
Giving up reading news will make us happier - Ours90
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli
======
donw
It's not just news. I cut out mainstream media several years ago, and noted a
definite improvement in my psychological well-being.

As of the end of last year, I stopped engaging in mainstream social media. So
much better.

I still keep a Facebook account for Messenger and Events, but don't post, read
timelines, or participate.

Not only do I have more time to read books and learn new things -- made pita
bread from scratch for the first time this week -- but I am in general,
notably happier and more focused.

I suspect that information hygiene is going to be one of the great underrated
skills of the digital age.

Hacker News is an exception that I indulge in maybe once a week or two --
today's the day! -- as most of what ends up on here is worthwhile, and the
moderation team has done an _excellent_ job of keeping the signal-to-noise
ratio high.

Quora also tends to be good, between Be Nice Be Respectful (BNBR), and the
Real Name policy, although they recently went downhill by interleaving the
standard cesspool that is mainstream news in the Quora feed.

Reddit... there are a few gold nuggets (/r/writingprompts), but overall it's
just a crapfest.

~~~
Taylor_OD
I'm in a similar boat. I felt very over whelmed and addicted to social media
and news in general in college.

I've got rid of all my social media other than twitter and linkedin which I
use for work. Facebook I only use for messenger. I check reddit once or twice
a day but rarely do I scroll past the first page. My overall mental health is
much better. I feel a little bit of sadness when I see friends who HAVE to
check their phones (social media) after being without it for a hour. It's
great in moderation but I think most people get too sucked in.

~~~
kuerbel
It's hard to get rid of it though. I suffer from this, when I get up the first
thing I do is open reddit. I am actually thinking about blocking the entire
site in the host file, on pc as well as android...

~~~
tvanantwerp
I used to charge my phone overnight on my bedside table. Recently I moved it
into another room so I'm not tempted to use it first-thing in the morning.

------
chris_va
Anecdotally, my experience lines up with this article. I was getting depressed
with the constant negativity, so cut out daily news, social media, etc. I have
to admit, it's pretty wonderful. And somewhat ironic, given that I used to be
the TL of Google News 10 years ago.

I still read The Economist weekly, come to HN occasionally, and hear about
important/local/political events from friends. I don't, however, have to hear
the constant doom bombardment that the media has evolved to produce.

Stepping back really highlights how toxic the news can be. We live in a
society with the lowest crime rate, highest levels of healthcare, lowest
unemployment rate, and lowest levels of poverty in all of history. Access to
the internet and globalization has made people (real people, not the loudest
selected subset you see in media) genuinely care about each other everywhere
in the world I have traveled. Yet you would never think that just looking at
typical media.

It isn't a perfect society, and horrible situations still exist that deserve
attention, but that will always be true. We still have enormous strides we can
make, and that struggle is an important aspect of our society, especially in
defending against erosions of personal freedoms.

Honestly, though, we are doing really well compared with 100 years ago.

~~~
abrahamepton
Hey, Chris! I largely agree with you, and think reading things like the
Economist on a weekly basis is salutary - it's weekly, so building a reading
habit around it doesn't lead to constant panic. It's broad, covers a lot of
what's going on around the world and isn't as obsessed with the trivialities
American media focuses on. As a guy who used to work on Google News with you,
I always appreciated the effort to get more global news and more global
sources integrated into peoples' reading experiences.

Where I disagree is that I think being citizens of a democracy obligates us to
pay attention so we can vote as informed participants, and I don't know how to
do that without reading the news.

And it's important to be clear that there's a lot still wrong with the world.
The climate is in crisis; more humans are in slavery today than at any time in
human history; we're in the midst of one of the great migrant/refugee crises
of the modern world. Importantly, many media outlets largely ignore those
things, but not all media does.

~~~
eggpy
I'm pretty sure you can remain informed while reading the news once a week. In
fact, I would argue you are likely to be _better_ informed as you will be
reading about the most important information, viewing the long term stories
that have staying power. By only reading once a week you avoid the hot,
attention-grabbing-but-ultimately-inconsequential story of the day.

As for voting, you generally receive a "voter information" packet before hand.
If you aren't reading the news then a "good citizen" ought to do their own
research rather than rely on a news source to provide you with information.

~~~
abrahamepton
Yes, I quite agree - reading the news once a week can lead you to be
incredibly well-informed. But since the OP was asserting that one oughtn't
read the news at all, I find "once/week" to be a rather different proposition.

~~~
eggpy
Valid point, you are correct. The part of your comment that caught my eye was

> being citizens of a democracy obligates us to pay attention

I agree with the statement itself, absolutely. I just don't think reading the
news is necessarily the correct way to pay attention. If you read most news,
hardly any of it encourages better citizenship. Much like Facebook, the news
requires eyeballs to survive, it has an inherent agenda. To collect eyeballs
it needs to have enticing headlines. I hardly think "look at me" is the same
thing as "education for a good democracy".

------
Rotdhizon
I see many people here who have said it, and I will say it; I haven't watched
any mainstream news(Fox, CNN, ABC, etc) in years. All it is, is negativity and
deception. For the most part, I don't care about what is going on. I get my
fill of major events from browsing reddit and HN, and even then I just read
the comments, rarely the article. I've never used FB as a source of
information, that sounds about as bad of a source as you can get.

Back when I used to watch the news, it was always the same. Something like

>> Weather >> Death >> Death >> Shooting >> Crime reports >> Crime reports >>
Sports >> Empty feel good story(Guy saves kitten, guy donates to charity, etc)
>> Ending

They focus so much on negativity and toxic behaviors, it's depressing. I don't
want to wake up in the mornings and first thing I see is how many people died
the previous day from local crimes. Even worse are the minor crimes where
people who might not even be guilty get their picture blown up on screen and
automatically deemed criminals prior to being convicted. "Man who might have
stolen a car is charged, no evidence has yet been presented. So here is his
picture, links to his social media accounts, his address, his entire life
story. If you ever see him in the future, consider him a criminal"

It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore. Every major news outlet
leans towards one side or the other. The stations that do try an report
unbiased get their funding cut and put in financial ruin.

~~~
ch4s3
> It's so hard to get unbiased information anymore.

I'm not so sure that "unbiased information" is a thing that really exists. For
example, you would like to know the outside temperature, so you check online.
That information comes from a sensor somewhere near where you happen to be.
But who placed the sensor there, and why was that location chosen? Was the
sensor calibrated? How was it originally designed? What choices were made in
the design process, and how did the engineer's biases shape the final product.
You could keep going.

Obviously, that's a bit absurd, but it's relevant to news. Even a simple
reporting of facts about a car crash can be view through numerous lenses.
Initial fact gathering by police and emergency workers all add their own
perspectives and inputs to the "raw data", and then that has to go through a
reporter who is also a person with their own world view, opinions, and
experiences. Do they use the word "crash", or "accident"? Both words heavily
bias the reporting of a car coming into contact with a guardrail at a
particular speed. It would be hard to strip all bias from something so simple.

For murkier issues, like the actions of nation states, it is even harder
to"stick to the facts". The facts may not even be clear. The data you include
in a report has to be curated somehow, and that can't be free from bias. You
have to select sources, and again those are decisions made by people.

Unbiased information is in my opinion a myth invented largely to discredit the
idea that reporting is useful even with bias and that there can exist
objective facts. Perhaps there is a problem of propaganda masquerading as
news, or heavily biased reporting pretending to be wholly objective, but
that's a different thing. Ultimately it's our responsibility as consumers of
information to look at the information presented to us with a critical eye.

------
konart
“Food, Ivan Arnoldovich, is a subtle thing. One must know how to eat, yet just
think – most people don’t know how to eat at all. One must not only know what
to eat, but when and how.’ (Philip Philipovich waved his fork meaningfully.)
‘And what to say while you’re eating. Yes, my dear sir. If you care about your
digestion, my advice is – don’t talk about bolshevism or medicine at table.
And, God forbid – never read Soviet newspapers before dinner.’ ‘M’mm . . . But
there are no other newspapers.’ ‘In that case don’t read any at all. Do you
know I once made thirty tests in my clinic. And what do you think? The
patients who never read newspapers felt excellent. Those whom I specially made
read Pravda all lost weight.”

― Mikhail Bulgakov, Heart of a Dog

~~~
AnatMl2
Love this, but since the book has an anti-Soviet sentiment, I don't think we
could generalize this quote. In USSR you would read only what you should and
you didn't really have a choice. Freedom of press was something impossible to
imagine.

I cannot say that everything what we read, or choose to read today is worth
reading but there is a good press, which is at times difficult to find, but
you will never get to it if you don't filter.

~~~
qaq
The major US news outlets deteriorated to the point of being close to USSR
level of bias and propaganda.

~~~
notfromhere
No they're not. If you actually believe this, no one can help you.

~~~
qaq
I see little difference CNN has clear political angle so does FOX which is
basically directed by owners interests. That's a very short through to the
USSR old times. If I ever turn on either one I feel that I am back to USSR. (I
lived in US 1995-2004) and came back to US in 2015 the difference is very
stark I would imaging when it was happening gradually it would be less
noticeable vs going from 2000 +/\- version to today. In USSR you had a small
group of people (Politburo) controlling among other things all the media. If
you take the number of people in US exerting major influence on media through
ownership it's pretty much smaller number than even members of Politburo.

~~~
notfromhere
I also grew up in the USSR; comparing CNN to Pravda is still stupid.

------
KirinDave
Look, I think this is great and all, but I'm pretty skeptical of this chant,
"If the news bothers you so much because of what you're reading, just stop
reading. It's not like you can change it."

Obviously, events that already happened can't be changed. But a lot of what
upsets people so much is about legal interpretation and political policy.
These things _are_ changeable, and direct (and/or collective) action can
change them.

When you're in a position where by default things go your way (dominant
gender, dominant sexual orientation, dominant phenotype/race in local
community) then yeah, you can just disengage and suspect that things are
ticking over nicely for you. That's not the case for people outside this happy
intersection. It certainly reads to me, as someone out of one of those bounds
like you're telling me to disengage while people actively trying to shape law
to marginalize me certainly won't.

Further, resistance to propaganda and misinformation is not an attribute of
mentality. It's a combination of learned skills and _context_. By yielding all
current contextual information, you are severely damaging your ability to
process current events. This is in sharp contrast to the arguments put forth
here and in the article that often lament the lack of skills (e.g.,
statistical thinking) that you can both learn and maintain in isolation.

I agree that controlling your media consumption is important and some folks
(including myself) sometimes go off on media benders, getting very stressed.
But the second assumption (that it's pointless) is wrong. My anger and outrage
has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and individuals with money,
time and emotional support.

~~~
scarecrowbob
"My anger and outrage has helped me aid numerous political campaigns and
individuals with money, time and emotional support."

I hope your correct in this; I've felt similarly in the past.

As I've gotten older, I've felt more like a lot of what I was seeing as useful
action was the fantasy of useful action. That is, I haven't seen a lot of real
gains or losses due to my own political actions.

Maybe I just don't give enough money or knock on enough doors.

But as I've gotten older it's felt more and more that this is just engaging in
a particular kind of fantasy role playing.

Perhaps it is true that I can disengage with this kinds of political anger
because I can look like I can pass as a white cishet male.

Consider, however, that the only folks who can actually make political gains
are people that are already in a position of some amount of power and
privilege. The basic premise of incremental change is that the kinds of
changes that you'd like to see are sustainable via the system you're
interacting with.

To take a specific example from my own set of stuff that pisses me off, I
believe that the system of policing where I live is systematically racist.

I would never have a problem with people advocating for incremental changes
and I've seen people make small gains in those directions.

However, I believe that the complete disarmament of the police for and more or
less the total abolition of prisions is the only workable solution.

I wholly understand that this position is not a moderate position and is
probably not something many people agree with, and I neither expect other
people to see it as reasonable nor want to support that view here.

I bring it up, rather, because there is no incremental change that I can see
which will bring about the conditions under the system where I live.

So I've more or less given up on following news on this front: there is
nothing that I can do about the fact that the racist Texas "justice" system
has incarcerated some lady for 5 years for voter fraud. I'm neither surprised
nor do I feel like there is something that I can do to convince Ken Paxton, et
al, that they aren't terrible, terrible people. There's just nothing that can
be done that is going to correct that kind of problem in the world.

So, while I think you're correct in asserting that there is a certain amount
of privilege in ignoring the news, I point out this:

there is a certain amount of intersectionality with a system involved in
believing that you can incrementally change that system to operate with
justice.

~~~
kiliantics
Look to history. I think you are absolutely right that it's purely
performative to make political donations to major parties or go and phone bank
for politicians that can at best make incremental change (and will more likely
allow big business to make things worse). The things that have worked before
are much more disruptive. You could try taking part in protests and marches or
other direct actions that put real pressure on local government. MLK blocked
highways and staged strikes. It was his power (along with many others) to put
a halt to the economic activity the government relies on that led to victory
for civil rights.

~~~
BeetleB
>Look to history.

Be careful. History may well tell you that protests and marches generally
failed, and the ones we talk about are the exceptions.

------
monster_group
The problem is that some news is relevant. One of my friends has given up
reading or watching any kind of news altogether. At first this seems
impressive but when I asked him about how far his house was from the wildfire,
he was like "Umm - what wildfire?". He was oblivious to the fact that
country's biggest wildfire was just three miles away from his house. He is a
very smart and successful guy and it really jolted me how a guy like him could
be oblivious to such an important event that could impact his life. The reason
- he doesn't watch news.

~~~
roryisok
Three miles? Did he also give up looking out the window?

~~~
jensvdh
Or talking to people in general? That seems incredibly odd.

~~~
monster_group
I asked him about if he could not see the smoke. He said the wind direction
took the smoke away from his house and some hills obstructed his view. He had
just moved into the neighborhood so he wasn't friends with the neighbors quite
yet.

~~~
jackhack
Wow! I would think the logjam of people _stuffing their cars with possessions
and getting the hell out of there_ would have been a clue that something,
possibly, was happening that might warrant some further investigation.

There's apparently a fine line between "not ardently following the news" and
"not paying attention at all."

------
scottmsul
> Out of the ­10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did
> even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your
> life,

Yes, there was an article on HN a couple weeks ago. Pork treated with nitrates
increases the chance of colon cancer as much as smoking increases the chance
of lung cancer (but pork treated with salt is ok).

~~~
gowan
interesting... can you provide a link?

~~~
avtar
Possibly
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16499149)

------
lovelearning
Giving up political news didn't make me happier, but it certainly reduced that
niggling feeling that everything is headed towards doom.

It's said that "an informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy", and that's
probably why many of us consume so much political news.

However, I feel seeing the news and expressing outrage privately or on social
media have become low-effort excuses for not doing things that can actually
improve our governments. Outrage does not affect anything except our own peace
of mind and health.

As far as I can tell, atleast in my country, only two things lead towards any
real change - 1)protests and 2)money. Either I should put in the effort to
organize people and protest, or I should spend money trying to influence
decision makers. Since I suck at the first and lack in the second, I decided
to be apathetic towards everything political.

~~~
gtirloni
The average citizen (not organizing protests and keeping away from fruitless
online outrage) can probably catch up with all relevant political news in 1-2
hours/month of concentrated effort.

I've started doing just that and it has had great impact on my mental health.
I don't feel any less prepared to make an impact when the time comes
(elections, sporadic talks with friends and family).

Should I be more engaged? Surely. But I just look at all of it and think it's
a necessary evil and I'm happy other people feel more inclined to participate
heavily. I just don't have the mental skills to keep up and be sane.

~~~
sk1pper
What sources do you use to catch up?

~~~
gtirloni
It's highly centered on my country so I'm not sure it's of use to a global
audience.

But it's a mix of filtering actual facts from newspaper articles on both sides
of the spectrum (they usually carry very little information and mostly repeat
words to fill up screen space), then check a few respected journalists
publishing analysis after a few weeks (again, from left/right). They will be
biased, like anything, but there's a kernel of Truth even when I disagree. So
that's useful for informing my thoughts.

------
brownbat
I just listened to a podcast with Laurie Santos, all about her course on
happiness research, which quickly became the most popular course ever taught
at Yale.
[https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136](https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/136)

A shortened version of the course is available on Coursera:
[https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well-
being](https://www.coursera.org/learn/the-science-of-well-being)

It's surprising how much the research validates things we all intuitively know
or suspect about happiness, but routinely fail to put into practice. Exercise.
Sleep. Mindfulness. Human interactions. Have some free time. "Avoid news"
seems like it might fit too.

~~~
ragequitta
Thanks for this. Watched the course intro and I'm definitely enrolling for
April 9th.

------
RIMR
>Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12
months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a better
decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your
business.

Okay...

Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected
representatives about policies that matter to me.

Consuming local news has kept me informed of important happenings in my
community - including events that I attended and consider my self better off
for going.

Consuming industry news has kept me up-to-date on the things that I need to
stay aware of at my Cybersecurity job.

I find that consuming 24 hour TV news, or consuming and sharing lots of hyper-
partisan political news is emotionally taxing. I don't do much of that. I
occasionally watch my local news, but mostly consume local newspapers and
neighborhood blogs to keep informed of what is happening in my community.

Everything else I read online, and I do consume news pretty much every day.

I really don't see the point in outright refusing to stay informed of current
events. Just don't overindulge in the news/entertainment nonsense that
masquerades as real journalism now days.

~~~
hueving
>Consuming political news has empowered me to communicate with my elected
representatives about policies that matter to me.

Give an example. Otherwise it's a post-hoc hand-waving justification. Also
include how you meaningfully communicated with your representative about the
issue (e.g. writing a complaint email about the popular news of the day
doesn't count).

~~~
RIMR
I wrote to my governor and my districts state reps about making Net Neutrality
Washington State law after the FCC repealed those rules.

My state is now planning to pass a state law, despite federal law prohibiting
us from doing so.

I didn't do that alone, but if nobody was paying attention to the news and
doing their part, it likely wouldn't have happened.

~~~
slyall
Where did you hear about that story?

TV News, Radio News or the local newspaper?

------
openasocket
I found this article really unconvincing. It lashes out at random things like
the number of hyperlinks in an article, and has completely unsubstantiated
claims like the following:

"Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost
the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they
get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not
because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because
the physical structure of their brains has changed."

This claim stops just short of saying watching the news causes ADHD, from a
self-styled "self-help guru" with no expertise in neurology or psychology,
without any sort of citation.

There's also specious logic like this:

"I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a
writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician,
designer, architect or painter"

I also find the question "Out of the ­10,000 news stories you may have read in
the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a
serious matter in your life" to be poorly founded. Knowledge is a good unto
itself, and simply raising awareness of issues can lead to action, even if the
majority do nothing concrete to help. Simply seeing the change in polling data
can cause politicians to enact legislation (though, obviously, donating to a
lobbying group or contacting your representative are more effective).

Moreover, I think the fundamental idea asserted here is dangerous. Limiting
your news intake is one thing, but forgoing it entirely?. The cornerstone of
democracy is an informed public. Keeping people aware of the actions being
taken at and highest and lowest levels of government is the only way to keep
it accountable. And on a personal note I think it is immoral for people who
are relatively well off to ignore the problems plaguing others.

~~~
rossdavidh
If you need to be watching/reading the news more than about once a month, in
order to know what way to vote, I would be curious as to why. Once a month
(that is, a tiny fraction of the normal amount) is more than sufficient to
learn all that you can learn from that source of information. There are way
better methods for becoming an informed citizen, than the news.

~~~
openasocket
It's about more than knowing which way to vote, it's about developing
awareness of issues. People affect democracy in more ways than just voting and
political action like protests. Politicians constantly run polls to take the
temperature of the people on various issues, and adjust their positions and
priorities accordingly. Which isn't to denigrate actual political action, but
to demonstrate that awareness can intrinsically affect the government.

What do you think would be a better way to become an informed citizen than
watching the news?

------
Yetanfou
Mainstream media in my part of the world - north-western Europe in general,
Sweden and the Netherlands to be more specific - seems to have forgotten that
it is the fiduciary duty of the news media to keep watch over those in power,
instead turning their gaze on those who oppose the government position. While
some critical journalism still exists in the main stream media, especially in
Sweden this has mostly moved to what for some reason is called 'alternative
media'

Given this lack of critical opinions in main stream media it is rather
pointless to rely on them to keep informed. The 'alternative' media often
offers a more critical voice but that voice often comes with an agenda and an
accompanying myopic view which makes it as unwise to rely on any single
'alternative' source as it is to rely on main stream sources.

The solution to this conundrum is most emphatically _not_ to 'stick your head
in the sand' (i.e. giving up on reading news) as that just makes you less
informed and with that less prepared to make rational decisions. This goes
from the small - missing the small article hidden on page 7 in the local paper
where the council declares its intention to close down the school you planned
to send your children to because they claim to need the building for other
purposes (this happened where I live, those who did read the news gathered to
protest leading to the decision to be suspended) - to the large ('brexit',
'Russia is the new/old enemy', etc).

Is there an easy solution? No, I don't think there is. Finding truth in the
media is like finding a needle in a haystack full of pins. What I do is use a
news reader (the News app for Nextcloud, think 'Google Reader' but under
private regime) with a select list of subscriptions from both 'alternative' as
well as main stream sources. Reading the headlines gives an idea of what is
being reported, comparing how what is being reported between sources gives an
impression of what really happens or happened.

------
w23j
What do you guys do if you need a short break from work? Between tasks or if I
have finished something mentally demanding, I will often skim some news sites
or hacker news.

Any recommendation what else to do as a quick break between programming tasks?

~~~
icebraining
I prepare a cup of tea and stare out the window.

~~~
dehef
Yeah I just go outside pretending taking a mental cigarette, And water is
better than tea also

~~~
haggy
> water is better than tea also

What are you basing this off of? How are the comparisons being done? Tea has
many benefits provided its not "fake" sugar-riddled tea.

Don't make a comment telling someone else to "stop doing something" without
any context about why you're suggesting it.

------
flr03
If being happy is your ultimate life goal then it's probably right. Although
the quest for happiness should not be the only thing we work for. Personally I
think this is a very selfish way of thinking. Being informed and capable of
logical thinking considering your environment is equally important. That said,
we should seek for good quality news and I agree with the article on this
point about investigation journalism. But this is like research, it is
essential, has a cost and not all the time succeeds.

As a citizen it's a duty to be well informed so we can participate in
democracy efficiently (Quoting Greek philosophers here).

~~~
tvanantwerp
This assumes that consuming the news equates to being well informed. I
certainly doubt that assumption. Journalism relating to areas I know well is
often woefully inaccurate, if it even is reporting rather than opinion. And
keeping in mind the Gell-Mann Effect, I should probably not give the stories
about topics beyond my expertise the benefit of the doubt.

------
sureaboutthis
When I worked in television news, long ago, it was under the wing of the
independent news department. TV news, now, is under the programming department
and beholding to marketing. Thus, you'll find "news" stories about products
being introduced--even promoted--by "news stories" and pretty boys and girls.
Especially on local TV shows where money is tighter and few stations employ
full-time news personnel to actually dig into a story and are only "rip-and-
readers" as we called them back in the day.

------
newscracker
I stopped getting the newspaper more than a year ago, and have consciously
reduced using Facebook (which was already limited to specific topics related
to "greater good", to put it in words that don't expose too much). Since I
don't have cable at home, there's nothing blaring in the background with a
regurgitation of the same stuff and flashy animations about some "breaking
news" that's mostly of no practical value. Many a times it just increases
frustration and stress over things you don't generally care about or can't
really do something about. I don't mind not having anything to gossip about
with co-workers. There's enough going on in general anyway, without mainstream
news adding to it.

I've seen that life does actually get a bit difficult in certain ways when one
doesn't keep up with news, especially anything related to taxation and other
policies (related to real estate, automobiles). So I still check a few online
news sites once every two days or so for the headlines alone.

In general, staying away from these sources reduces what I feel as "internal
agitation" that usually bleeds into many other activities (while being in the
background). I would anyday recommend people to get off standard cable TV and
also news, and instead making choices that are a bit more involved. The mental
peace thus obtained alone is worth it!

P.S.: Slightly related is giving up surfing the web itself, which my mind
(that's been modified to have a low attention span due to years on the web)
would probably benefit a lot more from.

------
austinl
“And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read
of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or
one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the
Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the
winter, - we need never read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted
with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?”

Henry David Thoreau, _Walden_ (1854)

------
akuji1993
Kind of strange, reading that on a news site, pretty much telling you to stop
using their site.

~~~
swiley
One of the reasons I haven't blocked hackernews with /etc/hosts is because of
it's noprocrast feature.

Most of these sites know they're potentially harmful, the better ones
acknowledge it and help their readers avoid the harm.

~~~
ckkcicgtj
I think op meant The Guardian being a news site.

~~~
akuji1993
Yeah, that's what I meant^^

------
oftenwrong
Also relevant, Aaron Swartz' _I Hate the News_ post:
[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

Basically: Less news, more books.

------
cirrus-clouds
Of course you need to read the news. Select your news sources carefully and
limit or eliminate your exposure to social media discussions of the news.

I understand the sentiment that news can make you depressed, but reading the
news can also spur people to act positively in a multitude of ways.

When a natural disaster strikes and the news is filled with stories of anguish
and despair in the aftermath, people donate to charities because of the news
reports they've seen.

Imagine if we never read the news because such stories were too depressing?

Imagine if this young student had never seen a harrowing news report about the
Syrian war?

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968)

~~~
base698
You may read this tariff story and think, what’s the big deal? The story’s not
bad. Isn’t it reasonable to talk about effects of current events in this way?
I answer, absolutely not. Such speculation is a complete waste of time. It’s
useless. It’s bullshit on the front page of the Times.

[http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-
speculate/](http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/)

------
dmichulke
Same holds true for watching "House of Cards" and "The mechanism". If you can
watch those without getting angry you probably didn't get it. With "it" I mean
the unhappiness ;)

Also, there should be a 2013 in the title

------
brownbat
Original full essay in German: [http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat-
full/](http://www.dobelli.com/de/essays/news-diat-full/)

~~~
pasta
And in English: [http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news-
diet/](http://www.dobelli.com/en/essays/news-diet/)

I read this years ago and stopped reading and watching news. Never missed a
thing. Important things you will hear one way or another and the rest is just
noise. Loud distracting noise.

~~~
JepZ
Did you notice the evil word in the URL of this website before you posted your
comment?

~~~
pasta
I did. I'm very aware that lately more and more posts on HN have the same
depth as main stream news (what the article is about).

But what I like about HN is that the comment section is full of insight about
the subject sometimes even debunking the article that was posted.

So yes.

~~~
JepZ
I didn't mean to offend you, in fact, I am trying to consume less 'news'
myself since a few years. And while I agree that the HN comments hold a lot of
high quality information, I see that HN, in general, has a similar effect on
my concentration and productivity as other news/media sites.

So I don't try to not read HN at all, but to become aware of the effect it has
on me and limit my news consumption to a healthy dose ;-)

------
fredley
I gave up news last year. It was really hard, I instinctively and habitually
checked various news sources, so it was hard to fight this back. I've also
removed my Facebook news feed. Now all I consume are HN and Twitter (from
which I cull anything political or current affairsy). I have a subscription to
Delayed Gratification[1], and am a lot more content now than I used to be.

1: [https://www.slow-journalism.com/](https://www.slow-journalism.com/)

------
hitekker
The title of the article "News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will
make you happier", but the HN headline is "Giving up reading news will make us
happier".

The former says that not reading the news is individually beneficial, whereas
latter implies that it is _socially_ beneficial.

Those are distinct enough qualities that, when coupled with missing "(2013)",
inclines me to believe that the current headline is too misleading.

It should be changed to reflect its source.

------
coldcode
Right and when the secret police come to your door you will be surprised.
Wait, you say, when did we get taken over by a dictator? What happened to our
democracy? Why is my internet suddenly riddled with NO everywhere? How come my
job vanished? Why are my children suddenly forced to eat dirt? Why do I live
in a crime infested neighborhood that used to be safe? Why did evil people
destroy my environment? Oh yeah, I didn't pay attention.

It's not News you should be looking for, but information, and that's the real
problem. If you ignore what is going on in the world because you don't want o
hear anything hard you may be blissful, but you are just not involved, and all
of us will suffer because you did not care to participate. If finding your
information in "News" which is determined to give you false information is
bad, ignoring what is going on in life is worse, because the only people who
will change things are the very people you don't want doing it.

I remember voting in a bond election in a city of 500,000. Only a few hundred
voted. We spent $50M of the people's money because they didn't care. Ignoring
News is fine, ignoring what is going on is not.

~~~
icebraining
Hence the penultimate paragraph, no?

 _" Society needs journalism – but in a different way. Investigative
journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions
and uncovers truth. But important findings don't have to arrive in the form of
news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too."_

~~~
openasocket
Which seemed like a non-sequitur to me. How is investigative journalism not
news? Virtually every one of his arguments applies equally to investigative
journalism, and the fact that he explicitly overrides those arguments
demonstrates their weakness.

------
letslightafire
Most of the times when I watch the "news" it isn't to get more informed, it's
more as something to watch, get entertained, and have open in the background.
For this reason I like watching local news better as the stories they have are
much more focused than CNN or FOX's 100th story about Trump tweets. Most
people attack local news but I seem that they have more integrity than the big
named channels if you manage to slog through the crappy syndicated ones.
Thankfully Sinclair doesn't own any stations in my area.

It's nice to at least have news that is more compact and relates more to your
life. Traffic, weather, daily minor politics that won't matter outside of your
50 mile radius. All of these are things that remind me that the area I live in
is living and breathing and not just a set-piece for the larger and grander
story that most national news medias cover.

------
mark_l_watson
This is what I have been telling family and friends for years! Life is about
personal connections and leading a productive life. News ingestion is harmful
to both activities.

Ironic, Guardian warns us about news consumption and I donate $5/month to them
because next to NPR they are the best news source for me.

------
enraged_camel
I'm of the firm opinion that it is everyone's civic duty to stay informed of
what is going on around them, even if news coverage is negative and biased.

The alternative - sticking one's head in the sand - is selfish. In the short
run it can make you happier and give you the ability to focus on your personal
affairs, but in the long run it makes you more and more isolated and
contributes to the degradation of the social fabric.

You don't have to remain immersed in breaking news for hours and hours, but
even 15-20 minutes browsing headlines and skimming through select articles can
go a long way towards what I call "civic awareness".

------
habosa
For a less radical step than giving up news completely, try just giving up
'push' news.

For me this meant disabling my Google Now feed, turning off NYTimes
notifications, unfollowing all non-human accounts on Facebook, and
unsubscribing from some email digests. Oh and check out the 'noprocrast'
settings on Hacker News.

Now I read the news exactly when I want to and from sources I enjoy. I still
probably know more than I'd like to about the whims of the president, but I
notice that I'm probably 20% happier and 5% less informed than when I started.
A good trade.

------
dv35z
_Goal:_

\- Stay informed about important world events (for yourself AND for social
reasons)

\- Reduce time & attention spent on "waste" news

 _Challenges:_

\- Most news "as it happens" is inaccurate

\- Much of the news is colored with story-like "narrative", rather than "just
the facts, Jack".

\- News websites have perverse incentives (attract eyeballs, provoke outrage,
etc)

\- A lot of attention in MSM is paid to irrelevant topics (e.g. personal
interest, odd crimes, etc).

\- Heavy Biases present

 _Solution(s):_

\- Postpone / let it soak: If you see a news article you're interested in,
withstand the dopamine - send the article to Pocket. Set aside regular time
(end of day, or once a week) to review all postponed news. With any luck, the
news story has developed more accurate info

\- Use non commercial news sources. Example: At the beginning of month, review
the WIKIPEDIA current events portal. The assumption is that the news articles
& topics there are likely "aged" slightly, and more factual. Examples:

News LAST month (Likely fairly relevant & accurate):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/March_2018).

News THIS month (reasonably relevant "breaking news"):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/April_2018)

"Aggregated" news for the YEAR (read the sections by month):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018#March)

If you spot-check the above links, you can see that it really does "cover"
most of the news that's front of mind in the major news outlets. The
difference is, you can click in - read to the depth you prefer - and
_generally_ avoid some of the major editorializing / narrative building.

------
stochastic_monk
"But at least we still have a hand with which to switch channels or turn off
altogether. I tell my lecture audiences to never, ever watch local TV news."

\- Ray Bradbury, 1996 Playboy Interview

------
Tempest1981
Slight tangent, but I look at how much time and energy is expended in the tech
comment forums, where fanboys argue religiously: Android vs iOS, Windows vs
macOS vs Linux, Intel vs AMD vs ARM, Tesla vs Uber vs Waymo.

Eventually it degrades into CompanyX sucks; no CompanyY sucks more.

I wish I could encourage the fanboys to go out and create something awesome,
or be part of something constructive. Vs watching and criticizing from the
sidelines.

------
hemantv
My biggest question is how do you keep up if you cut news. I would definitely
like to quit checking HN also but FOmo of new technologies keep me coming.

~~~
Sileni
Set aside a specific time each week to scan the headlines and pick out the
most interesting. For HN or most content aggregation sites, if something is
particularly important, it'll stay on the first 5-6 pages for more than a
week.

Scan the first few pages, pick out 5-10 articles, read for an hour or two.
You'll be at least 80% as informed as if you had checked in every day. This
also lets you deep dive into any of the ideas if they're particularly
interesting, because it's such a small list of mental options.

One of my worst problems is ending up with a notebook page of 40 items that I
found interesting. I never go back and learn more about them because I can't
really decide what's the most interesting. Cull options ruthlessly until you
have a manageable set of options.

------
ponderatul
It's great to see this in the Guardian. I use some of these publications as a
litmus test for when a concept has finally gained broad appeal.

------
kev6168
Regarding news, I have had this self-imposed rule:

* Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and no clicking links.*

Implementation details: I keep around 10 news sites in a bookmark folder.
Through out a day, I right click on the folder and open all of the sites at
once, then spend on average 5 to 10 seconds on each site. Do this three or
four times each day.

Been pretty happy doing this for a few years now.

~~~
ambrosite
"Only check out the first screen of any news web site. No scrolling down, and
no clicking links."

I like that rule. One quick check of the news home page should be enough to
tell you if there is anything truly important going on that requires your
immediate attention.

------
wu-ikkyu
Mainstream media/news is the fast food of information. It's super cheap, easy
to get, and it gives you a quick high like you get from all the sugar and fat
in fast food, but you'll invetably feel worse after doing so.

Cooking a healthier meal by yourself and doing your own independent research
and investigations takes _much_ more time, but also has a much greater reward.

------
jancsika
> Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12
> months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to make a
> better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or
> your business.

Up to date reports about hurricane Irma's path.

Did I do it? Did I just when the internet?

------
trisimix
Seems like an uninformed population will be even more umhappy when they are
inevitably taken advantage of.

~~~
simonh
I’d really recommend reading the article. I think it addresses this issue very
well.

------
0x4f3759df
News is like art. Anything can be defined as art, anything can be defined as
news.

Elon Musk tweeted? Lets wrap the tweet in a fluff burrito... Although, Tesla
stocks been seeing some tough times, today Elon tweeted X..., in conclusion
...

That passes as news, but its just drivel.

------
your-nanny
There is value in staying informed. However the news cycle ain't healthy.

Slow news is the thing to do. The old weekly or monthly news summaries will
increase the snr. Or Wikipedia's news entries.

------
ekianjo
> happier

Seeking happiness is a trap in itself though. This has been extensively
discussed by centuries of philosophers. Happiness is transitory and can never
be sustained.

~~~
sethammons
What counts as sustained? Does a bad day, week, month, or year disrupt it? Or
is a year or decade of general happiness mean it is sustained? Does it have to
last until your death?

Maybe it requires the context of your first sentence about seeking happiness.

For myself, I would not say I seek it, but that I chose it. I feel I've been
generally happy nearly always. Sure, there have been stresses, losses,
tragedies, tears, and such. There have been extended periods of feelings of
inadequacy and of being trapped. Yet, even through all such events and
periods, I'd say I tend to be happy. And the last major part of a decade has
been the most fulfilling and blessed part of my life yet. Sure, it could come
crashing down. Or it could get even better! I chose to be happy with where I
have been, where I am at, and look forward to where I'll go.

------
xivzgrev
A bold piece. I'm glad he was allowed to publish it.

------
Digit-Al
Somewhat ironic that a newspaper is reproducing an article saying you
shouldn't read newspapers :-)

------
randomsearch
I think that being ignorant of current events in the world around you is
irresponsible and selfish. It undermines democracy and prevents you from
addressing problems in society where you could make a difference.

A better suggestion is to focus on higher quality news sources: I'd recommend
Reuters (try the iOS app) and the Economist, and Channel 4 News in the UK.

~~~
ekianjo
> It undermines democracy and prevents you from addressing problems in society
> where you could make a difference.

There are plenty of people undermining democracy while being well aware of
what's happening around them. Moot point.

~~~
randomsearch
Because another person is doing something bad does not allow you to absolve
yourself of social responsibility.

~~~
ekianjo
My point is having access of information is not a useful variable to define
enlightment.

------
mattbert
Ignorance is bliss for the individual, but has steep consequences for society.

------
JepZ
The Guardian just publishes that story because know we can't resist :D

------
jwcacces
Ignorance is strength

------
some_account
Haven't watched the news in at least 5 years. Actually I haven't watched TV in
the last 5 years even. So I don't have ads bombarding me, or fear and
propaganda coming in every day.

Highly recommended. You have one life. Make sure it counts as a happy one.

~~~
Numberwang
How do you stay up to day?

Ideally Id like a weekly review or something where I can spend 30min.

I recongnise it would be beneficial to give up news, but I need to know a bit
about whats going on to be social.

~~~
suprfnk
You could check out Wikipedia's "Current events" page:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events)

~~~
Numberwang
I didn't know about that page. That looks quite like I want. Thank you.

------
mankash666
I read and consume copious amounts of news and I'm perfectly happy. Reason - I
curate/choose carefully what I consume.

------
return0
but what is life without drama?

