and so while I haven't completely disconnected from current events, I've tried to as best I can in terms of where I get the information from. I try to strike a balance in terms of being informed of what's going on, and the amount of time/energy invested into gathering that information. Being informed is important to me, especially as I'm not a sports guy. It's something common to connect with others over and makes for decent casual conversation, and in bringing up current topics it's a good way to probe others to understand their points of view or how they think/feel about matters. It also generally provides a jumping-off point into deeper conversations/topics that otherwise might never happen. And so while I tune out where possible, I do keep a subscription to the Economist, read the daily espresso in the morning and try to get through as much of the weekly as possible (although, I will admit, usually skipping the US section these days - it has become fundamentally uninteresting). So to me, unlike the author, Aaron S et al., it doesn't feel utterly pointless, but it's certainly not far from the periphery of being.
627467 6y ago
One of my unplanned consequences of the lockdown is that I sorta burned-out of covid news about 3weeks into lockdown and I just naturally stop refreshing (or loading) news sites. I don't use traditional social media much either so I def feel the benefits of news detoxing.
12xo 6y ago
Attention is the currency of media. Sensationalism is the fuel. American news is a business first and a service second. Long gone are the days when there were legally binding rules for fairness and honesty in order to retain your license and maintain your business. Long gone are the days when the public owned its airwaves and the businesses that were granted their access were required to produce honest news in order to maintain their licenses. You can thank Reagan and Clinton for these changes and of course, the fleecing of American by Congress over the last 30+ years. (Insert Boomers suck comment here) The PBS Newshour is the only televised news that is fact based and still run with integrity. If you're going to watch the news, watch PBS.
mbgerring 6y ago
This is incredibly irresponsible advice in an age of weaponised, persistent misinformation.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Don't watch entertainment news, because its primary function is to keep you entertained long enough to sit through ads and sponsor content. I find PBS, Propublica, and other similar organizations to rely less on entertainment and fluff, and to report more on what matters to actual human beings who aren't their sponsors.
TheGallopedHigh 6y ago
Those interested in this post might be interested in Alan de Botton’s book: The News, a users guide https://www.alaindebotton.com/news-users-manual/ https://www.alaindebotton.com/news-users-manual/ It talks about how to responsibly consume news in these modern times
keenmaster 6y ago
Noise. Outrage. Distraction. Always on. TV was bad enough, but now the internet is everywhere. It is time for a universal time management and distraction mitigation API that gives control back to the user. This API should connect to most major digital services, and it should work on most devices. We cannot rely on media companies or digital platforms to become less distracting, since their profits are on the line. We should create an API for them to plug into and say "your turn." If they refuse to play nice, go to the government and ask for laws to make it mandatory. Human beings have not evolved to deal with all this noise. Hard controls are necessary.
miesman 6y ago
I made this change 20 years ago and it improved the quality of my life. I’d suggest for someone to try it and see for themselves. Start with skipping one day then a few days then try to go for a week. See how you feel for yourself and then decide if you want to continue.
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
Obligatory mention: Aaron Schwartz's "I hate the news". [0] [0]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Thanks for sharing this. I haven't read this before. Rest in peace Schwartz.
zests 6y ago
Almost all news is a race to the bottom and full of dark patterns. I'm quite surprised to see how many people here are defending the news. I see people who seem to have extreme anxiety caused by the news. Constantly refreshing NYTimes or Twitter. Its not healthy. Read slow news. The article mentions local news which I agree with wholeheartedly. The Economist comes out once a month. There's balanced coverage and no clickbait. There's no homepage to constantly refresh or articles designed to induce outrage. You know that they are funded by subscriptions and not from selling your data. I think that's the biggest point. Services that make money by selling your data or by serving you ads should not be trusted by default.
- jumbopapa 6y ago
  The economist comes out weekly.
  - GoodJokes 6y ago
    The economist is mainstream fast news.
globular-toast 6y ago
I've come to the same conclusions myself many years ago. I've watched the news and been told that some person has gone missing or been murdered. Why do I need to know this? The only people who need to know this information are those who knew that person, and the police, of course.
khazhoux 6y ago
I don't think OP is saying to literally cut off all information from the outside world -- that we should be info-hermits, unaware of who is running for president, unaware of which states are shutting down, whatever. He's saying that people's very-common argument that "it's important to know everything happening in the world" is bunk, and voracious consumption of news is not useful and is harmful. You can get 99% of utility from news with just a few objective headlines and summaries, once a week tops.
OctopusSandwich 6y ago
I prefer reading people's take on the particular news on twitter than reading news. Group sourced news take is better than the drivel journalists write.
andarleen 6y ago
> When was the last time you watched the news and thought, “thank God I saw that. Let me go take action.”? Well I did read about covid early on an nearly bought masks in preparation (didnt do it because WHO said it’s fine). I read a lot about the UK government so I can tell when to buy and when to sell british pounds. Doom and gloom on the guardian or dailymail? It’ll go down. Good (fake or exaggerated) news on the dailymail? It’ll go up. But indeed most news are just a distraction. And most news websites are a load of BS with titles meant to drive page traffic up.
Hoenoe 6y ago
I see know one here defining what news is. “News is all about sensational, exceptional, negative current events – and those five words capture precisely thats wrong with it.” - the Correspondent News doesn’t teach you much about how the world and things work because it focuses on exceptions. Here is a good piece about it from the Correspondent who run their news platform on the same thought. https://thecorrespondent.com/22/the-problem-with-real-news-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/15169469194-78c4699b https://thecorrespondent.com/22/the-problem-with-real-news-a...
beaker52 6y ago
A few years ago I thought I was noble reading the news and trying to read between the lines on global affairs. I also realised I was bitter and angry about what was going on in the world, and that more people weren't prepared to learn and act on what they read, however which way they could. So one day, I just stopped and my life has become immeasurably better. I do now have to awkwardly say "oh, no I hadn't heard about that" when someone talks to me about some insignificant world event, but it doesn't matter to me. Of course, you still hear about the major things, but I try not to concern myself with things that Trump says or does. It doesn't add to my life in any way, it only detracts from it. Would definitely ask yourself the question, does keeping up to date with the news really add to your life? And that's all the author is really suggesting.
zachware 6y ago
What this points to is the concept of distilled vs undistilled information. When X happens it often takes a short or long period of time for X to appear in context of the thing that's actually newsworthy. That GE stock is down 1% at 2pm isn't useful unless you are an professional active trader. But the stock's trend line and the company's financials could, over a few days, point to a story you can take action on. We didn't evolve to receive this level of information flow. Our brains think it's all relevant. My strategy is to read a summary of sorts on Sundays, a paper copy of The Economist. It's not all encompassing and sometimes has a bit of bias, but it's the only weekly I've found that comprehensively sums up the stream of events that happened rather that generally line up in some sort of context. I've found that useful.

178 points by wellsjosephc 6y ago

I love this post. I rarely watch the news any more. I was surprised that during the beginning of this current era, I found myself watching news for the first time (like not just clips posted elsewhere, but explicitly seeking it out) and it's honestly degraded even more than I can imagine. Most major news networks talk to their audience like children. They provide entertainment or promote the agenda of their advertisers. Years ago I stopped watching satire news too. I use to love Colbert and Stewart, but I also realized I was laughing at .. genocide. I thought that such a format might make people more aware and such news more palatable, but I came to believe that it just makes us numb and dumb to some of the harsher realities of the time we occupy. If you do have to listen to something, I suggest the No Agenda Podcast (one of the oldest podcasts in existence) and the Corbet Report. Even then, take them in limited doses.

d4mi3n 6y ago
I'd also plug Last Week Tonight if folks are looking for informational satire. John Oliver and his staff do a fantastic job investigating a lot of current and ongoing issues while presenting them in ways that are approachable for a layman.
californical 6y ago
I would also highly recommend your local NPR affiliate radio station. They can vary in quality, but tend to be pretty excellent at just telling you "what's happening" without much agenda. I think Colorado has the best NPR affiliate of all time -- they go by CPR. Really popular, even among younger people. Highest quality news and radio... I wonder if any other states/cities have similar quality public radio?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  I really started to tune out NPR back around 2008 after Inskeep's terrible interview with Ahmadinejad. I wrote about it more in detail back then: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/wipedoffthemap/ I use to listen to Democracy Now back then too, but I really don't think either news source as really held up over the years. They're both very polarized, and the quality of their content has gone down as well.
rr60 6y ago
+1 for No Agenda. A fantastic podcasts that helps you think about the news in other ways.
standardUser 6y ago
Strongly relate. I gave up TV news a long time ago and became an NPR fan for a while, but that grew old after a few years. BBC World Service radio was my last refuge before all of my news consumption became print/reading. I'd still go back to the BBC, but their broadcast schedule doesn't mesh well with US time zones.

tj-teej 6y ago

At the end of the day people do need to be informed. Saying "stop watching the news" is like telling someone who's overweight to "stop eating". As I see it the problem is the junk-news. It presents as news but there's little substance, it doesn't make you more informed, it makes you angry, upset, and most-importantly (to the new station), engaged. Matt Taibbi's new book, Hate Inc does a great job of illustrating how the "junk news" (and he doesn't just go after the Right) industry is rotting our brains: https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Inc-Todays-Despise-Another/dp/1949017257 https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Inc-Todays-Despise-Another/dp/19...

Upvoter33 6y ago

I thought this was going to be a plug for podcasts, which are indeed supplanting some aspects of the news business (see the NYT article about Joe Rogan the other day).

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> If that’s the case, what’re you actually getting from the news? Aggravated? Wound up? Certainly not informed about anything important. This seems like the author is explicitly arguing for the tragedy of the commons. Yes, any one individual getting 'wound up' doesn't accomplish much, but the public 'at large' getting wound up can and does effect real change sometimes. Like, it's very easy to point to a variety of topics, about which there was sufficient public outrage from a news story to cause some change. For example, the recent killing of Ahmaud Arbery, the black jogger in Georgia. Before the public outrage that followed the release of the video, the killers had not even so much as been arrested. If the author here had gotten his way, nobody would've seen the video, nobody would've been outraged, and nothing would've happened after Ahmed was murdered. Am I supposed to believe that this is an improvement?

bkohlmann 6y ago
My understanding is that the Arbery murder became widely known because of Twitter, not the "news." The news reported on it after it became a phenomenon, not as the original source. And this is where the "conversation" piece may come in with a 21st century twist. Enough folks highlighted it as the "most important thing" to make it widely known via retweets and likes.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Given the angle the author is taking here, I can hardly believe that he'd be saying "yeah but spending your time on Twitter is good and productive", considering its reputation as a source of constant outrage seems even worse than for internet or TV news. So, the same reasoning applies. You could also look at something covered more by regular news sources, like how the GOP's attempted repeal of Obamacare was blocked by public response once it became clear how many people would lose health insurance coverage. Suddenly, the repeal that was reasonably popular overall (and very popular on the right) was much less so. Would the repeal having quietly passed through Congress because nobody was paying attention to national news have been an improvement? The author's argument is one in favor of selfishness: being a well-informed citizen of your state or country does not benefit you personally, so why bother? I actually think that the logic does hold, it's just that the implication of everyone listening to his advice is that the country becomes less informed as a whole, which sounds really, REALLY bad to me. People's average level of political and current event knowledge already seems dreadfully low, someone pushing to make it lower yet...why?

rglover 6y ago

This is the way to do it. Serious kudos for this post OP. Turn off notifications about "breaking news" on your phone, declutter your inbox by unsubscribing to newsletters from media outlets, and unfollow news co's on social media (hint: using Twitter's keyword filter is a peach for this). Completely and utterly disengage. I've done this for the past year or so and have completely mellowed out and gotten a lot more done. The funny part? Nothing has really changed in the world, even with a pandemic tossed in. Barring opinion pieces and in-depth journalism, it's all a machine designed to keep you angry, helpless, and unthinking.

throw7 6y ago

"It’s perfectly fine to say, “I don’t know enough about it, and I really don’t care to.”" This guy must be loads of fun at dinner parties ;)... i'd say stopping at "i don't know enough about it." would be the perfectly fine thing to say.

seneca 6y ago
> This guy must be loads of fun at dinner parties ;) There's nothing wrong with saying "I have no interest in participating in the outrage circus with you". The whole point is that that cycle is not fun, dinner party or not.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Adding "...and I don't really care to" could easily come across as smug and even condescending, though it depends on the tone in which it's delivered.
  - seneca 6y ago
    That's a fair point about tone. In my mind it's the difference, when being asked "Would you like a beer", between answering "No thanks", and "No thanks, I don't drink". One says simply no, the other says no, that's something I specifically abstain from. I suppose that could be seen as smug, and the difference would largely be in tone, as you say.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  in the first case, you're merely abstaining. In the case you describe, you're passing judgement on the other person. People who pass judgement on other people are unlikely to be much fun to talk to at dinner parties.

wvenable 6y ago

"Millions of Americans staying at home are relying on Amazon" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6U2Un5kEdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6U2Un5kEdI

djsumdog 6y ago
The Church committee hearings in 1975 had the CIA admitting they had key people in magazine and print media, but when pressed if they had people in TV, they requested a closed session. If this clip showed just one set of news stations (all NBC stations) saying the same line, that would be one thing (they're just getting phrases to include from higher up) but it's tons of different networks. Sure they could just be cutting up and reporting the same AP article they licensed or a press release (Occam's Razor) but it's also likely this particular narrative is pushed, at best, by advertisers wanting a specific message, and at worst, by the government or the CIA. It has happened before (Operation Mockingbird and COINTELPRO). It's silly to think it's not happening now.

wayupthere 6y ago

For those who still want news, I think reuters provides the most balance. They do still lean left at times though with overuse of phrases like "far right".

tobltobs 6y ago
Doing a Google search 'site:reuters.com "far right"' I couldn't find any hit where the "far-right" would be inappropriate. Could you give an example where Reuters is left-leaning in your opinion.
- downerending 6y ago
  That seems to be true. But partly so because there don't seem to be any hits for "far right" in their coverage of US politics. Good for them. I doubt this would be true for NYT, WaPo, etc., but I am indeed too lazy to look. For those too young to remember what reasonable journalism used to look like, Reuters and AP are probably the closest, in the MSM.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > That seems to be true. But partly so because there don't seem to be any hits for "far right" in their coverage of US politics. Good for them. How is that a good thing? "Far right" and "far left" are both perfectly fine terms to describe certain political ideologies and movements.
    - downerending 6y ago
      In 2020, "far right" has become a cheap epithet frequently applied to half of the country. (cf "deplorables") As such, it really has no application by a neutral news source anymore. Or, to put it another way, if half of the electorate holds fairly similar views, they cannot reasonably be described as "far right" (or "far left", for that matter). The "far" end would be maybe one percent, not fifty. In any case, I appreciate journalists that simply describe the situation, and allow me to decide for myself what I think about it. Hard to remember now, but that's how it actually used to be.

acomjean 6y ago

I hardly watch the news anymore. I let myself read the papers at night. But I found myself checking and checking, so once a day. (I was photo editor of my college paper, so I have a soft spot for newspapers). I do listen to my local public radio statio. I'm in Boston and WGBH, is pretty good. https://www.wgbh.org/news/ https://www.wgbh.org/news/ They even have a radio talk show (worst title: Boston Public Radio) which has news, events and other discussions. Lots of local (which was more relevent when there where events to discover...) I don't always listen, but it can be pretty funny when people call in. https://www.wgbh.org/news/boston-public-radio https://www.wgbh.org/news/boston-public-radio

Ididntdothis 6y ago

I never look at CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews. I feel sites like reuters.com or apnews.com give me a good level of news without the emotional content. I agree about local newspapers. We should worry more about what's going on close to us versus Washington.

52-6F-62 6y ago
I've figured it was always sort of true that television news was of generally worse quality than print. They've done good work at times, but it's still TV.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  They go for entertainment and selling ads so they have to make it exciting with a lot of controversy. News is actually quite boring and uneventful if you read only reuters or apnews.
karatestomp 6y ago
List of political activities ordered by actual effects on the world, more to less: 1) involvement in local politics (say, with a party or with advocacy groups), 2) voting in local politics, 3) involvement in state or national politics, ... 1,000) voting in state or national elections. You're arguably a better citizen if you ignore everything past your county or metro area entirely but get really involved in the local stuff—internal party activity, commission meetings, GOTV, activism, that kind of thing, maybe even run for office—compared with your average only-votes-every-two-years-at-best-but-reads-the-NYT folks. Caring about Federal politics, unless you get really involved, only makes sense as entertainment or out of some kind of categorical-imperative obligation.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  Interesting take. You've given me pause to think about this some more.

gregmac 6y ago

Ever seen a news broadcast that said "well, nothing really important happened today, so we're not doing a show - instead here's an hour of cat videos instead"? This is 24 times worse with the proliferation of dedicated news channels. At the same time, the recipe for click-bait has been perfected, and that's bled over into TV news as well. Sensationalism and outrage sell. It also seems like there's a strong culture that being first is far more important than being correct, and so even when there is news I might care about, it's hard to get actual details: It's early and inaccurate information, or worse, just various "talking heads" going on for hours speculating but not really adding anything useful.

wombat-man 6y ago
24 hour news channels are almost useless. I still like the daily news magazine that's put together by networks, like NBC Nightly news. Weeklies like 60 minutes are usually fine too.
makomk 6y ago
Apparently this pretty much happened in the UK in 1930: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603 It's remarkable precisely because it's so hard to imagine today.

IAmEveryone 6y ago

A democracy only works if people know what's going on. Otherwise, the collective decision-making process is no longer connected to politician's actions and the whole process breaks down. That's the most basic theory of any regulated system: air conditioning needs a thermometer. A driver needs to keep their eyes open to stay on the road. Any such system is a feedback loop of actuators (wheels / politicians), sensors, and some sense-making equipment in between. Yes, I know it feels insignificant to cast a ballot once every four years, as one of hundreds of millions. But that election carries a lot of power and recognising and getting over the collective action problem inherent in democracy is sort-of among the duties of being a citizen, as opposed to a mere consumer.

downerending 6y ago
On a large scale, perhaps so. But in terms of what I individually can accomplish, the answer is "nothing". The chances that my vote, my petition, my call to a politician, my letter to a newspaper, my post on social media, will affect the world in any way are infinitesimally small. Weighed against near certain negative mental health effects, it makes a lot of sense to just check out. Or at least to stop spending more than a few minutes per month on it. If you really want to make a difference, spend five more minutes each day with your kid. Or checking in with someone in your life that's going through hard times.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >The chances that my vote, my petition, my call to a politician, my letter to a newspaper, my post on social media, will affect the world in any way are infinitesimally small they are but that's not actually participating in politics. Participating in politics can mean joining a party yourself, joining a city council. Running for a local office. Participating in a local activist campaign, and so on. The author's thesis declares news unecessary on the basis that it has no influence on your life. That's only true if you're already detached from public life or citizenship to begin with. The word 'idiot' actually literally translates to 'private person'. In ancient Greece it used to be an epiphet for a person not participating in public life. That's essentially what the author is encouraging, literal idiocy, when the task should be to rekindle participation.

52-6F-62 6y ago

I work in the larger media [Canada], and I am constantly engaged with the news. I like knowing what's going on in the world. I like being current with it. Especially local news. Just the same, it's no less than healthy to unplug... as beautifully put by one of the Nelson boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPrPtDoaB3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPrPtDoaB3s

gtm1260 6y ago

I've never watched the news, but I regularly read sites like HN and Reddit. I feel like from there I get the 'outrage overload' effect as well, but IDK what to do about it. I could stop going on those sites, but then I would truly feel like I'm cut off from an absolute wealth of information. It feels different from being 'cut off' from TV news channels or websites that I would only really read if I was referred from Reddit or HN anyways.

rantwasp 6y ago
secret to reddit is to not go with the flow and only watch a small number of high quality subs
- tentboy 6y ago
  I only go to my homepage which contains about 20 subs I actually care about - and nothing related to news/politics etc. Once I stopped going on r/popular or r/all my mood when using the site improved drastically
  - rantwasp 6y ago
    i have communities that are centered around things i enjoy w/ 2-3-8 subs per community. it's pretty rad

rantwasp 6y ago

also, get off facebook - it's just stealing your attention and rotting your brain. stopped watching the news 15 years ago. this one mostly gets this right. stop watching the news. if something so important happens that you should know about it, other people will tell you about it. also, you can direct your attention to things that do a good job to give you a signal to noise ratios: hackernews and very specific subreddits work wonders.

throw_away 6y ago

Reposting a frequently apropos quote: "To be completely cured of newspapers, spend a year reading the previous week's newspapers." — Nassim Taleb

base698 6y ago

My three favorites, on the topic of the news. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/... http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews https://www.docdroid.net/4wgVecr/why-speculate-michael-crichton-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/4wgVecr/why-speculate-michael-crich...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mshron 6y ago

It seems like a weird time to post this article to HN. Aren't we all living through an extremely good example of why paying attention to the news pays off? Generally speaking, people I know who read the news prepared for SARS-CoV-2 by mid-February, and those who were disconnected from the news were caught off guard a month later when everything shut down. One thing I will happily grant is that _watching_ the news is a terrible idea. TV twists everything into being frivolous entertainment, regardless of the topic. Newspapers aren't much better. Too short a time horizon, too much blow-by-blow, meaning no time for context and low signal to noise. I find that weekly and monthly magazines strike a better balance. Authors have time to write up background and provide context, and little blips and false starts get smoothed over by the passage of time.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
People I know who read the news were prepared in mid-February, but they're now extraordinarily neurotic. One of them won't allow visits from even his girlfriend and expects that American manufacturing will collapse within a few months; another doesn't plan to visit restaurants or stores until 2021. They're the ones who I most want to shake and say, hey, it won't hurt you to stop seeking out bad news.
- mshron 6y ago
  Yeah, people can take things too far. There are definitely safe ways to go to a store, if the store is taking precautions. I'm not so sure about indoor restaurants right now in the US, but I guess you could make a case for it. On the other hand, I can see why being gaslit for a few months would make lots of people neurotic. The sky was really falling for awhile before anybody in power in the US seemed willing to acknowledge it. Personally, I've lost a lot of faith in our public health departments to have the freedom to tell it like it is, or to have the budget to do anything about it. Being in New York City for the last few months probably doesn't help.
hirundo 6y ago
I learned about the risk from individuals on twitter long before mass media took it seriously. A news channel is a pre curated collection of editors and reporters. I don't think many do a good job of it, due to my ideosyncracies and their incentives. I find it much better to curate my own channel from around the web ... like HN. Modern tech makes it easy.

the_af 6y ago

I'm not sure. Is this talking about TV news? If so, I might agree. TV oversimplifies and goes for the sensational and emotional. Plus, they have hours and hours to fill even if there's no content. These days TV news is almost completely a time waster. But other kinds of news? Disagreed. Especially world and national news. Those are the most interesting. If you keep yourself focused on community news -- which are both relevant and at the same time the most inane -- you stay parochial, which is ok if you don't mind it, but I do. I find the world and world news interesting and relevant. My immediate community is not that interesting. Also, the news is not only about taking action (though there is that, too). I can't possibly take action about a nuclear disaster in Japan or a famine in Africa, but I want to know about them. I want to know about world's events as they happen, not only in a documentary years later. This guy Joseph Well runs some kind of writing course, right? Because I'm unimpressed with his essays...

Trasmatta 6y ago
> Those are the most interesting. If you keep yourself focused on community news -- which are both relevant and at the same time the most inane -- you stay parochial, which is ok if you don't mind it, but I do. I find the world and world news interesting and relevant. My immediate community is not that interesting. As someone who deals with anxiety, I don't find world news interesting and relevant. I find it panic and anxiety inducing, and it's rarely ever actionable. Local news is generally much more useful and actionable for my daily life. I still find it important to stay informed of general world events, but I just can't mentally follow it on a daily or even weekly basis anymore.
- the_af 6y ago
  That's ok. What you say makes sense. Note I did mention "actionable" doesn't factor into what I consider interesting. I find the world interesting, I guess. What I find annoying are blanket statements like "don't follow the news". Says who? Who is this guy to tell me what is reasonable to consider interesting, and whether following world news is something I do "to worry"?

gberger 6y ago

> When was the last time you watched the news and thought, “thank God I saw that. Let me go take action.”? > I’ll answer for you: probably never. The article is dated "July 29" so I'll assume 2019. We have a pretty huge counterexample right now: the pandemic has led to a lot of critical information needing to be conveyed to everyone very rapidly. For example, people need to be aware that they cannot leave home, or that they should wear masks when doing so, etc. Often, the government doesn't have a reliable way to reach the entire population quickly. For example, in the UK, the government sent a letter to every household outlining coronavirus guidance. This letter takes a few days to reach everyone. The news can be leveraged by the government to relay important messages to the population without any effort.

khazhoux 6y ago
All the info we needed could have fit inside just a few paragraphs, updated each week.
- gberger 6y ago
  And where do you go to read those paragraphs?

dpix 6y ago

Reminds me of this great piece by the late Aaron Schwartz - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews News (particularly in the US) is so caught up in Politics that no one ever knows what anyone's policies are any more. My favourite part of this article is: There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election. There’s no need to have to suffer through the daily back-and-forth of allegations and counter-allegations, of scurrilous lies and their refutations. Indeed, reading a voter’s guide is much better: there’s no recency bias (where you only remember the crimes reported in the past couple months), you get to hear both sides of the story after the investigation has died down, you can actually think about the issues instead of worrying about the politics.

robomartin 6y ago

I believe Politico got it right in this article dating back to May of 2017, exactly three years ago. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bub... Among other things, it helped me understand why I was seeing and reading what media outlets were producing at the time, before and since then. Until I read this article I didn't understand how we got to the level of disconnect that is so clearly evidenced by US media. Well worth reading for anyone who cares enough to try and understand where this is coming from.

jjice 6y ago

I actively ignore news because it can just lead to me getting upset at something I can't control, just like the author says. I don't advocate this for everyone, but I like it for myself. I've been told that it's my duty as an American citizen to pay attention to the news, but I disagree. My mindset is that, if something really matters, it will make its way into my view. For example, I didn't actively follow COVID-19 before the week prior to the beginning of America's national emergency, but it made enough of a splash on the platforms I use (Reddit and HN) and the people I talk to (friends, family, and coworkers) that I became aware, realized it was something I needed to pay attention to. I don't want to focus on the constant back and forth of political rivalries, because it usually doesn't affect me directly, and why would I cause myself discomfort by indulging in stories I have no control over.

tehjoker 6y ago

"> When was the last time you watched the news and thought, “thank God I saw that. Let me go take action.”? I’ll answer for you: probably never." This is what happens to a depoliticized population. When Trump announced the strike on the Iranian General, we were out on the streets within a few days to protest the possibility of a new war. Not taking action is a symptom of helplessness, apathy, or simply being overwhelmed by life. Alternatively, it can be because you passively support what is happening. You can combat the former ills by being part of a political organization that cares about these issues. That said, I would recommend against TV. There's something about TV that just switches off the mind. The worst journalism is on TV, though it can be useful for monitoring live ongoing events.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ausbah 6y ago

I think I'm sympathetic to much of this post and many of the comments here in how much the news that is consumed and the manner it is consumed is ultimately amounts to nothing more than mindless consumption and / or overblown anger. If you just define news as "whatever has caught everyone's attention on the national or global stage", I still think there is value to be derived in staying at least somewhat upto I still think there is value in being relatively up to date. My biggest reason would simply be whether you like it or not, Americans live in a democracy (for the most part) that is dominated mostly by nation-wide politics, so if you're going to be an informed citizen trying to keep politicians accountable (whatever that may mean to you) on whatever issues have their attention. I don't necessarily like this, but I think this is a necessary evil to a degree. On a more personal note, I still find value in consuming some news because it provides me perspectives of how other people live. Part of that is simply giving me more context to my role in the surrounding world. Another part of it is simply making me aware of a injustices and other tragedies people face that I otherwise never know about. I feel like the news simply helps keep me grounded to the world beyond my immediate vicinity and relative comfortable lifestyle. While I can not do much to fix many of these massive problems I can still do something; donate money, organize a goods drive, or even continue the chain and keep spreading awareness to someone else.

im3w1l 6y ago
Voting as a block is both less effort and more powerful. Asking your friends what you should vote for builds organization. Having heated debates about how your friends are wrong after reading the news destroys organization. Btw. I don't live like this at all. Just some thoughts I had recently.

lossolo 6y ago

I watch news because I want to know what's going on in my country and globally right now, biographies will not give me that knowledge. You don't need to stop watching the news, you just should detach your feelings from the facts and watch news from different sources. I watch liberal news in my country (equivalent to CNN in US) and conservative news (eq Fox in US I suppose) and I make my own conclusions on how to interpret what I see based on two different views. There is no such thing as unbiased news, everyone have his own views about world and will shape information in such a way to not experience cognitive dissonance.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

raz32dust 6y ago

Stop watching the news for entertainment. Start watching the news as a means of learning the truth. Change passive consumption to active consumption. Involve your critical thinking, discuss it more, understand opposing viewpoints, be really engaged in it. Even if you do the other things the author suggests, as long as you do it passively for entertainment, they would suffer from the same drawbacks. As a by-product, you'd realize that you can only consume so much news in a day, and would automatically optimize for the best quality.

aklemm 6y ago

Better to develop the sophistication to filter out garbage and focus on the significant. It would take a more in-depth treatment than this to disabuse me of the belief that keeping a close on the government and other powerful entities is a fundamental civic responsibility.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago

In the past 2 decades, the trust I had in the mainstream news has completely crumbled and so while I haven't completely disconnected from current events, I've tried to as best I can in terms of where I get the information from. I try to strike a balance in terms of being informed of what's going on, and the amount of time/energy invested into gathering that information. Being informed is important to me, especially as I'm not a sports guy. It's something common to connect with others over and makes for decent casual conversation, and in bringing up current topics it's a good way to probe others to understand their points of view or how they think/feel about matters. It also generally provides a jumping-off point into deeper conversations/topics that otherwise might never happen. And so while I tune out where possible, I do keep a subscription to the Economist, read the daily espresso in the morning and try to get through as much of the weekly as possible (although, I will admit, usually skipping the US section these days - it has become fundamentally uninteresting). So to me, unlike the author, Aaron S et al., it doesn't feel utterly pointless, but it's certainly not far from the periphery of being.

627467 6y ago

One of my unplanned consequences of the lockdown is that I sorta burned-out of covid news about 3weeks into lockdown and I just naturally stop refreshing (or loading) news sites. I don't use traditional social media much either so I def feel the benefits of news detoxing.

12xo 6y ago

Attention is the currency of media. Sensationalism is the fuel. American news is a business first and a service second. Long gone are the days when there were legally binding rules for fairness and honesty in order to retain your license and maintain your business. Long gone are the days when the public owned its airwaves and the businesses that were granted their access were required to produce honest news in order to maintain their licenses. You can thank Reagan and Clinton for these changes and of course, the fleecing of American by Congress over the last 30+ years. (Insert Boomers suck comment here) The PBS Newshour is the only televised news that is fact based and still run with integrity. If you're going to watch the news, watch PBS.

mbgerring 6y ago

This is incredibly irresponsible advice in an age of weaponised, persistent misinformation.

heavyset_go 6y ago

Don't watch entertainment news, because its primary function is to keep you entertained long enough to sit through ads and sponsor content. I find PBS, Propublica, and other similar organizations to rely less on entertainment and fluff, and to report more on what matters to actual human beings who aren't their sponsors.

TheGallopedHigh 6y ago

Those interested in this post might be interested in Alan de Botton’s book: The News, a users guide https://www.alaindebotton.com/news-users-manual/ https://www.alaindebotton.com/news-users-manual/ It talks about how to responsibly consume news in these modern times

keenmaster 6y ago

Noise. Outrage. Distraction. Always on. TV was bad enough, but now the internet is everywhere. It is time for a universal time management and distraction mitigation API that gives control back to the user. This API should connect to most major digital services, and it should work on most devices. We cannot rely on media companies or digital platforms to become less distracting, since their profits are on the line. We should create an API for them to plug into and say "your turn." If they refuse to play nice, go to the government and ask for laws to make it mandatory. Human beings have not evolved to deal with all this noise. Hard controls are necessary.

miesman 6y ago

I made this change 20 years ago and it improved the quality of my life. I’d suggest for someone to try it and see for themselves. Start with skipping one day then a few days then try to go for a week. See how you feel for yourself and then decide if you want to continue.

simonebrunozzi 6y ago

Obligatory mention: Aaron Schwartz's "I hate the news". [0] [0]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

djsumdog 6y ago
Thanks for sharing this. I haven't read this before. Rest in peace Schwartz.

zests 6y ago

Almost all news is a race to the bottom and full of dark patterns. I'm quite surprised to see how many people here are defending the news. I see people who seem to have extreme anxiety caused by the news. Constantly refreshing NYTimes or Twitter. Its not healthy. Read slow news. The article mentions local news which I agree with wholeheartedly. The Economist comes out once a month. There's balanced coverage and no clickbait. There's no homepage to constantly refresh or articles designed to induce outrage. You know that they are funded by subscriptions and not from selling your data. I think that's the biggest point. Services that make money by selling your data or by serving you ads should not be trusted by default.

jumbopapa 6y ago
The economist comes out weekly.
- GoodJokes 6y ago
  The economist is mainstream fast news.

globular-toast 6y ago

I've come to the same conclusions myself many years ago. I've watched the news and been told that some person has gone missing or been murdered. Why do I need to know this? The only people who need to know this information are those who knew that person, and the police, of course.

khazhoux 6y ago

I don't think OP is saying to literally cut off all information from the outside world -- that we should be info-hermits, unaware of who is running for president, unaware of which states are shutting down, whatever. He's saying that people's very-common argument that "it's important to know everything happening in the world" is bunk, and voracious consumption of news is not useful and is harmful. You can get 99% of utility from news with just a few objective headlines and summaries, once a week tops.

OctopusSandwich 6y ago

I prefer reading people's take on the particular news on twitter than reading news. Group sourced news take is better than the drivel journalists write.

andarleen 6y ago

> When was the last time you watched the news and thought, “thank God I saw that. Let me go take action.”? Well I did read about covid early on an nearly bought masks in preparation (didnt do it because WHO said it’s fine). I read a lot about the UK government so I can tell when to buy and when to sell british pounds. Doom and gloom on the guardian or dailymail? It’ll go down. Good (fake or exaggerated) news on the dailymail? It’ll go up. But indeed most news are just a distraction. And most news websites are a load of BS with titles meant to drive page traffic up.

Hoenoe 6y ago

I see know one here defining what news is. “News is all about sensational, exceptional, negative current events – and those five words capture precisely thats wrong with it.” - the Correspondent News doesn’t teach you much about how the world and things work because it focuses on exceptions. Here is a good piece about it from the Correspondent who run their news platform on the same thought. https://thecorrespondent.com/22/the-problem-with-real-news-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/15169469194-78c4699b https://thecorrespondent.com/22/the-problem-with-real-news-a...

beaker52 6y ago

A few years ago I thought I was noble reading the news and trying to read between the lines on global affairs. I also realised I was bitter and angry about what was going on in the world, and that more people weren't prepared to learn and act on what they read, however which way they could. So one day, I just stopped and my life has become immeasurably better. I do now have to awkwardly say "oh, no I hadn't heard about that" when someone talks to me about some insignificant world event, but it doesn't matter to me. Of course, you still hear about the major things, but I try not to concern myself with things that Trump says or does. It doesn't add to my life in any way, it only detracts from it. Would definitely ask yourself the question, does keeping up to date with the news really add to your life? And that's all the author is really suggesting.

zachware 6y ago

What this points to is the concept of distilled vs undistilled information. When X happens it often takes a short or long period of time for X to appear in context of the thing that's actually newsworthy. That GE stock is down 1% at 2pm isn't useful unless you are an professional active trader. But the stock's trend line and the company's financials could, over a few days, point to a story you can take action on. We didn't evolve to receive this level of information flow. Our brains think it's all relevant. My strategy is to read a summary of sorts on Sundays, a paper copy of The Economist. It's not all encompassing and sometimes has a bit of bias, but it's the only weekly I've found that comprehensively sums up the stream of events that happened rather that generally line up in some sort of context. I've found that useful.