20 ms·

News engagement plummets as Americans tune out

70 points by shaburn 4y ago

beckingz 4y ago
Nature is healing! And by that I mean everyone is just done with it all.
spicymaki 4y ago
I guess I am not the only one. I know it is ignorant and irresponsible, but I have to tend to my mental health. I can be of no help if I completely loose my mind. I now mostly get my news from word of mouth sources. Wikipedia front page has a decent low key summary of the news.
- georgebarnett 4y ago
  Its certainly not ignorant or irresponsible and if you feel that way, I suggest its because that's the message the news dealers want you to feel. Dobelli sums it up best: https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf
- haolez 4y ago
  I'm doing exactly the same.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  I follow the news but don't get it from social media or read or engage in comment sections (except here).
- Zanneth 4y ago
  Wikipedia's "Portal:Current events"[1] page is a relatively good source of news that is boring/balanced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
- icelancer 4y ago
  > I know it is ignorant and irresponsible I am guessing you're just saying this so you don't get flamed by the concern trolls of the Internet who say you must be engaged, but in the case you actually feel this, it's not true at all. You don't owe your attention and reaction to the news to anyone. Do any good in life for others less fortunate or in need and know that's more than thousands of hours of watching CNN coverage of Ukraine-Russia conflict or Roe v. Wade being rehashed the 76th time.
  - konschubert 4y ago
    In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box. There are also other ways than voting to influence political decision making in a democracy, which requires citizens to be informed and educated. This doesn't require checking the news daily, but maybe at least once a month?
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      There's many other ways to make an informed choice. Books, develop a moral compass, talk with experts or even trusted friends, observe what is happening in your area and act in good faith to become involved. IMO I'd trust the vote of someone who volunteers with the poor over someone who just watches $BIGNEWS each night Making a good choice is more than having data, it's about having wisdom of what even matters in life and which data even matters for moving towards that good life. The news cannot tell you what is Good.
    - robryan 4y ago
      Efficiency wise you could probably just put in a day or 2 of catch up before going to vote. Would probably actually get a more impartial view on candidates not tainted by whatever the latest controversy is that will be forgotten in a week.
    - icelancer 4y ago
      > In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box. Millions of people are ignoring that advice currently, and unlike action - say, giving to those in need or volunteering your help - a single vote doesn't spur any change; lost to the margins of error. I personally think many people hide behind voting as their civic duty as a way to get out of action and helping those in need, especially those who are local. Sure, voting is fine. I do it. It doesn't much matter given the city, county, and state I live in (Seattle, King County, Washington State) since you can guess how issues are quite easily litigated and voted upon, but I'll learn a little bit about the stuff on the ballot and cast my vote. I also don't really think it does much; I mostly do it to silence those who think not voting is some cardinal sin. Helping those in your neighborhood with food security, transportation, or access to information/services makes an impact that day for that person. They don't much care who you voted for. Little Free Pantries and Little Free Libraries are a great way to get started with hyperlocal giving, if anyone is looking for a way to help locally and disconnect nationally/globally from events that you have vanishingly little (I'm being generous) control over.
- flobosg 4y ago
  > Wikipedia front page has a decent low key summary of the news. Then you might like Legible News (https://legiblenews.com/ https://legiblenews.com/), which uses Wikipedia’s Current Events portal.
- notjustanymike 4y ago
  We get the NYTimes weekend edition delivered, and that’s been a really healthy way to consume news. I read it over the course of the week, often with a nice cup of coffee.
- Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
  If you think of world/local news simply as form of entertainment that you don't enjoy, you'll feel no moral pain from abstaining. I quit ~15 years ago and have no regrets. However, I do think it's important to build a larger mental model of the world than you get by just sitting in a room by yourself. But I'd argue that the news is a terrible (biased, emotional, and inefficient) way of building such a model. Far better, for example, to spend a bit of time each month looking into the large scale trends that are shaping your world, country, and town.
- kodah 4y ago
  > I know it is ignorant and irresponsible It's impressive that, as a society, we've conditioned people to this. I don't read the news, I don't participate in social media outside of forums and IRC, I don't donate, and I don't vote. All things are things I used to do with regular frequency. I was constantly stressed, tired, and depressed. It was difficult to relate to people who had experiences outside of what I was being fed on social media, it was hard to even say I was happy at times because someone wanted to remind me that world was going to end. All along the way you get these happy coaches who will tell you, "It's a marathon not a race", "empathy exhaustion is a thing", etc while also feeding you a machine of reactions to make sure none of that was true. Even when you're disengaged on purpose, there's societal pressure to stay engaged, and the system knows how to wield that pressure with some level of plausible deniability. It's far easier to tell someone who is saying, "This is too much" that their choices put them at fault; after all, they didn't have to read that next reactionary opinion. These are all experiences with my hypothetical in-group, not even the categorical "threat". Yet, I wasn't ignorant. In fact, I would read on events - just not as they're happening, and not at a news website. You'd be surprised at the number of people who focus on writing thoughtful post-hoc analysis on actual collected facts - Wikipedia is one such source, as you mentioned. As for irresponsible, your ultimate responsibility is to keep yourself healthy. If you are not here, you cannot affect the world in any positive way - regardless of your level of input or listening. Anyone that tells you to do something detrimental to yourself on purpose is not actually looking out for your best interest.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Mathematically your vote on the national level has about as much chance of "doing something" as buying a lottery ticket does; but the first is widely deemed to be "super important" and the latter "super stupid". Voting says more about you than it ever has or will about the candidates. Once that realization sinks in, everything changes.
    - kodah 4y ago
      > Voting says more about you than it ever has or will about the candidates. > Once that realization sinks in, everything changes. Maybe, but probably not. For instance, I don't vote because the parties have failed to address things that I think are important, or have gone so grossly off the rails that they are no longer a useful investment of my time or energy. In this way, non-participation is valid feedback - so it says something about the party and the candidate. To me, not addressing things I need solved by the party is feedback to me - feedback that's as simple as "your issues are not a priority to me or my constituents". People trying to moralize voting usually can't comprehend this because the party is doing something they want. The problem is that moralizing voting is never okay.
- shusaku 4y ago
  I really like Tangle News. I get a 10 minute summary of political happenings in the US every day. Reading through that keeps me in the loop but doesn’t try and pull you down the outrage rabbit hole.
- epolanski 4y ago
  There's a high correlation between following news and feelings of anxiety and depression. At the beginning of 2022 I decided to quit reading news, I realized that it took between 3 and 7% of non-sleeping time and added nothing to my life. Spent two great months, then Russia invaded Ukraine and I went back to norm.
- elorant 4y ago
  A great low key summary of the news is Quartz Daily Brief. A daily e-mail with hand picked world news that are informative. I find it very useful.
- jrnichols 4y ago
  nope. you are most certainly not the only one. the constant 24/7 hysteria around covid-19 has completely burnt me out on the news. It felt like everywhere I went I couldn't escape it and it nearly broke me mentally. Tuning out and away from the news was the best thing I could have done for myself.
- corrral 4y ago
  > I know it is ignorant and irresponsible It's really not. If you're spending even a little time reading relevant books (poli sci, political philosophy, economics, history, et c.) instead of following the news daily then you're doing a better job of being a good citizen than people who don't do that, but do follow the news closely. Exception: local news, though even that you probably don't need to follow daily. Maybe check in once a week. That also happens to be the only level at which your, personal vote has enough statistical likelihood of affecting anything to have any actual value. Caring and being a good citizen is consistently participating in politics that are closer to home, and participating in party politics. Earlier in the process = larger effect (so, party politics). Smaller pool of voters = larger effect (so, local). Not watching the news every day. Not voting in major elections (if you skip 100% of those but attend a corresponding number of local elections, you're doing your part much better than someone who does the inverse).
rootusrootus 4y ago
Yes, some of us have had enough, and we decided to walk away from it. Enough people now realize that it's all BS for clicks.
bsenftner 4y ago
We placed trust in News outlets, and they abused that trust to a criminal, near civil war. Let them all go bankrupt.
- loudmax 4y ago
  Who do you trust instead?
  - overtonwhy 4y ago
    NPR and PBS
    - daveslash 4y ago
      I second this. I don't understand why you were down-voted. Somebody asked a question about who you trust and you answered it directly. You didn't ask, but I too trust NPR & PBS.
  - djohnston 4y ago
    Generally long form content
- spread_love 4y ago
  Glad to hear you don't read any news, presumably including the link to CNBC you submitted. What's your alternative?
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    Not who you're asking, but my alternative is simply interacting with people around me. I'll hear about basically everything from someone running their mouth, half the time it's their biases and bullshit spewing out, the other half it's actual pertinent information. That's significantly less biases and bullshit than if I followed news, and much less time spent pretending to care, so it's a win for me.
    - 4y ago
georgebarnett 4y ago
Once you realise that the "bad news" is not current events, but rather a poor experience driven by chasing clicks instead of quality, the reasonable response is to disengage from the machine and go elsewhere. A simple example is the number of new orgs still running daily live blogs of current events trying to generate hype. I expect if we looked elsewhere, there would be an uptick in engagement in moderated, thoughtful sources such as podcasts, substacks, etc (and of course plain social).
yomkippur 4y ago
It's almost like people no longer trust the mainstream news outlets and its not tough to see why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
- hahaitsfunny 4y ago
- ilololed 4y ago
  Excellent point: conservative television empire Sinclair Broadcast Group writes a lot of talking points for local affiliates. No wonder Trump loved them so much: > So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke. — Trump (Twitter) April 2, 2018 talking heads on daytime talk shows != the news
AzzieElbab 4y ago
all I see on news twitter is journalists engaging with each other. no civilians are getting involved/harmed
ohiovr 4y ago
There are few news stories I find worthy to open. "If it bleeds it leads". For the most part, if isn't someone I know bleeding, I'm skipping it. Also the share of so called news posing as editorials makes it unworthy to open the vast lot of them. Also, editorial or not, Its often about how unfair the left is treated and I'm not interested in that any more. Tech wizz bang stories aren't as interesting to me as it was in the past, mainly because I've heard of it all (almost). Not interested in scandals of the so called elite anymore because nothing ever comes from it, usually. Other so called news stories like that about inflation, isn't news at all, we all know already. The stuff that is really news, and really important, and really imminent, isn't covered because it embarrasses the establishment. Should you point that out, you are censored. Funny how a business can survive without customers. But that is just me.
- tenpies 4y ago
  > "If it bleeds it leads". Post-2016, the updated version is "If it bleeds and doesn't make Democrats look bad, it leads". See for example, the near-absolute muteness about the recent Hunter Biden iCloud leak[1]. This is the son of a sitting POTUS - who was just last week at the White House - demonstrably putting himself in positions that are ripe for blackmailing and corruption. The same son sitting on Boards of private companies with huge international exposure, and directly benefiting from the terrible decisions being made at the White House. It would be scandalous even in the most Banana of Republics - but not in the US when its about the Democrats. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_iCloud_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_iCloud_leak
  - ohiovr 4y ago
    I wouldn't have voted for Biden if I knew the full picture. One part of that picture is a video of him saying he wishes to eliminate, totally, fossil fuel consumption in his term. Then the laptop issue, which was real, and was important, I never heard anything about it other than its fake news conspiracy theory. If anyone wants to double back on this post and reiterate some opinion that says that indeed it was all conspiracy theory nonsense, are you happy with an angry geriatric president that reads note cards when he's about to do something? There are a hell of a lot of people unhappy with Biden. Not all of them voted for Trump. There were videos of Johny Carson pointing out Biden lying his ass off in the 1980s. Had I known that I would have a much better picture of the president we have now. The media has failed us and they don't realize it. I am suspicious these big companies are not being funded through the ways people think, like advertising or subscription revenue. How does this trash stay in business? I say trash because Biden is a 29% approval rating disaster and he was elected 100% at the behest of the media. When the media loses objectivity to satisfy power behind the scenes, what can really be said about it? If anyone wants to call me dirty words because of this, go ahead. I won't reply.
yieldcrv 4y ago
> The war in Ukraine, a series of deadly mass shootings, the Jan. 6 hearings and the Supreme Court's revocation of abortion rights haven't been able to capture the same level of attention spurred by the onset of the pandemic and the 2020 election. Did anyone see those comedy sketches on Instagram/TikTok about the fake army draft guy standing around NYC recruiting people? He got some pretty honest opinions from people about the idea of going to the Ukraine, that mostly matches all of our representatives actions. Basically "fuck that"
- mappu 4y ago
  Just a casual heads-up - https://time.com/12597/the-ukraine-or-ukraine/ https://time.com/12597/the-ukraine-or-ukraine/
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    its a post about broad apathy, but yes I'm aware and its largely reflexive
SnowHill9902 4y ago
If it’s important enough it’ll reach you.
- ohiovr 4y ago
  Yes this is really true. One time a friend told me 3G was being eliminated. 4 days later my phone stopped working.
  - phabricator 4y ago
    Exactly, why check for cars before crossing the road? If it's dangerous enough, it'll hit you.
    - JoshCole 4y ago
      Ironically, crossing roads is an example of a time where people tend to feel checking the news is stupid and reckless. The reason being that it calls into stark attention how a lack of awareness of your actual surroundings impacts your safety.
      - phabricator 4y ago
        ...and a lack of understanding that your phone won't work tomorrow can impact your safety. Presumably the phone was near GP's actual surroundings.
        JoshCole 4y ago
        You can't cite his example as evidence that the news is required - his example contradicts the thesis. He was informed without needing to pay attention to the news via a friend prior to the event happening. I get what you're trying to say though - not paying attention to your surroundings and so not knowing what is happening is potentially dangerous. The problem, of course, is that no one was arguing that being uninformed was ideal. They were implying that the news wasn't optimal and stating outright that even without it you will be informed of the important things. I'm assuming you understood that - maybe we are talking past each other - but if you did and you still disagree with the thrust of their points I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I find that it is an incredibly bad conflation to think paying attention to what a monetization of attention corporation thinks you should pay attention to is necessarily going to translate into being aware of your surroundings; I'm quite certain that, very very often, it not only doesn't do that, but accomplishes the opposite. The reason why I'm so certain is because of how poor the information quality is. News has perverse incentives, like being fast, rather than right. Generally you would be better off having been informed through slower channels - for example, by taking a course or reading a book or getting first hand accounts - rather than having gotten a watered down, distorted, and in many ways wrong interpretation from a non-expert optimizing for engagement.
ceeplusplus 4y ago
How much of this is just TikTok eating everyone else's lunch? You don't post articles on TT as much as 15-60 second soundbites, so presumably it wouldn't be included here. There's also more "alternative" solo players as opposed to the big newspapers and channels, since TT has better discoverability than YT and FB.
itqwertz 4y ago
- phabricator 4y ago
  - nervousvarun 4y ago
    Surely you understand the context though right? The perception? Trump was/is a pompous, bombastic, blow-hard, ignorant fool but he's not falling off of bicycles and slurring his speech like a stroke victim. Well he probably was...but he managed to be lively enough that when he did that wasn't the lasting impression he left. Maybe Biden's milquetoast persona is what the country needs...but it's not as newsworthy (which again is the context here).
    - phabricator 4y ago
      - jimmygrapes 4y ago
        Bigly is a real word, though archaic. It's mostly accepted that Trump was saying "big league" in a similarly... poetic... style, accompanied by am accent. Source: https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/bigly/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/bigly/
        phabricator 4y ago
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  There's some pretty spicy news coming out about him and his family right now, significantly more saucy than anything that came out about Trump, but you won't see it on the news. And there's proof of it all too, interestingly enough.
mberning 4y ago
News isn’t news anymore. What you get most often is activism, propaganda, and doomsday blackpill bullshit. I don’t need that in my life.
ALittleLight 4y ago
I like this simplified format that Axios has. Reading this article I actually thought "This is good, I should check out more from Axios." I then went to their homepage and by scrolling down counted 11 out of their top 20 articles were about the January 6th riots and an additional 2 or 3 were about Trump. Maybe this is a problem the news has? My neighborhood experienced rioters. They burned cars near my house, broke windows, ransacked stores, vandalism, looting, attacked people, my neighbors were on the streets with drawn guns, the national guard was deployed, and on the same day our police chief was literally kneeling in solidarity with the rioters. Yet this incident, and countless like it across the country, receded into the far distance almost immediately as far as the media is concerned. An hours long protest turned riot at the Capitol, where the only people killed were protesters by the police? This dominates media coverage more than a year later? What I'm really getting at is that media coverage seems politically and ideologically driven to me. They want to shape the opinion of their readers to match the political agenda. That seems like a turn off to me.
- spread_love 4y ago
  The seventh Jan 6 select hearing committee was hours ago, why wouldn't a US-focused news site be running stories about it today? It's the hero story for Newsmax, is that because of their "ideology?" It's all over Fox News too (granted they're also covering 'The View' Hosts React to First Lady Jill Biden's Taco Comments which sounds very important).
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    When I look at Fox's website, whatever commentary one might have about the editorial selection, it is not dominated by January 6th.
    - spread_love 4y ago
      I mentioned that: they're also covering Jill Biden's Taco Comments. Thanks for not even trying to challenge the point about Newsmax!
lcuff 4y ago
A senior trainer for a method of dealing with trauma once said he didn't think the human nervous system has evolved to be able to deal with the quantity of bad news that is pushed at us. Thinking about it, evolutionarily we probably dealt with bad news from within a 20 or 40 mile radius (two day's walk...). We are inherently disposed to pay attention to bad news (the creature that ate or mauled a guy in the next village may come this way). Put stronger, it's an evolutionary advantage to pay attention to bad news. But here in 2022, the bad news from thousands of miles away is 99% irrelevant to my life or survival, but my eyeballs get pulled in, and my nervous system gets overwhelmed unless I make a conscious choice to pull away, which I personally do.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  > We are inherently disposed to pay attention to bad news Most of us, sure, but not all of us. Some people don’t care about bad news. You might argue that’s not who we want to select for, but in a noisy information environment, apathy is a fitness function.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  A senior commentator at Hacker News (me) does not believe that false beliefs are more prevalent today than in the past.
- epolanski 4y ago
  > the bad news from thousands of miles away is 99% irrelevant to my life or survival You reminded me of something. Before the latest US elections me, an Italian, found myself in few discussions about Trump, Biden at dinners with friends and family. I then realized I've never found myself in a discussion about elections of our city's mayor or province governor which were infinitely more relevant to my daily life. Some of my friends didn't even knew who the candidates were or the ideas they had. Quite telling.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    It is no exaggeration to say that the average Canadian knows more about US politics and how the US government works than he does about his own country's equivalents. (Or "thinks they know", at least. The same average Canadian thinks, thanks to an avalanche of misleading "news", that "the Supreme Court[1] banned abortion throughout the US". Since the Supreme Court of Canada has never found a Charter right to abortion, the repeal of Roe v. Wade means that federally speaking abortion has the exact same standing in both countries: No law prohibits it.) [1] No "US" qualifier needed, which is itself telling
pcorsaro 4y ago
There's a quote from this article under the Cable Viewership section that I found interesting. "Cable viewership across the three major cable news networks — CNN, Fox News and MSNBC — is, on average, down 19% in prime time for the first half of this year compared to the first half of 2021. Those losses skew heavily toward CNN and MSNBC, which are down 47% and 33%, respectively. Fox's ratings are up 12% in that six-month span." That's a very weird, biased way of phrasing that. The two left leaning news organizations are down quite a bit, but the right leaning organization is actually up, but we're going to lump them all together and make it look like they're all down at first glance.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  They are back to back sentences. Pretty bad attempt at obfuscating. The first sentence claims data “across” all channels, and the following sentence breaks it down.
  - starkd 4y ago
    But they included Foxnews in the first sentence where they claimed it was down "across the board".
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Is that not what across the board means? There are 3 news channels, all of them have to be added together for an across the board measurement.
      - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        Not at all - in my opinion. “Across the board” means something closer “true in every case”. Though as I type this, I realize some people my think of it as “in total.”
        bee_rider 4y ago
        Note that "across the board" does not actually appear in the article.
yablak 4y ago
I stopped reading the news starting this week, and created another Twitter handle for all politics and news related follows... And I don't read it. The news is all depressing. The options are either focus on daily life & donate to Dems/Ukraine or... go out marching with antifa? There's no middle ground I can see. I can't listen to this but will just leave it here: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-30717896/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-307...
robryan 4y ago
It is pretty easy to keep on top of news, just occasionally browse the headlines and pickup more narrow interest stuff via social media. Most things are just part of the 24 hour news cycle and don't mean much of anything, certainly not worth sitting there with CNN or similar on to get fed to you at a very slow pace and full of ads.
imgabe 4y ago
How many of the “news” articles are just worthless manipulative clickbait and people have figured that out? Check out r/savedyouaclick to see the nonsense headlines that often have nothing to do with the story, which is then spread out over 50 pages to show more ads.
- carbadtraingood 4y ago
  I feel like "r/saved your lick" is more likely to be run by deer who have opinions on where to find the best salt licks...
  - imgabe 4y ago
    whoops, autocorrect had a field day with that, thanks.
gumby 4y ago
Those bars should have been left aligned. Right-aligning them made them hard to read, due to convention.
godshatter 4y ago
> News Engagement crashing 50% on Social Thank the gods is all I can say. You could replace that headline with "News Enragement crashing 50% on Social" and still be close to the truth. Anything that shows that we might someday be able to communicate without toxicity is a positive sign.
99_00 4y ago
>In some cases, engagement has fallen below pre-pandemic levels In other words, in many cases it is back to normal levels.
rr888 4y ago
While I prefer boring politicians, Trump made for some spectacular news headlines. I guess we're getting back to normal.
- corrral 4y ago
  I'm legitimately worried about how news sources are going to respond to the realization that crazier politicians in high office = way better ratings/sales/views. They already disproportionately covered Trump in 2016 on account of how there was a new insane thing out of his camp every day to report, likely helping him get elected. Forget the actual election: will they bother to cover any "boring" primary candidates at all from here on? Or only ones that have a nutty angle they can work for views?
thenerdhead 4y ago
I wonder if this is the beginning of the post crisis “high” using the terminology of the fourth turning book. Perhaps the generational shift are having people looking to be self-reliant until those strong communities are rebuilt on trust.
nikolay 4y ago
CaptWillard 4y ago
Headline: News engagement plummets Story: CNN and MSNBC down 33%, Fox up 12%
- spread_love 4y ago
  Someone already tried this gambit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076447 Engagement is down across 1. Cable viewership, 2. News app sessions, 3. Website visits , and 4. Engagement on social media. What you have after "Story:" only deals with cable viewership (1/4 of the metrics). Cable viewership is, on average, down 19%, and the story makes explicitly clear: "Those losses skew heavily toward CNN and MSNBC"
togs 4y ago
I resent news media relying heavily on clicks. Simultaneously, I understand that news organizations must generate profit somehow, and that many people are unwilling to pay for news. The problem, as I see it: I pay for a news subscription. News Organization continues to produce low-quality content because they continue to rely on advertising. So, I am paying for the same quality of content as when I did not pay; I am wasting money. Theoretically, if everyone paid for a news subscription, then News Organization could afford to produce content that relies less, or ideally not at all, on advertising. However, as it stands, I do not trust the quality of News Organization, because it currently relies on advertising, and consequently does not optimize for quality: accuracy, timeliness, transparency and newsworthiness.

70 points by shaburn 4y ago

Nature is healing! And by that I mean everyone is just done with it all.

I guess I am not the only one. I know it is ignorant and irresponsible, but I have to tend to my mental health. I can be of no help if I completely loose my mind. I now mostly get my news from word of mouth sources. Wikipedia front page has a decent low key summary of the news.

georgebarnett 4y ago
Its certainly not ignorant or irresponsible and if you feel that way, I suggest its because that's the message the news dealers want you to feel. Dobelli sums it up best: https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/2010-dobelli.pdf
haolez 4y ago
I'm doing exactly the same.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
I follow the news but don't get it from social media or read or engage in comment sections (except here).
Zanneth 4y ago
Wikipedia's "Portal:Current events"[1] page is a relatively good source of news that is boring/balanced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
icelancer 4y ago
> I know it is ignorant and irresponsible I am guessing you're just saying this so you don't get flamed by the concern trolls of the Internet who say you must be engaged, but in the case you actually feel this, it's not true at all. You don't owe your attention and reaction to the news to anyone. Do any good in life for others less fortunate or in need and know that's more than thousands of hours of watching CNN coverage of Ukraine-Russia conflict or Roe v. Wade being rehashed the 76th time.
- konschubert 4y ago
  In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box. There are also other ways than voting to influence political decision making in a democracy, which requires citizens to be informed and educated. This doesn't require checking the news daily, but maybe at least once a month?
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    There's many other ways to make an informed choice. Books, develop a moral compass, talk with experts or even trusted friends, observe what is happening in your area and act in good faith to become involved. IMO I'd trust the vote of someone who volunteers with the poor over someone who just watches $BIGNEWS each night Making a good choice is more than having data, it's about having wisdom of what even matters in life and which data even matters for moving towards that good life. The news cannot tell you what is Good.
  - robryan 4y ago
    Efficiency wise you could probably just put in a day or 2 of catch up before going to vote. Would probably actually get a more impartial view on candidates not tainted by whatever the latest controversy is that will be forgotten in a week.
  - icelancer 4y ago
    > In a democracy, citizens have a moral obligation to be informed enough to make a qualified decision at the ballot box. Millions of people are ignoring that advice currently, and unlike action - say, giving to those in need or volunteering your help - a single vote doesn't spur any change; lost to the margins of error. I personally think many people hide behind voting as their civic duty as a way to get out of action and helping those in need, especially those who are local. Sure, voting is fine. I do it. It doesn't much matter given the city, county, and state I live in (Seattle, King County, Washington State) since you can guess how issues are quite easily litigated and voted upon, but I'll learn a little bit about the stuff on the ballot and cast my vote. I also don't really think it does much; I mostly do it to silence those who think not voting is some cardinal sin. Helping those in your neighborhood with food security, transportation, or access to information/services makes an impact that day for that person. They don't much care who you voted for. Little Free Pantries and Little Free Libraries are a great way to get started with hyperlocal giving, if anyone is looking for a way to help locally and disconnect nationally/globally from events that you have vanishingly little (I'm being generous) control over.
flobosg 4y ago
> Wikipedia front page has a decent low key summary of the news. Then you might like Legible News (https://legiblenews.com/ https://legiblenews.com/), which uses Wikipedia’s Current Events portal.
notjustanymike 4y ago
We get the NYTimes weekend edition delivered, and that’s been a really healthy way to consume news. I read it over the course of the week, often with a nice cup of coffee.
Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
If you think of world/local news simply as form of entertainment that you don't enjoy, you'll feel no moral pain from abstaining. I quit ~15 years ago and have no regrets. However, I do think it's important to build a larger mental model of the world than you get by just sitting in a room by yourself. But I'd argue that the news is a terrible (biased, emotional, and inefficient) way of building such a model. Far better, for example, to spend a bit of time each month looking into the large scale trends that are shaping your world, country, and town.
kodah 4y ago
> I know it is ignorant and irresponsible It's impressive that, as a society, we've conditioned people to this. I don't read the news, I don't participate in social media outside of forums and IRC, I don't donate, and I don't vote. All things are things I used to do with regular frequency. I was constantly stressed, tired, and depressed. It was difficult to relate to people who had experiences outside of what I was being fed on social media, it was hard to even say I was happy at times because someone wanted to remind me that world was going to end. All along the way you get these happy coaches who will tell you, "It's a marathon not a race", "empathy exhaustion is a thing", etc while also feeding you a machine of reactions to make sure none of that was true. Even when you're disengaged on purpose, there's societal pressure to stay engaged, and the system knows how to wield that pressure with some level of plausible deniability. It's far easier to tell someone who is saying, "This is too much" that their choices put them at fault; after all, they didn't have to read that next reactionary opinion. These are all experiences with my hypothetical in-group, not even the categorical "threat". Yet, I wasn't ignorant. In fact, I would read on events - just not as they're happening, and not at a news website. You'd be surprised at the number of people who focus on writing thoughtful post-hoc analysis on actual collected facts - Wikipedia is one such source, as you mentioned. As for irresponsible, your ultimate responsibility is to keep yourself healthy. If you are not here, you cannot affect the world in any positive way - regardless of your level of input or listening. Anyone that tells you to do something detrimental to yourself on purpose is not actually looking out for your best interest.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Mathematically your vote on the national level has about as much chance of "doing something" as buying a lottery ticket does; but the first is widely deemed to be "super important" and the latter "super stupid". Voting says more about you than it ever has or will about the candidates. Once that realization sinks in, everything changes.
  - kodah 4y ago
    > Voting says more about you than it ever has or will about the candidates. > Once that realization sinks in, everything changes. Maybe, but probably not. For instance, I don't vote because the parties have failed to address things that I think are important, or have gone so grossly off the rails that they are no longer a useful investment of my time or energy. In this way, non-participation is valid feedback - so it says something about the party and the candidate. To me, not addressing things I need solved by the party is feedback to me - feedback that's as simple as "your issues are not a priority to me or my constituents". People trying to moralize voting usually can't comprehend this because the party is doing something they want. The problem is that moralizing voting is never okay.
shusaku 4y ago
I really like Tangle News. I get a 10 minute summary of political happenings in the US every day. Reading through that keeps me in the loop but doesn’t try and pull you down the outrage rabbit hole.
epolanski 4y ago
There's a high correlation between following news and feelings of anxiety and depression. At the beginning of 2022 I decided to quit reading news, I realized that it took between 3 and 7% of non-sleeping time and added nothing to my life. Spent two great months, then Russia invaded Ukraine and I went back to norm.
elorant 4y ago
A great low key summary of the news is Quartz Daily Brief. A daily e-mail with hand picked world news that are informative. I find it very useful.
jrnichols 4y ago
nope. you are most certainly not the only one. the constant 24/7 hysteria around covid-19 has completely burnt me out on the news. It felt like everywhere I went I couldn't escape it and it nearly broke me mentally. Tuning out and away from the news was the best thing I could have done for myself.
corrral 4y ago
> I know it is ignorant and irresponsible It's really not. If you're spending even a little time reading relevant books (poli sci, political philosophy, economics, history, et c.) instead of following the news daily then you're doing a better job of being a good citizen than people who don't do that, but do follow the news closely. Exception: local news, though even that you probably don't need to follow daily. Maybe check in once a week. That also happens to be the only level at which your, personal vote has enough statistical likelihood of affecting anything to have any actual value. Caring and being a good citizen is consistently participating in politics that are closer to home, and participating in party politics. Earlier in the process = larger effect (so, party politics). Smaller pool of voters = larger effect (so, local). Not watching the news every day. Not voting in major elections (if you skip 100% of those but attend a corresponding number of local elections, you're doing your part much better than someone who does the inverse).

rootusrootus 4y ago

Yes, some of us have had enough, and we decided to walk away from it. Enough people now realize that it's all BS for clicks.

bsenftner 4y ago

We placed trust in News outlets, and they abused that trust to a criminal, near civil war. Let them all go bankrupt.

loudmax 4y ago
Who do you trust instead?
- overtonwhy 4y ago
  NPR and PBS
  - daveslash 4y ago
    I second this. I don't understand why you were down-voted. Somebody asked a question about who you trust and you answered it directly. You didn't ask, but I too trust NPR & PBS.
- djohnston 4y ago
  Generally long form content
spread_love 4y ago
Glad to hear you don't read any news, presumably including the link to CNBC you submitted. What's your alternative?
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  Not who you're asking, but my alternative is simply interacting with people around me. I'll hear about basically everything from someone running their mouth, half the time it's their biases and bullshit spewing out, the other half it's actual pertinent information. That's significantly less biases and bullshit than if I followed news, and much less time spent pretending to care, so it's a win for me.
  - 4y ago

georgebarnett 4y ago

Once you realise that the "bad news" is not current events, but rather a poor experience driven by chasing clicks instead of quality, the reasonable response is to disengage from the machine and go elsewhere. A simple example is the number of new orgs still running daily live blogs of current events trying to generate hype. I expect if we looked elsewhere, there would be an uptick in engagement in moderated, thoughtful sources such as podcasts, substacks, etc (and of course plain social).

yomkippur 4y ago

It's almost like people no longer trust the mainstream news outlets and its not tough to see why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

hahaitsfunny 4y ago
ilololed 4y ago
Excellent point: conservative television empire Sinclair Broadcast Group writes a lot of talking points for local affiliates. No wonder Trump loved them so much: > So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke. — Trump (Twitter) April 2, 2018 talking heads on daytime talk shows != the news

AzzieElbab 4y ago

all I see on news twitter is journalists engaging with each other. no civilians are getting involved/harmed

ohiovr 4y ago

There are few news stories I find worthy to open. "If it bleeds it leads". For the most part, if isn't someone I know bleeding, I'm skipping it. Also the share of so called news posing as editorials makes it unworthy to open the vast lot of them. Also, editorial or not, Its often about how unfair the left is treated and I'm not interested in that any more. Tech wizz bang stories aren't as interesting to me as it was in the past, mainly because I've heard of it all (almost). Not interested in scandals of the so called elite anymore because nothing ever comes from it, usually. Other so called news stories like that about inflation, isn't news at all, we all know already. The stuff that is really news, and really important, and really imminent, isn't covered because it embarrasses the establishment. Should you point that out, you are censored. Funny how a business can survive without customers. But that is just me.

tenpies 4y ago
> "If it bleeds it leads". Post-2016, the updated version is "If it bleeds and doesn't make Democrats look bad, it leads". See for example, the near-absolute muteness about the recent Hunter Biden iCloud leak[1]. This is the son of a sitting POTUS - who was just last week at the White House - demonstrably putting himself in positions that are ripe for blackmailing and corruption. The same son sitting on Boards of private companies with huge international exposure, and directly benefiting from the terrible decisions being made at the White House. It would be scandalous even in the most Banana of Republics - but not in the US when its about the Democrats. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_iCloud_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_iCloud_leak
- ohiovr 4y ago
  I wouldn't have voted for Biden if I knew the full picture. One part of that picture is a video of him saying he wishes to eliminate, totally, fossil fuel consumption in his term. Then the laptop issue, which was real, and was important, I never heard anything about it other than its fake news conspiracy theory. If anyone wants to double back on this post and reiterate some opinion that says that indeed it was all conspiracy theory nonsense, are you happy with an angry geriatric president that reads note cards when he's about to do something? There are a hell of a lot of people unhappy with Biden. Not all of them voted for Trump. There were videos of Johny Carson pointing out Biden lying his ass off in the 1980s. Had I known that I would have a much better picture of the president we have now. The media has failed us and they don't realize it. I am suspicious these big companies are not being funded through the ways people think, like advertising or subscription revenue. How does this trash stay in business? I say trash because Biden is a 29% approval rating disaster and he was elected 100% at the behest of the media. When the media loses objectivity to satisfy power behind the scenes, what can really be said about it? If anyone wants to call me dirty words because of this, go ahead. I won't reply.

yieldcrv 4y ago

> The war in Ukraine, a series of deadly mass shootings, the Jan. 6 hearings and the Supreme Court's revocation of abortion rights haven't been able to capture the same level of attention spurred by the onset of the pandemic and the 2020 election. Did anyone see those comedy sketches on Instagram/TikTok about the fake army draft guy standing around NYC recruiting people? He got some pretty honest opinions from people about the idea of going to the Ukraine, that mostly matches all of our representatives actions. Basically "fuck that"

mappu 4y ago
Just a casual heads-up - https://time.com/12597/the-ukraine-or-ukraine/ https://time.com/12597/the-ukraine-or-ukraine/
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  its a post about broad apathy, but yes I'm aware and its largely reflexive

SnowHill9902 4y ago

If it’s important enough it’ll reach you.

ohiovr 4y ago
Yes this is really true. One time a friend told me 3G was being eliminated. 4 days later my phone stopped working.
- phabricator 4y ago
  Exactly, why check for cars before crossing the road? If it's dangerous enough, it'll hit you.
  - JoshCole 4y ago
    Ironically, crossing roads is an example of a time where people tend to feel checking the news is stupid and reckless. The reason being that it calls into stark attention how a lack of awareness of your actual surroundings impacts your safety.
    - phabricator 4y ago
      ...and a lack of understanding that your phone won't work tomorrow can impact your safety. Presumably the phone was near GP's actual surroundings.
      - JoshCole 4y ago
        You can't cite his example as evidence that the news is required - his example contradicts the thesis. He was informed without needing to pay attention to the news via a friend prior to the event happening. I get what you're trying to say though - not paying attention to your surroundings and so not knowing what is happening is potentially dangerous. The problem, of course, is that no one was arguing that being uninformed was ideal. They were implying that the news wasn't optimal and stating outright that even without it you will be informed of the important things. I'm assuming you understood that - maybe we are talking past each other - but if you did and you still disagree with the thrust of their points I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I find that it is an incredibly bad conflation to think paying attention to what a monetization of attention corporation thinks you should pay attention to is necessarily going to translate into being aware of your surroundings; I'm quite certain that, very very often, it not only doesn't do that, but accomplishes the opposite. The reason why I'm so certain is because of how poor the information quality is. News has perverse incentives, like being fast, rather than right. Generally you would be better off having been informed through slower channels - for example, by taking a course or reading a book or getting first hand accounts - rather than having gotten a watered down, distorted, and in many ways wrong interpretation from a non-expert optimizing for engagement.

ceeplusplus 4y ago

How much of this is just TikTok eating everyone else's lunch? You don't post articles on TT as much as 15-60 second soundbites, so presumably it wouldn't be included here. There's also more "alternative" solo players as opposed to the big newspapers and channels, since TT has better discoverability than YT and FB.

itqwertz 4y ago

phabricator 4y ago
- nervousvarun 4y ago
  Surely you understand the context though right? The perception? Trump was/is a pompous, bombastic, blow-hard, ignorant fool but he's not falling off of bicycles and slurring his speech like a stroke victim. Well he probably was...but he managed to be lively enough that when he did that wasn't the lasting impression he left. Maybe Biden's milquetoast persona is what the country needs...but it's not as newsworthy (which again is the context here).
  - phabricator 4y ago
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      Bigly is a real word, though archaic. It's mostly accepted that Trump was saying "big league" in a similarly... poetic... style, accompanied by am accent. Source: https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/bigly/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/bigly/
      - phabricator 4y ago
betwixthewires 4y ago
There's some pretty spicy news coming out about him and his family right now, significantly more saucy than anything that came out about Trump, but you won't see it on the news. And there's proof of it all too, interestingly enough.

mberning 4y ago

News isn’t news anymore. What you get most often is activism, propaganda, and doomsday blackpill bullshit. I don’t need that in my life.

ALittleLight 4y ago

I like this simplified format that Axios has. Reading this article I actually thought "This is good, I should check out more from Axios." I then went to their homepage and by scrolling down counted 11 out of their top 20 articles were about the January 6th riots and an additional 2 or 3 were about Trump. Maybe this is a problem the news has? My neighborhood experienced rioters. They burned cars near my house, broke windows, ransacked stores, vandalism, looting, attacked people, my neighbors were on the streets with drawn guns, the national guard was deployed, and on the same day our police chief was literally kneeling in solidarity with the rioters. Yet this incident, and countless like it across the country, receded into the far distance almost immediately as far as the media is concerned. An hours long protest turned riot at the Capitol, where the only people killed were protesters by the police? This dominates media coverage more than a year later? What I'm really getting at is that media coverage seems politically and ideologically driven to me. They want to shape the opinion of their readers to match the political agenda. That seems like a turn off to me.

spread_love 4y ago
The seventh Jan 6 select hearing committee was hours ago, why wouldn't a US-focused news site be running stories about it today? It's the hero story for Newsmax, is that because of their "ideology?" It's all over Fox News too (granted they're also covering 'The View' Hosts React to First Lady Jill Biden's Taco Comments which sounds very important).
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  When I look at Fox's website, whatever commentary one might have about the editorial selection, it is not dominated by January 6th.
  - spread_love 4y ago
    I mentioned that: they're also covering Jill Biden's Taco Comments. Thanks for not even trying to challenge the point about Newsmax!

lcuff 4y ago

A senior trainer for a method of dealing with trauma once said he didn't think the human nervous system has evolved to be able to deal with the quantity of bad news that is pushed at us. Thinking about it, evolutionarily we probably dealt with bad news from within a 20 or 40 mile radius (two day's walk...). We are inherently disposed to pay attention to bad news (the creature that ate or mauled a guy in the next village may come this way). Put stronger, it's an evolutionary advantage to pay attention to bad news. But here in 2022, the bad news from thousands of miles away is 99% irrelevant to my life or survival, but my eyeballs get pulled in, and my nervous system gets overwhelmed unless I make a conscious choice to pull away, which I personally do.

TechBro8615 4y ago
> We are inherently disposed to pay attention to bad news Most of us, sure, but not all of us. Some people don’t care about bad news. You might argue that’s not who we want to select for, but in a noisy information environment, apathy is a fitness function.
whimsicalism 4y ago
A senior commentator at Hacker News (me) does not believe that false beliefs are more prevalent today than in the past.
epolanski 4y ago
> the bad news from thousands of miles away is 99% irrelevant to my life or survival You reminded me of something. Before the latest US elections me, an Italian, found myself in few discussions about Trump, Biden at dinners with friends and family. I then realized I've never found myself in a discussion about elections of our city's mayor or province governor which were infinitely more relevant to my daily life. Some of my friends didn't even knew who the candidates were or the ideas they had. Quite telling.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  It is no exaggeration to say that the average Canadian knows more about US politics and how the US government works than he does about his own country's equivalents. (Or "thinks they know", at least. The same average Canadian thinks, thanks to an avalanche of misleading "news", that "the Supreme Court[1] banned abortion throughout the US". Since the Supreme Court of Canada has never found a Charter right to abortion, the repeal of Roe v. Wade means that federally speaking abortion has the exact same standing in both countries: No law prohibits it.) [1] No "US" qualifier needed, which is itself telling

pcorsaro 4y ago

There's a quote from this article under the Cable Viewership section that I found interesting. "Cable viewership across the three major cable news networks — CNN, Fox News and MSNBC — is, on average, down 19% in prime time for the first half of this year compared to the first half of 2021. Those losses skew heavily toward CNN and MSNBC, which are down 47% and 33%, respectively. Fox's ratings are up 12% in that six-month span." That's a very weird, biased way of phrasing that. The two left leaning news organizations are down quite a bit, but the right leaning organization is actually up, but we're going to lump them all together and make it look like they're all down at first glance.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
They are back to back sentences. Pretty bad attempt at obfuscating. The first sentence claims data “across” all channels, and the following sentence breaks it down.
- starkd 4y ago
  But they included Foxnews in the first sentence where they claimed it was down "across the board".
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Is that not what across the board means? There are 3 news channels, all of them have to be added together for an across the board measurement.
    - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      Not at all - in my opinion. “Across the board” means something closer “true in every case”. Though as I type this, I realize some people my think of it as “in total.”
      - bee_rider 4y ago
        Note that "across the board" does not actually appear in the article.

yablak 4y ago

I stopped reading the news starting this week, and created another Twitter handle for all politics and news related follows... And I don't read it. The news is all depressing. The options are either focus on daily life & donate to Dems/Ukraine or... go out marching with antifa? There's no middle ground I can see. I can't listen to this but will just leave it here: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-30717896/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-307...

robryan 4y ago

It is pretty easy to keep on top of news, just occasionally browse the headlines and pickup more narrow interest stuff via social media. Most things are just part of the 24 hour news cycle and don't mean much of anything, certainly not worth sitting there with CNN or similar on to get fed to you at a very slow pace and full of ads.

imgabe 4y ago

How many of the “news” articles are just worthless manipulative clickbait and people have figured that out? Check out r/savedyouaclick to see the nonsense headlines that often have nothing to do with the story, which is then spread out over 50 pages to show more ads.

carbadtraingood 4y ago
I feel like "r/saved your lick" is more likely to be run by deer who have opinions on where to find the best salt licks...
- imgabe 4y ago
  whoops, autocorrect had a field day with that, thanks.

gumby 4y ago

Those bars should have been left aligned. Right-aligning them made them hard to read, due to convention.

godshatter 4y ago

> News Engagement crashing 50% on Social Thank the gods is all I can say. You could replace that headline with "News Enragement crashing 50% on Social" and still be close to the truth. Anything that shows that we might someday be able to communicate without toxicity is a positive sign.

99_00 4y ago

>In some cases, engagement has fallen below pre-pandemic levels In other words, in many cases it is back to normal levels.

rr888 4y ago

While I prefer boring politicians, Trump made for some spectacular news headlines. I guess we're getting back to normal.

corrral 4y ago
I'm legitimately worried about how news sources are going to respond to the realization that crazier politicians in high office = way better ratings/sales/views. They already disproportionately covered Trump in 2016 on account of how there was a new insane thing out of his camp every day to report, likely helping him get elected. Forget the actual election: will they bother to cover any "boring" primary candidates at all from here on? Or only ones that have a nutty angle they can work for views?

thenerdhead 4y ago

I wonder if this is the beginning of the post crisis “high” using the terminology of the fourth turning book. Perhaps the generational shift are having people looking to be self-reliant until those strong communities are rebuilt on trust.

nikolay 4y ago

CaptWillard 4y ago

Headline: News engagement plummets Story: CNN and MSNBC down 33%, Fox up 12%

spread_love 4y ago
Someone already tried this gambit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32076447 Engagement is down across 1. Cable viewership, 2. News app sessions, 3. Website visits , and 4. Engagement on social media. What you have after "Story:" only deals with cable viewership (1/4 of the metrics). Cable viewership is, on average, down 19%, and the story makes explicitly clear: "Those losses skew heavily toward CNN and MSNBC"

togs 4y ago

I resent news media relying heavily on clicks. Simultaneously, I understand that news organizations must generate profit somehow, and that many people are unwilling to pay for news. The problem, as I see it: I pay for a news subscription. News Organization continues to produce low-quality content because they continue to rely on advertising. So, I am paying for the same quality of content as when I did not pay; I am wasting money. Theoretically, if everyone paid for a news subscription, then News Organization could afford to produce content that relies less, or ideally not at all, on advertising. However, as it stands, I do not trust the quality of News Organization, because it currently relies on advertising, and consequently does not optimize for quality: accuracy, timeliness, transparency and newsworthiness.