6 ms·

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 min

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).

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).