I agree with some of the premises of this article, that much of the news is actually of negative value, but I have some problems with this part: > If an event

I agree with some of the premises of this article, that much of the news is actually of negative value, but I have some problems with this part: > If an event is actually important to your real life, you will find out about it. Such news will find you. > Well, from my experience you ignore all of the things you cannot control and that have little bearing on your life (again, if there is some news that will actually effect your life you’ll hear about it) Here is the crux. There are actually important things we need to know about (e.g. a nearby natural disaster that may threaten your area; an upcoming local election with important consequences; a worldwide pandemic). How do we find out about about them? This article assumes they will somehow reach you anyway even if you ignore all news - how? IME, the way this happens, is that your relatives/friends/neighbors, who are following the news, tell you about it. In other words, this advice appears to me to rely on parasitism - a minority can ignore all news without harm because they can still rely on the majority who follow the news to provide really important information. As a moral position it fails the categorical imperative.