
The power of ignoring mainstream news - endtwist
http://joel.is/post/31582795753/the-power-of-ignoring-mainstream-news
======
tzs
I found that when I let mainstream news go and tried to stay informed via
social media, blogs, and Reddit, I _felt_ informed.

Then I got a Kindle and tried a mainstream newspaper subscription.

I quickly noticed that the newspaper often disagreed with what I'd "learn"
from Reddit and blogs, and upon further investigation the newspaper was almost
always correct. Apparently the Reddit circle jerk is not as good at news as
professional journalists.

~~~
batgaijin
Eh, as much as I want to agree with you (and I do, reddit is a cesspool at
times) you still can't argue with this:
[http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/trapwire/since1...](http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/trapwire/since1851/articles/)
and this: <http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/flame>

Trapwire: funded by rich people who don't want to get noticed Flame: software
showing off the usa's capability for cryptovirology and basically saying our
most public stuff beats your best secret shit

~~~
tptacek
You can't argue with that because that isn't an argument.

Most companies are funded by rich people.

Who knows whether Trapwire "wants to get noticed"? They sell to giant
organizations, not to the public.

Most of what you know about Trapwire probably comes via Stratfor thirdhand via
Wikileaks by way of Reddit. Think about that again: your information started
at _Stratfor_. It was then spun by _Wikileaks_. And then it was analyzed by
_Reddit_. And you trust it more than the NYT.

And all the while, Trapwire had a _web page_ describing all this stuff.

One reason why the NYT and WaPo and WSJ and Al Jazeera are so much better than
Reddit at conveying the news is that they have something to lose when they get
the story wrong. All of them trade on reputations that took decades to build.
You can literally feel this in action as you race to start typing about how
the NYT got Iraq wrong. Notice how you can't say that about any story on
Reddit, because it's a howling mob of random people?

(FWIW: There are great comments on Reddit; their highs are higher than HN's
highs, by a lot.)

~~~
batgaijin
Hmm...

You make fair points, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't trust NYT
because of stuff like this: <http://www.salon.com/2010/10/24/assange_2/>

Out of all those organizations you listed, the only one I trust atm is Washing
Post for reporting on the USA gov because they published this:
<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/>

I agree, reddit usually has stupid shit second-hand, is run by a publishing
corporation, and has numerous terrible mods, but at least alternative opinions
have a chance of influencing the claim of an article.

~~~
tptacek
You don't trust the New York Times because Glenn Greenwald wrote a piece for
_Salon_ calling them Nixonian?

That piece is too inflammatory for me to take seriously. The New York Times
wrote a _hit piece_ on someone? A _scurrilous hit piece filled with every
possible rumor_? Really? Every one of them, you say?

When you write something like that, you'd better be able to back it up with
something more than moral support from Daniel Ellsberg.

You can't say you're a serious consumer of the news if you select the
publications you trust based on whether they support your pet causes.

------
zerostar07
I recently had the opposite revelation: Most social sites are too much of a
distraction, feeding us with pointless weakly-written opinions and things that
have zero effect in my life. Their signal to noise ratio is definitely lower,
and is not compensated by the higher amount of info they pile up.

Humans are by nature curious about what's happening, and no matter how much
one bulks up at the local gym, they are probably not quenching their thirst in
that way.

~~~
diego
And you're posting this to a social site :)

~~~
zerostar07
Don't get me wrong, HN is my go-to source for interesting stuff to read. But
it turns out the best ones link to "mainstream news sites".

------
kiba
One of the problem that the OP blog points out is that mainstream news dish
out bad news that encourage an exaggerated and wraped fearful worldview. For
example, when a mass murder incident happens, people talk a lot about gun
violence and how it's gripping the country and we should do something about
it. Of course, they forgot that 40K people die in car accidents, 600K more die
of heart disease and about 500K more die of cancer each year. A mass murderer
is essentially an amateur when they are compared to inanimate or impersonal
killers like cells going out of control or high blood pressure.

People aren't going to stop talking about these incidents and they aren't
going to stop being terribly uninformed with just this blog post. What they
need is some sort of media campaign to inform them of the real risk of dying
and what they really need to fear.

This is what I called "fear inoculation", a term I coined at
[http://kibabase.com/articles/notes-and-thoughts#fear-
inocula...](http://kibabase.com/articles/notes-and-thoughts#fear-inoculation)

In essence, fear inoculation is basically protection against memes that
promote irrational fear of certain things like terrorist incidents and
airplane crash.

~~~
jberryman
You are aware that gun deaths are on course to exceed auto deaths this year?
While the gov. has spent billions over decades to prevent auto deaths, cancer
deaths, etc., effectively $0 have been spent to study and prevent gun deaths;
how is it irrational to be concerned about that?

~~~
kiba
Gun death looks like a proximate cause. Guns are tools for suicide, or for
killing people who you don't like. If you want to reduce gun related death,
you should look into suicide research and criminology/sociology research. You
could ban guns, but it's likely that people will kill each other with
something else. There's no shortage of methods on way to kill somebody.

Anyway, do you have a citation? I have mine, which is
<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm>

------
pinaceae
'ignorance is bliss'.

go ahead, tune out the news. please stop voting though, democracy relies on
the informed voter. and good luck in the capitalist economy, that one relies
on information as well.

as this is hn, let's focus on the founder's perspective. if you have no clue
about what's going on in the world, how can you compete within it? if you have
no clue about your target group's current situation? pick anything, like
healthcare - great opportunities, but good luck not staying informed.

back to the general reason why this terrible advice: being ignorant makes you
a terrible citizen. it is already bad in the US, if you're only watching tv
news you're already clueless about the world. whenever i am in the us i am
amazed about the lack of true world news - CNN International is a very
different channel than CNN.

as a voter it is your frickin responsibility to stay informed. your worldview
baffles me.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Baffled because you think that "the news" == keeping informed. The two have
little to do with each other. If you want to learn something, turn off the
idiot box and pick up a book.

~~~
Firehed
Books, by and large, are useless in keeping up on current events. The news,
despite all it's faults, is current - which is what's meant by "informed" in
this context.

That's not to say that you shouldn't read books nor that the news is the best
way to stay informed, but saying that reading books is the best way to stay on
top of current issues is provably wrong.

~~~
mixmastamyk
No, keeping "informed" is not about knowing what happened in the last hour, or
a sting of unrelated events over five years.

It is about the larger movements that shape humanity. These aren't discussed
in any meaningful way on the TV news except at the fringe. Books, and long-
form magazines are accessible, concentrated stores of knowledge, and you won't
have to waste time on daily gossip, which is useless.

------
pixelmonkey
Here is the kernel of good advice in this post: consuming news can be
addicting, can create a negative worldview, and might not provide the
informational content you think it may.

However, the author then makes a series of suggestions for all the things you
should be doing with your time, such as: (a) playing videogames; (b) mentoring
other startup founders; (c) building your own startup; (d) writing on your
blog; (e) going to the gym.

All of these suggestions for what you should be doing with your time are...
surprise, surprise... things that the author does with his time, instead of
reading the news.

The reflection I got out of this post was perhaps the opposite of intended: I
need to stop reading HN!

~~~
aggronn
This makes me wonder: which is more valuable? writing blog posts or reading
actual news?

~~~
bpatrianakos
Depends on the goal. The answer is neither and both.

------
tbeseda
I understand a healthy media diet but as an able/concerned/voting citizen, I
cannot justify abstaining from news* entirely.

*News being defined as important information about important events. (Not TMZ, GMA, opinion columns/shows, etc.)

~~~
swombat
Do you think news is the best channel to make an informed voting choice? It
could be argued either way, but it's certainly not clear.

In Switzerland, the best source of info is usually the documentation that
comes with the voting papers. News is just noise and opinion.

~~~
tbeseda
We have decent documentation provided here, too (at least in CO). I'm unsure
if it's ample enough to make a completely informed decision.

Some issues demand more cultural/social context, "the full story" as it were.
I think this context is probably best created by discourse and debate, but can
also be augmented with news.

Of course, this leads to another media/news issue in the Internet Age:
consumption bias -- only reading/watching media you agree with.

I try to maintain moderation and balance.

------
FuzzyDunlop
I agree with this, because it's something I've done for a while, but for
different reasons (primarily to do with mental health).

But as an addendum to that it's also important to know and accept that, as a
result, you are more ignorant. This isn't a _bad_ thing, for as long as you
know that you're willingly less informed. As stated, this is the opportunity
cost for pursuing things more important to you.

As an aside, I'd like to recommend Flat Earth News[0] to anyone who wants a
journalist's insight into how the news isn't always truthful.

As another one, I saw a comment saying Americans are how they are because they
_don't_ watch the news. I disagree. Watching the news does not make you
culturally sensitive.

[0] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-
Distor...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-
Distortion/dp/0701181451)

------
webwanderings
Did you stop absorbing news altogether or you just stopped looking at
mainstream news? What is your definition of mainstream news?

I think it is reasonable to be an observer of your local news - the news which
affects your immediate environment - otherwise rest of the long distance news
is irrelevant so I am in agreement.

------
alinajaf
My personal, ad-hoc strategy for keeping up with news (aside from HN):

* Glance Newspaper headlines on the metro or at newsstands.

* Every quarter or so, pick up a copies of The Economist and New Scientist.

* Hit wikipedia for an intro to issues/subjects that I find interesting.

* Track down books/papers on anything that I want to delve deeper into.

------
logn
I'll just share my news diet and what I think of each of them. I take all news
with a grain of salt and try to mix it up. I think it's a mistake to just give
up news altogether though.

HN: interesting technical pieces occasionally and good coverage of tech
industry but is often an echo chamber (granted one I agree with) and features
a lot of fluff pieces written by bloggers lacking original thought and
research skills

WSJ: good coverage of business but features a world-view that's almost
completely obsessed with money and right-wing ideology, yet the pieces are
still thoughtful and original

NYTimes: I occasionally read to find out about world events since they have
great breadth and coverage

Local papers: generally a crap-hole of AP content and crime reports but is
useful for sports and city council/schools coverage

Slashdot: for teh lulz. but these people share my outrage at government
intrusion in our lives so I like reading up

Facebook: I have good friends who link to good stories in publications I would
otherwise never read

NPR/public radio: insightful and original story ideas, but they're very much
into intellectual naval gazing

AM conservative radio: they're entertaining, and I enjoy hearing their take on
recent events which often have a lot of valid points. at least they wear their
bias on their sleeves even if it gets in the way of legitimate
reporting/analysis

Local TV news: completely pointless and depressing recap of local crime and
fluff pieces. useful in the event of local severe weather. decent sports
interviews but mostly resorts to flimsy soundbites

Daily Show: you can always count on Jon to call people out on their BS and
point out absurdities

Google News: extremely useful for getting up to speed on what's happening but
is often trapped in a monotonous cycle of iPhone news, 'radical' health
discoveries which are overblown, violence in foreign countries, and gaffe-
centric political reporting

Twitter: I follow over a 1000 people so it's like sifting through a pile of
periodicals in the bathroom which sometimes turns up some good finds but is
mostly just perfume ads

------
bpatrianakos
This is terrible advice and not something I think people should be
recommending to others. I love Joel's posts enough to subscribe to the rss
feed (which I have never done for any site ever) but this post is something I
strongly disagree with for many good reasons.

The idea he puts forth is incredibly naive and has not been taken to its
natural conclusion. He talks about the negative side of keeping up with the
news while ignoring the many positives.

He puts forth a simple solution to a complex problem. The solution he comes up
with is naive and extreme. The problem seems to be that news being biased and
overwhelmingly negative puts a damper on your mood. It can also harm
productivity when becoming too engrossed in it and when the news stirs up
strong emotions. His point is valid but his solution is extreme.

I think it's this kind of attitude that is making Americans stupid when it
comes to civics. People in this country (the US) have no clue what's going on
in the world or domestically because they either don't follow the news at all
or because all they can process at any given moment is some asinine sound bite
that barely comes close to touching on the substance of an issue.

Following news isn't harming anyone's mental well being. _Not following the
news_ is what causes harm. We pay a price for ignorance and the bill is about
due. Following the news keeps you informed, it expands your world beyond the
narrow little bubble most people live in, and it makes you an informed citizen
which then gives you the tools to make smart decisions and, if you're an
entrepreneur especially, gives you insight into where your next opportunity
may come from.

While Joel's points about the detrimental effect the news can have and the
problems with the media itself are pretty valid, tuning out is the wrong
solution. The real solution is to be aware that what you see and hear is often
biased. Being aware of the business side of the news will make you a better,
more informed consumer of news thus making any news you consume more valuable
and often actionable.

Now, if watching the news and reading mainstream news outlets creates anxiety
for you then you probably have to brush up on your skills as a consumer of
news. You don't need to watch 8hours of CNN or read the newspaper cover to
cover to be informed. Consuming mainstream news reasonably shouldnt be
detrimental in any way to you.

Furthermore, the fact that he singles out "mainstream" news makes me worry. It
implies that news sources outside of the mainstream are somehow better or more
true. This is not the case. Many of these news sources outside the mainstream
like the brag about how they are the only ones with the balls to report the
"truth". Whenever anyone appoints themselves the authority on truth it's time
to be skeptical. Everyone has an agenda and while mainstream news may have
some major problems with bias and conflicts of interest, it doesn't mean they
are completely without any credibility news outside the mainstream can be just
as bad if not worse than mainstream news. These organizations often push a
very biased agenda or peddle ridiculous conspiracy theories while claiming to
be sources of truth. Many times both the conspiracy theories and extreme bias
go together in a news outlet beyond the mainstream in an effort to push some
agenda. I used to be a believer in "truth" and conspiracy theories (often
being unable to tell the difference). Now I understand that truth is not
always so clear cut. There are degrees of truth.

The best thing to do is not to ignore mainstream news but embrace it. Embrace
it with a healthy amount of skepticism and logic. It will expose you to new
ideas and keep you up on what's going on in the world. So long as you consume
it smartly you won't have a problem.

This whole post seems to be born out of a non-problem. I mean it's a problem
but a problem born out of going to extremes. I happen to be keeping up with
the news and in particular the US presidential election. It sometimes makes me
angry but not to the point of disrupting my life in any way at all. It doesn't
keep me from being productive. I listen to the radio as I drive to the train
and sometimes read a paper on the train itself. Thoughts of the news don't
distract me at work or socially. And when I see or hear nonsense I can tell
its nonsense and go on with my day.

This post is a recipe for ignorance. If you plan to live a monastic life or a
certain lifestyle that allows you to get away with being uninformed then this
is good advice. But for the vast majority of us living modern lives trying to
get by in this world, it's a shortcut to happiness that has a price.

~~~
ghshephard
"Not following the news is what causes harm." - I totally agree with Joel
here, and disagree with you. I've spent the last 5 years pretty much a news
junkie. I spent 2-3 hours a day, equally split between the NYT, WSJ,
Economist, and weekends spent listening to NPR.

What I've realized is that, in general, I'm not better informed about the
world, but I am more indoctrinated into the Left Wing (NYT), Right Wing (WSJ)
and Intellectual-conservative-laissez-faire-right (Economist) world views.

I guess for a more complete picture of the opposing world view philosophies, I
could add BBC, al jazeera and CSMonitor to my mix - but these outlets don't
inform, they promote their world views and, more importantly, pander to the
desires of their audience. Suggesting the news is a way of getting unbiased
knowledge of the world is like saying the Supreme Court of the United States
makes judgements based on law.

You want to get an unbiased view of the world? Go out, and see it with your
own two eyes, smell it with your nose, touch it with your hands.

I don't believe, after spending the last years comparing and contrasting the
WSJs/NYTs takes on stories (often comedic in their different perspectives)
that I'm any better informed about the world than if I had just watched the
Daily Show, or even, god forbid, tuned into CNN/Fox News.

The one exception, that I've found, is Nate Silver's column -
<http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/>. I'm not sure what worldview he is
promoting, other than "Math is cool" - and I do tend to trust it with regards
to what's happening in term of Polling data regarding the US election.

Other than that, though, I appreciated and agree with pretty much everything
Joel wrote in his post.

~~~
bpatrianakos
I made it a point to make sure I mentioned that all news is biased. I meter
said otherwise. But bias is not a bad thing like everyone wants to make us
think. Sometimes bias is good. Not all opinions are created equal and this
whole idea of two differing opinions both having equal merit is bullshit.
Sometimes one opinion has merit and the other is just bullshit. I embrace
bias.

You called yourself a news junkie. That right there is the problem. Being a
news junkie is just as unhealthy as completely ignoring the media.

Watching the Daily Show is no different than consuming news from any other
mainstream outlet. It may be satire but it's still news and it's still
mainstream.

I don't know how you can say you're not better informed. If you consume news
from anywhere at all then you're infinitely more informed than anyone who goes
along with Joel's no-news-consumption advice.

I feel like you didn't read what I wrote because I do address some of what you
say in my comment. I don't blame you though, I didn't realize it was such a
long comment when I wrote it.

~~~
ghshephard
I actually did take the time to read your 852 word, eleven paragraph missive.

The part that you didn't capture, is that, by and large, listening to the
"news" is not actionable, and mostly serves the purposes of indoctrination,
and entertainment. There is also a difference between having a bias towards
the truth, and just being biased. Saying "Man landed on the moon" is biased
towards the truth. Saying "Science is a solution to many of our problems" is
just bias. (albeit one that I have)

If something's really important, you'll hear about it (I would call that
important subset of events the news, as opposed to the "news"). I fully
support Joel's "Just turn it off and make better use of your time" position -
you (and your community/country) will be better served.

Also - don't get me wrong, there is a difference between broadly educated, and
well read (which I strongly, strongly support) - and being up to date on the
"news" - which I see minimal value in.

~~~
bpatrianakos
Then maybe we're thinking about different versions of what the news is.
Telling people to shut off the news is destructive because the news is not all
indoctrination and entertainment. I'm not an idiot. I know what the news is in
that sense. But when you put out a broad call to shut it all off that means
shutting out the good stuff too. The better solution I'm talking about is
knowing how to tell the difference. If you can do that and be informed with
the news that's worth consuming that infinitely better than tuning out
completely which is what Joel calls for. Maybe he didn't mean it like that but
when you have an audience that large you have to assume most of the audience
will take it as its written which, if they do, will lead them down an ignorant
anti-intellectual path. We don't need anymore anti-intellectuals in this world
(especially in the US where it's recently become cool to be an idiot and
somehow being elite is a bad thing).

~~~
mixmastamyk
Your concerns seem well-intentioned but they miss the point of the post. The
knuckle-draggers you worry about aren't searching out blog posts looking for
reasons to stop participating. The fact of the matter is that it has been
shown that people who watch TV news know less (or more false things) than
those who do.

------
larrys
"Not only is watching news going to put an out of proportion amount of
negative thoughts in your mind, which will affect what you can achieve, it is
also valuable time where there are many amazing and meaningful things you
could be doing"

Well let's add to this then. What about time wasted sitting in synagogue or
church saying the same prayers over and over again? To me that's even a bigger
waste of time. What if people got together and actually learned something
during that time (if together) or on their own. To me at least the sermons
were always interesting (ymmv of course) but they were mainly filed under
"entertainment" value.

That said there is a value to main stream news depending on what your business
or product is. It is important to have the beat on what others are watching
and thinking to me it does have value. Some people say "who cares what the WSJ
or NYT thinks"? But the truth is others care and carry that info out to people
and it's a good idea to know what others are going to believe and think. That
doesn't mean that you have to watch mainstream everyday, but I wouldn't go as
far as saying the right approach is to stop watching TV totally as Joel says
he has done. Or reading mainstream news.

------
Wilya
The more mainstream news is, the easier it will reach you, whatever you do,
whether you spend time looking for it or not. That's kind of obvious, in
hindsight, that's why it's called mainstream. Consequently, watching and
reading news is useless, since you will always find someone eager to talk to
you about the important stuff, and you can always double check the facts
afterwards.

Reading already curated sources of info, preferably quite a few of them,
coming from varied backgrounds, and doing a more focused research afterwards
if it seems worth it, beats mainstream news most of the time.

And by curated, I mean low volume sources. My rule of thumb is that if an rss
feed (which is where most of my news comes from) gets more than four or five
updates a week, it's probably not worth it (or I subscribed to it because it's
a type of noise that I like, but it's still noise).

------
ahquresh
I feel the same way about the information that we are bombarded with on a
daily basis. He is right, in the sense that much of it is very negative,
though I also feel some of it is information that everyone should know. With
that in mind, I would like to know where everyone goes for their information.
It seems that alot of the information and news that everyone should know, be
it positive or negative, is very difficult to find. This raises the question,
how do we get this information into the mainstream media? The biggest problem
for me is the lack of control, users have over the information that they are
presented with. Even Google is able to show us the content they want us to
see, or think we want to see. I think that this control is really destroying
our ability to change as personalities in the online and offline world.

------
MattGrommes
I stopped following the TV news years ago and almost never browse news
websites. I use my social feeds (Twitter, HN, Facebook) and the Reddit
frontpage as a high-pass filter for what news events I might care about
digging more into. This cuts out almost all "X is bad for you!" scaremongering
and celebrity nonsense (which I have almost a separate filter for mentally).
When something like the recent anti-Islam movie fiasco happens I hear about it
and dig in more. It's very freeing not to have to hear distorted stories about
how everything's going to hell.

Right now the local mayoral election has made me pay more attention to the
local news and I almost always regret that additional noise, even though the
local organization I use (The Voice of San Diego) is about as good at
journalism as I've seen.

------
xradionut
As I get older, I've grown to understand that you can't ignore news and media
completely, you just need to filter it to the point that you can make it
useful for your needs. Like any other media, 99.99 percent of news is crap.
Between smart phone apps and RSS feeds I can limit my "daily consumption" to
what I want and need with a modest amount of ads and fluff taking up my time.
But periodically I hit the browser or the library and get caught up on
subjects that may require deeper knowledge. The best source of links to a
broad spectrum of media I have found is here:
<http://www.insideautomotive.com/sources.htm>

------
donretag
A year or two ago I read Tim Ferriss' The 4-Hour Work Week. Most of the advice
in the book did not pertain to me, but one tidbit of knowledge that I gain is
that you can save time by simply ignoring the news. Most of us are not in the
position to change anything, and much of the news does not pertain directly to
us. The benefit from being informed often not great than the cost of losing
the time needed to read/watch the news.

I tried to find some quotes from the book, but the best I could find was only
this article: [http://www.evomend.net/en/tim-ferriss-4-hour-
workweek-3-5-le...](http://www.evomend.net/en/tim-ferriss-4-hour-
workweek-3-5-less-more-elimination)

------
fecklessyouth
I've stopped going Reddit, for a similar effect.

~~~
v0cab
I keep Redditing, but unsubscribe from most of the default subreddits, and
subscribe to TrueReddit, TrueAtheism, and whatever else holds my interest.

~~~
agumonkey
I pruned my subscription lists too, and now it's as if it's frozen. Beside
those 2 you mentioned what else is time worthy ?

~~~
v0cab
Well, what are your interests?

~~~
agumonkey
let's not try to fit my bubble, throw me anything

~~~
v0cab
TrueAtheism, DebateReligion, MensRights, TrueGaming, AskScience.

------
5partan
Facebook and Twitter is mainstream on its own.

------
OoTheNigerian
I agree with Joel here. He echos a similar post written a while back that asks
an interesting question.

If you did not know Barack Obama was the president of the United States, would
your life be affected?

For me, the answer is no. You?

------
dromidas
The last time I saw any mainstream news that wasn't part of a youtube joke
clip or actually important enough to make it to news sites like slashdot
was... well... I think this one time in 5th grade around 1991 I was forced to
read a news article of my choice to write an essay about. I don't remember
what it was about or anything though these days.

So yeah, last time I saw a paper was 1991. Last time I saw a news TV thing was
probably mid 90s as well, but I don't remember it since I have literally never
seen a full news hour or however long it goes.

------
brador
I've come across this while building the feed list for <http://skimfeed.com>.

To keep signal to noise as high as possible, I've had to remove all regular
news sources from the site (CNN, MSNBC...). They're time wasting, regurgitated
junk adding little to no value to readers lives.

At the same time, I think ignoring mainstream news completely is not the
solution, it's nice to know what the masses are consuming and it keeps you up
on trends.

Conclusion? everything in moderation.

------
goldfeld
I think news and several other activites can be grouped under the "will this
have made any impact in my life within 5 years?" good procrastination
umbrella.

------
Roelven
I strongly agree. I became happier once I stopped following whatever
mainstream news channels. I consume new things via social circles (no G+ pun
intended), meaning there's a sifter of curators picking stuff for me. I'm
aware of the fact that this can put you in some sort of tunnelvision, but you
can prevent that by sticking your head out now and then to sniff something
new.

------
howcan
I do not mean to disagree with the OP, but here's a thought:

What would happen if we required someone like Warren Buffet to ignore the
news?

What if he was prohibited from reading a single newspaper?

What would happen?

I know many people who read multiple newspapers every day, without fail. If
they were not allowed access to the news, I think their ability to function in
their chosen profession would be severely impacted.

~~~
k_kelly
There are by and large two types of stories in newspapers. Stories that appeal
to emotion and stories that relate to data.

From my experience in newsrooms, stories that are primarily emotional are
dealt with by Journalists nearly exclusively, they require strong story
telling and usually invasive interviewing and exposure.

Stories from data tend to be collected by outside interests and presented to
newspapers. Journalists can then spin stories from the data, or if they are
writing for a financial publication typically highlight the most salient
points for consumption. Occasionally, and far more infrequently than in the
past, the media institution will collect a survey themselves or crunch the
numbers, and this is almost always pseudo-scientific.

Ultimately journalists rarely improve this data other than to make it more
gossip worthy. There is a huge amount of data presented every day, from pr
firms, from foundations and from public bodies, and all of it wants to be
read.

Warren Buffet might prefer to read it in the New York Times, but with a strong
and deep twitter feed almost anyone can now be as informed as the average news
room (there are exceptions to this, on the other hand, reading those same
newspapers cover to cover is also a good way to fill your head with soporific
twaddle)

While I don't agree with the original article, as I think many publications
offer some well reasoned analysis and challenging opinions, social media is
more than enough to stay as well informed as anyone, though it remains more
difficult to navigate.

On the other hand, imagine if Warren Buffet were only allowed to get his
information from cable news. That would be frightening.

~~~
howcan
Interesting comment. PR may see social media as a threat, for exactly the
reason you've mentioned. "Well-informed" is relative I think to what you're
doing. For example, someone doing hard science research in a lab may only need
access to scientific journals. She needs to keep pace with what is published
in her area of research only; she could be oblivious to what's happening in
the world and still be effective in her job. But from what I know of Buffet, I
think he needs access to what journalists are saying. Again, it matter what
you're trying to do.

------
bennesvig
"The quicker goes the journalist the slower go his thoughts. The result is the
newspaper of our time, which every day can be delivered earlier and earlier,
and which, every day, is less worth delivering at all." \- GK Chesterton...in
the 1920's.

------
agumonkey
Good news come from being close to the source while having means of
integrating the knowledge. For programming topics I found irc channels and
conferences are hard to beat. Unless you work in interesting companies.

------
propercoil
I feel like i wrote this article! i stopped watching news/ propaganda/pr for a
year and a half and i can't believe i wasted my time back then!

~~~
personlurking
Ditto, but I did it back around 2008. Most of the articles I read are less on
current events than they are on subjects that lean towards timeless ideas,
concepts and theories. Plus I already have tons of interests (mostly
humanities) and that keeps my plate full. Recently, I also started 'printing
as PDF' any articles I want to read later and putting them in a folder on my
desktop.

Being aware of what constitutes propaganda/pr allows me to watch some
mainstream films and TV shows while not being as brain-washed as someone who
watched them 'to relax'/unfiltered. Being a person who likes to think and
analyze, I can relax/rest when I sleep.

------
motters
It's not only a problem of negativity though. It's also about churnalism,
which compromises the integrity of a lot of mainstream news.

------
tete
There is one really big problem with social news: Filter Bubbles.

<http://dontbubble.us/>

------
woodchuck64
I'm down to a few minutes of Google News per day, but that's hard to break.

------
nacker
There was a time when I should have felt terribly ashamed of not being up-to-
date. I lived in a chronic apprehension lest I might, so to speak, miss the
last bus, and so find myself stranded and benighted, in a desert of
demodedness, while others, more nimble than myself, had already climbed on
board, taken their tickets and set out toward those bright but, alas, ever
receding goals of Modernity and Sophistication. Now, however, I have grown
shameless, I have lost my fears. I can watch unmoved the departure of the last
social-cultural bus—the innumerable last buses, which are starting at every
instant in all the world’s capitals. I make no effort to board them, and when
the noise of each departure has died down, “Thank goodness!” is what I say to
myself in the solitude. I find nowadays that I simply don’t want to be up-to-
date. I have lost all desire to see and do the things, the seeing and doing of
which entitle a man to regard himself as superiorly knowing, sophisticated,
unprovincial; I have lost all desire to frequent the places and people that a
man simply must frequent, if he is not to be regarded as a poor creature
hopelessly out of the swim. “Be up-to-date!” is the categorical imperative of
those who scramble for the last bus. But it is an imperative whose cogency I
refuse to admit. When it is a question of doing something which I regard as a
duty I am as ready as anyone else to put up with discomfort. But being up-to-
date and in the swim has ceased, so far as I am concerned, to be a duty. Why
should I have my feelings outraged, why should I submit to being bored and
disgusted for the sake of somebody else’s categorical imperative? Why? There
is no reason. So I simply avoid most of the manifestations of that so-called
“life” which my contemporaries seem to be so unaccountably anxious to “see”; I
keep out of range of the “art” they think is so vitally necessary to “keep up
with”; I flee from those “good times” in the “having” of which they are
prepared to spend so lavishly of their energy and cash.

From "Silence is Golden" by Aldous Huxley

------
goggles99
News is sensationalized, augmented, agendized, skewed, propaganda,
entertainmentized garbage.

Could not agree with the author more. Only pay attention to "the news" if you
spend the necessary time online researching and finding out each real/complete
story (facts and both sides of the story). Otherwise how can you not help
being persuaded and shaped by the mainstream media?

