
Stop Watching the News (2019) - wellsjosephc
https://josephcwells.com/blog/better-than-news
======
TulliusCicero
> 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?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
There are many similar cases where the outrage was _wrong_ , the facts of the
case weren't as originally reported, and the resulting outrage couldn't be
rolled back or productively channeled. My heart breaks at the idea of a guy
being murdered with no consequences, but that can't mean that we embrace
anything and everything which delivers those consequences.

~~~
TulliusCicero
Yes, but what's the ratio where harm was done there, vs where the public
outrage was entirely reasonable and good?

Public outrage is one check on societal institutions. The police are a check
on general lawlessness and disorder, and the fact that sometimes they kill
someone they really shouldn't have doesn't make us think, "well just get rid
of the police then altogether I suppose". Why would we get rid of public
outrage, just because sometimes it's wrong?

Public outrage is what makes journalism function as the fourth estate, after
all. Investigative journalism of national-level issues in particular: what
would the point of all of it be, if nobody read or cared? Thus, the author's
argument is also an argument for investigate journalism of any non-'local'
issue to cease to exist. Does this sound like a good idea?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I would guess the ratio isn't much below 1:1, which I don't find acceptable.
If a friend told me shocking stories about my coworkers, and 50% of them or
even 25% of them were wrong, I'd stop listening to her.

As I mentioned in another comment thread, I don't think the author objects
(and I certainly don't object) to in-depth investigations of national or
global issues. That's a vanishingly small portion of what the news as
instantiated today does.

~~~
TulliusCicero
You think the news that causes widespread public outrage is substantially
inaccurate 25-50% of the time? I'd be shocked if it was even 5%.

~~~
NikolaNovak
I'd be shocked if it were less than 50%

Commercial news by definition is looking to shock/sensationalize/rile up. It
may not be on a conscious level but it's a race to gather & keep attention -
boring stuff won't cut it.

I'm not supporting author's point mind you, I believe education/informedness
is the only thing we have approaching a silver bullet. But the amount of
internet justice and vigilanteism we have today, a lot of it inspired by
various kinds of news - from local cable TV news indicating our suburbian
neighbourhoods are a pithole of violence, to politically charged national
news, to hilarious reporting on science and medicine... it all outrages and
most of it is at best numbing, at worst utterly wrong.

~~~
TulliusCicero
There's a certain amount of sensationalization to get eyeballs with things
like headlines, obviously, but I'd be surprised if you looked at the various
news stories that caused public outrage over the course of a year, if more
than a small percentage were actually mis-reported/factually incorrect when it
came to mainstream news coverage by reputable organizations.

~~~
grawprog
Just as an example, a friend of mine had a fishing video get picked up by a
few different news outlets. He gave a small writeup explaining the video to
each of them. Not one of them reported the correct information. None of them
got the location correct, only one got the kind of fish correct and one of
them might as well have been talking about a totally different video, they
literally contradicted what you could see in the video.

The way I see it, of something as trivial as a fishing video can be reported
on so completely and utterly incorrectly, without the slightest regard for
even the tiny amount of facts provided alongside the video, then why should i
assume anything else is reported correctly?

------
mshron
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.

~~~
shadowprofile77
On the other hand many people (I can think of a number of them from my
personal circle of acquaintances alone) learned to be terrified of the virus
to a wholly unreasonable and panicked degree that doesn't even let them
rationally consider risks vs. benefits in going out for a bit of exercise or
to buy needed groceries.

This happened because of the news, frequently reporting tentative theories and
information about worse case scenarios or extremes as if both were given and
much more common things.

Just one example: A piece of recent WaPo reporting whose headline very clearly
implied that a whole wave of deaths among young children was being caused by
"strange symptoms" of COVID.

Then when one actually read the piece, a slow admission that they were talking
about only a very small number of cases out of thousands of pediatric COVID
cases.

This is just one example, and considering how many users of social media don't
even bother to read news pieces, instead simply sharing them among their
friends because the titles sounded scary, it's irresponsible nonsense for a
major news outlet to phrase its headlines with so much hyperbole.

~~~
cellar_door
Agree. And there's actually empirical data to back that up: individuals
dramatically overestimate the infectiousness and fatality rate of COVID-19
relative to expert opinion.

[https://www.nber.org/papers/w27245.pdf](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27245.pdf)

------
Ididntdothis
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.

~~~
karatestomp
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
Interesting take. You've given me pause to think about this some more.

------
rglover
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.

------
khazhoux
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.

------
gberger
> 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
All the info we needed could have fit inside just a few paragraphs, updated
each week.

~~~
gberger
And where do you go to read those paragraphs?

------
zests
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
The economist comes out weekly.

------
the_af
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
> 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
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"?

------
dpix
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._

------
throw7
"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
> 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
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
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.

------
acomjean
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)

------
gregmac
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.

~~~
makomk
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.

------
base698
My three favorites, on the topic of the news.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-
is-bad-rolf-dobelli)

[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

[https://www.docdroid.net/4wgVecr/why-speculate-michael-
crich...](https://www.docdroid.net/4wgVecr/why-speculate-michael-crichton-pdf)

------
ausbah
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
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.

------
IAmEveryone
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
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
>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.

~~~
downerending
> 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.

By my estimate, those would also have an infinitesimal chance of significantly
changing the world, compared to just staying home and pushing my kid on a
swing.

If that makes me an "idiot", so be it.

(And if it makes you feel any better, that should make it easier for _you_ to
push politics in your direction.)

------
Hoenoe
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-a...](https://thecorrespondent.com/22/the-problem-with-real-news-and-
what-we-can-do-about-it/15169469194-78c4699b)

------
gtm1260
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
secret to reddit is to not go with the flow and only watch a small number of
high quality subs

~~~
tentboy
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
i have communities that are centered around things i enjoy w/ 2-3-8 subs per
community. it's pretty rad

------
cmdshiftf4
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.

------
52-6F-62
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)

------
throw_away
Reposting a frequently apropos quote:

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

------
jjice
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.

------
zachware
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.

------
tj-teej
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/19...](https://www.amazon.com/Hate-Inc-Todays-Despise-
Another/dp/1949017257)

------
robomartin
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-
bub...](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-
journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048)

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.

------
keenmaster
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.

------
lossolo
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.

------
raz32dust
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.

------
wvenable
"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
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.

------
Upvoter33
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).

------
tehjoker
"> 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.

------
rantwasp
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.

------
heavyset_go
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
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

------
globular-toast
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.

------
627467
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.

------
aklemm
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.

------
miesman
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.

------
OctopusSandwich
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.

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

------
beaker52
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.

------
djsumdog
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.

~~~
californical
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
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.

------
12xo
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.

------
andarleen
> 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.

------
simonebrunozzi
Obligatory mention: Aaron Schwartz's "I hate the news". [0]

[0]:
[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

~~~
djsumdog
Thanks for sharing this. I haven't read this before.

Rest in peace Schwartz.

------
wayupthere
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
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
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
> 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
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.

