
In 2017, I’m going to stop watching the news - Mojah
https://ma.ttias.be/stop-watching-news/
======
Xcelerate
I find that my personal happiness is a lot higher if I don't watch the news. I
tend to be a rather analytical person who obsesses over ideas, and I find that
ruminating over news or politics drains my energy. Thinking about math or
science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues
wears me out.

Part of the problem is that I feel most people underestimate the enormous
complexity of social issues. There's so many variables and so many different
types of interactions that my opinion on a lot of issues is "I don't have
enough information" or "it's too complex for me to pick a side". A lot of
people get upset if you say this to them though, and then they attempt to
persuade you otherwise using some well-known argument that I've already
researched in depth and found to be largely inconclusive. It's easier just to
abstain from these conversations.

I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme
depth to figure out "the truth"; the surface level conversation is much more
interesting to them. How many people have actually looked at the original
studies on climate change themselves? I have a hard time imagining how anyone
who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global
warming. Strong opinions based on weak data seems to be the prevailing theme
lately, but perhaps that's just my perception.

~~~
daphneokeefe
Scott Adams has an excellent explanation of this today in his blog "The
Illusion of Knowledge" [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-
illusion-of-kn...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-
knowledge)

A snippet: "no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science
because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed.

So how did the public respond to my claim that BOTH sides of the debate look
convincing? They berated me for not sufficiently researching materials from
ONE side of the debate that happens to be their side. Many people suggested
that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of
climate science.

That is a massive public illusion."

~~~
spinlock
There are plenty of debates in science. The debate over gravity would have
been a good example because you had serious people in both sides of the debate
and something approaching the truth came to be the consensus.

There is not a similar debate about climate change.

~~~
gooseus
The debates on gravity didn't involve non-scientists most likely because the
results of the debate wouldn't have public policy implications and so there
was no incentive to choose a side besides personal ego.

I would assume that any scientific claim which results in a public policy
change that creates losers and winners would create a very different kind of
debate where scientists are subject to external influences and non-scientists
feel the need weigh in in order to avoid being the loser.

------
andreygrehov
I stopped watching TV and reading news 5+ years ago. I don't have cable,
Netflix subscription or anything like that. Most interestingly, I worked for
The Huffington Post for 6 years. During this whole period, I probably read
maybe 4-5 articles in total. For me, such attitude results to care about
things that concern me or my family only. Sometimes people tell me the latest
crazy news, like the airplane crash. Of course, most of the time they are
surprised of my unawareness. I believe, there are pros and cons to this
behavior. I'm less stressed for sure. I remember someone once told me that I
live in my own world where there are no wars and everything is great. I
personally consider it as a good thing. As for the cons, – I'm less awared of
the latest world news and when my colleagues discuss yet another tragedy, I'm
the worst interlocutor. But, that gives me a chance to ask questions. People
like questions. At that point, it always helps to view any situation from the
side, more objectively I would say.

I do read a lot of Hacker News, paper(!) books and a little bit of reddit.

~~~
untog
Do you vote in elections and the like? If so, how do you choose a
candidate/party to vote for?

~~~
andreygrehov
I never voted in my life. I live in US for 4 years now, but not allowed to
vote _yet_. I do not believe in the voting system. In my opinion, people's
choice for one or another candidate/party is directly dependent on this
candidate's marketing efforts. It doesn't make any sense, since one can be a
"bad" guy by nature, but then good marketing does the trick and afterwards
people vote for him/her. Some sort of a karma/rating system would probably
work better, i.e. you are not allowed to run your campaign, until you collect
500 points. This approach would require candidates to merit the campaign first
and require them to be "good" guys during their entire career.

~~~
witty_username
Hasn't Trump turned this completely upside down?

~~~
reconx
He used his experience in media/showbiz to exploit the media to give him free
PR all the time, whereas the other politicians had to 'work for it'.

It's like the Kardashians, they actively make an effort to be in the news for
something, to maintain top of mind awareness...of their degeneracy.

~~~
gist
He also said things that were plain interesting and outrageous to hear and
see. Similar to slowing down for a train crash. No secret about that and
really anyone could have quite easily reverse engineered and done the same.
His big skill is more having, for lack of a better way to put it, 'balls' as
well as no problem with the blowback or downside of his actions. That is the
secret sauce with Trump. In a nutshell the other candidates, by comparison,
were boring.

------
Cacti
I don't read the news to, as the author suggested we should, _feel better_ or
get some warm cozy feeling. I read it to stay informed and cognizant about
what is going on around me, the impact of the actions (or lack) of my
community/state/nation, and to keep aware of trends, so that I can make better
decisions that affect me _and others_.

The news is not entrainment, it's _news_. Yes it can be exhausting sometimes,
and yes it can be hard to get out of an echo chamber, and yes some news is
just ad-driven BS, but that is part of life. Sticking your head in the sand is
not life.

And BTW, I'm not advocating 24/7 immersion. Short breaks are fine, just don't
go shunning the world... you do live there after all.

And if you're getting sick of the same stories, read another source! There's
only about a zillion newspapers, journals, letters, etc out there. There's
more than enough to keep your interest if you don't glob into cable news all
day.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>so that I can make better decisions that affect me _and others_.

Name three? I suspect it feels more like it's useful than it actually is, and
you'd get much of the same information second-hand anyways.

------
guelo
One of the issues I care about is net neutrality and I'm very worried that
Trump will repeal it next year. I plan on reading all related read news and to
help mobilize the tech community against a repeal. There are many other
similar issues that people are gearing up for a fight.

Honestly, I think the people that have the luxury of ignoring all news are the
privileged and selfish. We have a duty in a democracy to stay informed and
join the fray. That's the price of living in a free society. If there is no
grassroots involvement then the government ends up being run by the moneyed
interests.

~~~
Sgt_Apone
I've found that the solution is somewhat in middle. Burying your head in the
sand and pretending everything is grand just makes you ignorant. On the other
hand, consuming news everyday is a depressing affair that can warp your
worldview in the opposite direction. Personally, I just consume national and
international news once a week through more traditional magazines and
journals. This usually means I get full reporting on events after they have
unfolded and I avoid the hearsay and rumours that cable news loves. The
analysis is usually top notch as well.

I consume local news daily as local issues tend to affect me more directly,
but I don't find it nearly as bad as the internet's daily quest to find the
most gruesome national or international news story to spew everywhere. Also
avoiding news subreddits and comments sections is key. I like Hacker News
because the dialogue is usually pretty good and it's mostly about industry
news.

------
anonu
I concur with the author. I've also found that turning off any notifications
on popular apps and putting them "out of reach" has also helped tremendously.
I removed Instagram from my sorted folders on the front screen of my phone -
and I find that I open it much less now - and its for the better. I can only
deal with so many stupid memes and mindless rantings and ravings about banal
and mediocre things around us.

The key question to ask yourself is "Does this improve my life at all?" The
answer is mostly no. Maybe one could argue there is some small "entertainment"
value. In this case, I would opt for quality over quantity. For example,
watching a quality movie for 2 hours rather than spending 2 hours clicking
through useless articles and videos.

------
KirinDave
I really wish I could vanish back into my tradecraft. I'm am quite jealous of
people who can do this.

But the year I came out as non-binary is the same year my country elected a
President with a VP candidate that wants to make discrimination against me not
only legal but protected. E.g., under Pence's prior proposals someone could
fire me because I am NB to "protect their moral conviction" and even if that
firing was against corporate policy it could not be punished or easily
recanted. His prior two attempts at the law also were written in a way where
local and state laws could not override the federal law, which makes it even
scarier.

So I actually need to watch the news and remain "plugged in" because it's very
much a situation for me where I am now exposed to a lot of potential damage.

As such I do not feel that burying my head in the proverbial sand is a luxury
I can't afford. For those who can, enjoy it.

~~~
smokeyj
What's the point of being informed if you don't have influence? It's like
watching a train wreck while you're tied to the tracks. Knowing the play by
play really doesn't matter.

It's so progressive to want the government involved in every facet of our
lives under the guise of "effective regulation". That is, until, you disagree
with the tyrant in charge. Whatever happened to life liberty and the pursuits
of happiness? Seems to be pushed aside as libertarian mumbo jumbo.

> His prior two attempts at the law also were written in a way where local and
> state laws could not override

Careful now. Supporting states rights will firmly label you as a racist.

~~~
KirinDave
I'm concerned about my civil rights and not your tedious verbal fencing.

Every American should be concerned about the idea of making it legal for
police to selectively enforce law based on "moral convictions" about marriage
and lifestyle. If you're not concerned about that kind of legislation then I'm
not prepared to debate you on such a fundamental tenant on a mobile keyboard.
Suffice to say: I'm opposed fundamentally.

As for why know about it: be real. We've got a lot more influence than you
imply we do. I've got comparatively enormous financial resources to back
certain people, along with the ability to finance a defensive emigration
attempt.

~~~
smokeyj
My point is that watching the news does nothing to limit the governments
encroachment on your civil liberties. If you've been a cognizant adult since
the "post 9/11" era you'd realize the government set on eroding any semblance
of your rights as an individual. Turn off the news. It's pure garbage. If the
government isn't actively trying to kill your source of information it isn't
that good.

~~~
KirinDave
It's interesting you say that.

From the perspective of the LGBT community it's never been a safer time to be
open (which in no way implies it's not full of challenges and danger). But
significant progress has been made.

And while America is still deeply structured around racism, the dialogue has
never been more open and the problems have never been made more clear to a
broad swath of the population, which when polled generally agrees that core
problems like income inequality and unfair police enforcement / incarceration
need to end now.

That is not to paint a rosy picture of the entire affair. It's a mixed bag.
America's foreign policies have been troublesome in many ways. And yeah,
surveillance and speech rights are a sore spot for some people. I don't
disagree there are issues.

But sitting here telling me I've never had it worse won't work. I assure you 5
years ago it was substantially worse for me.

I need to keep an eye out so if nothing else, I know when I need to leave the
country.

~~~
smokeyj
> I need to keep an eye out so if nothing else, I know when I need to leave
> the country

Perhaps, but I'm sure there's a better way than sifting through piles of BS
that is news. (If you can't tell, I hate the "news"). Maybe the ACLU should
set up a monthly email alert with a barometer reading. But I agree with OP.
Avoiding the news will make you a more sane person.

~~~
KirinDave
You do you. For me, I've always considered news to be a thing to consume
responsibly with the full knowledge it is a profession as well as a service.

I see no reason to retreat into a bubble because the news isn't happy. The
things that nearly drove me to self-harm were real people, not an overcooked
headline.

~~~
smokeyj
News companies profiteer on polarizing the population by inciting hate and
fear. It's advertisement based entertainment like Jerry Springer. As long as
you realize that's what "news" is for 90% of the population then indulge away.

------
simonw
As someone living in the USA, I understand the temptation to do this - but now
really isn't the right time to turn ostrich.

Staying educated on what's going on feels very important to me right now -
especially in order to keep an eye out for opportunities to make a positive
impact.

Classic quote comes to mind: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing."

~~~
bigtunacan
Do you have plans to actually respond with some kind of positive action? Just
reading the news is akin to doing nothing.

To be clear this is not a jab, rather the observation that this is how most of
us will respond.

I read the news then I think, "How awful and depressing." Then I go back to my
normal day only slightly more down.

~~~
matt4077
Democracy kind of depends on people knowing what's going on. If people just
show up on election day and choose the prettiest name there's absolutely no
incentive to do anything as a politician.

~~~
icebraining
Playing Devil's advocate, what if one simply votes based on what's going on
around them? Not reading the news doesn't imply you're secluded from the rest
of society, especially if one uses the free time to make an effort to take a
more active interest outside of one's bubble.

------
maxander
While reducing one's media consumption is a healthy goal, the author has a
very odd conception of "making a meaningful difference." Does donating $50 to
Red Cross not make a difference? Sure it does- that's $50 that, minus overhead
or whatever, can be spent on something like medical care for those who
wouldn't otherwise receive it. Its just the same as $50 to your local medical
charity, in that respect; for that matter, with Red Cross, the overheads are
likely _lower_ (economy of scale and all) so it makes _more_ of a difference.
Only you don't get a thank-you card from the kid the next town over whose
antibiotics you paid for; if that card is the "meaningful difference" you
crave, okay, but otherwise...?

Same in other respects, of course. You _can_ make a meaningful difference to
things like the Syrian conflict or what-have-you, the issue is that these
issues are just _so huge_ that a meaningful difference isn't likely going to
be visible. The question is, do you want to make a difference in the world to
see yourself being powerful and nice, or for an objective desire to have good
effects in the world?

~~~
jstanley
> economy of scale and all

As charities get larger, they get more effective at _receiving_ donations.
There is no market pressure to make them more effective at _utilising_
donations for their presumed purpose, only the extent to which they can
leverage those donations to receive even more donations.

------
mirekrusin
Some years ago people started saying "the only thing constant is change". I
think it's not true anymore. The "change" seems to be advancing as well.
There's so much information coming in - and it's getting faster. In reality
like this, once pejorative "ignorance" becomes unavoidable description of
every person. There's no way of not being ignorant on most things novadays.
Even in narrow specialisations like web dev for example - each developer is
ignorant of majority of web dev projects out there. And you can't blame
anybody, there's just too much stuff out there. And that's only their narrow
specialisation. There's also the rest of the world with billions of ideas and
problems to be solved.

But you know, "the show must go on", we can focus on interesting things for us
(ourselves), "keep calm and carry on" in sustainable-happiness we create
(ourselves). Switching off news is probably one of the first steps. There are
more, but let's just ignore them for now...

------
afarrell
One minor goal for me this year is to ignore most of the news and focus mainly
on one specific topic that I can learn to a useful level. I think I'm going to
choose the US veterans administration. Why?

1) Having moved US -> UK, I wish the US had something like the NHS.

2) I've heard multiple veterans decry the quality and responsiveness of the VA
healthcare is some pretty drastic terms.

3) I know from Rep. Capuano's mailing list the GOP has been trying for years
to reform Ye VA in some way.

I suspect that until people stop being unhappy with the VA, that a large chunk
of Americans will associate government-run healthcare with incompetence and
inefficiency. This stands in stark contrast to the British perception of the
NHS, so I want to know what's up.

~~~
canadian_voter
The National Health Service? That's communism, silly. And communism is bad.

More seriously, the American people just don't trust their government to be
competent or efficient. Only about 20% describe government programs as "well-
run."[0] Although more than 50% seem to think that it's doing an okay job on
health care at the moment.

It would be an incredible undertaking to establish something like the NHS in
the US, and the political will just isn't there.

[0] [http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/beyond-distrust-
how-a...](http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/beyond-distrust-how-
americans-view-their-government/)

~~~
keithpeter
The NHS is actually organised as a large number of locally managed nodes.
Doctor's practices (GPs) are self-governing to some extent, and hospitals are
managed by trusts. There has been a lot of reorganisation recently (the Tories
_always_ reorganise the NHS, it is a thing they do).

My knowledge of the US is limited but I imagine that a US version of the NHS
would be organised by state and then by district hospitals. Plenty of moving
parts at the back end but at least the patient just sees the single payer
front end.

~~~
afarrell
Also there are commissioning groups?

I also want to look into how the NHS works in more detail.

~~~
keithpeter
There are and I'm hazy about how it all fits together.

Might do some googling once I've rested up today (we saw the New Year in last
night)

------
bane
I made this commitment in 2016 and don't much tune in. Important events seem
to eventually percolate up into my other social discussions and places like
here on HN or Facebook and I've found I've missed very few of the broad
strokes -- but lots of the details.

On the other hand I've also noticed that I seem to be able to approach topics
more objectively and less "inflamed" with presupposed positions than before.

This all has lowered my stress levels immeasurably and given me much more of a
"we'll be fine" attitude about major events.

The real problem is that most of the major media sources are _terrible_ ,
absolute amateur hour bottom of the barrel lowest common denominator garbage.
The quality of what passes for journalism these days would get a person fired
from almost any other profession.

When you find good journalism, it's almost like coming out a coal mine into
the fresh air, but it's so hard to find it almost isn't even worth it.

------
StClaire
I spent the last year getting 95% of my news from The Economist's leaders and
the world this week. Did I know about every mass shooting soon after it
happened? No. But I spent a half hour a week and could speak reasonably
competently about the election.

More importantly: the news didn't consume me like it swallowed some of my
friends

~~~
emodendroket
Yeah, and you also got all your information about the world filtered through
the Economist's extremely ideological lens.

~~~
stevedonovan
Once you know their agenda, you can filter. At least they're not hysterical.
Part of the problem is the very different meaning that the word 'liberal' has
in the UK.

~~~
emodendroket
Filtering can't tell you what they leave out.

------
z5h
News is fine.

The problem is that most news business models compete for attention via:

    
    
      1. alarmist content  
      2. clickbait headlines  
      3. polarizing viewpoints
    

There aren't as many entities who simply try to deliver balanced news and
perspectives. Try reading the Economist, apnews.com, wikinews.org.

~~~
Esau
Exactly. I realized during the run-up to the election that CNN and the other
major news networks don't really report news anymore - they exploit it.

------
insickness
I get most of my news through social media. I find social media to be even
worse than just news in terms of polluting my brain, shortening my attention
span and wasting my time. I now try to stay off social media until noon every
day, which was a suggestion from someone on this forum. The peace it brings to
my mornings is fantastic. And once I do get on social media, I'm much less
likely to binge.

------
acchow
From observation, it also seems that people feel great about themselves and
have done their part as a citizen of humanity after reading news, "being
informed" (and maybe a share on FB).

I don't have data to prove it, but it seems intuitive that this results in
them taking less real action?

~~~
webwanderings
I think the opposite is true. You'd feel better if you stop watching news of
far away consequences (national/world) and stop sharing what you think you
want to share. You'll feel better eventually.

The OP is absolutely correct on all the observations.

I have been doing the same for a while: only monitor local news; don't bother
sharing. And since most people on social media do not follow the same, I have
stopped following social media.

The difficult part initially is when you stop sharing (because you're fighting
your ego) but eventually you'll see how it makes you even more productive than
you are.

------
wenderen
Rolf Dobelli's "Avoid News" articles are very relevant here.

[http://dobelli.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...](http://dobelli.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf)

[http://dobelli.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...](http://dobelli.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part2_FAQs.pdf)

------
paulpauper
agree. the news is a waste of time [http://greyenlightenment.com/why-the-news-
is-still-mostly-po...](http://greyenlightenment.com/why-the-news-is-still-
mostly-pointless/)

Some say the 'only constant is change'. It's actually the opposite: things
seldom change, with the exception of a few blips here and there(such as 911
and the 2008 financial crisis).

As further evidence of how things tend to remain constant more often than not,
the post-2009 bull market and economic expansion is the longest ever despite
the endless predictions of recession and crisis. Same for failed predictions
of hyperinflation and dollar collapse. Web 2.0 valuations still keep rising
long after pundits in 2012 said it was a bubble.

There's still war and terror in the Middle East despite trillion of dollars
thrown at the problem

Self-improvement is more important than worrying about things outside of your
control or that have little impact on your life. Neither the Republicans nor
the Democrats are going to throw you a lifeline. That you have to do on your
own, such as by investing your income in stocks or real estate and being
frugal.

~~~
h1d
> Self-improvement is more important than worrying about things outside of
> your control or that have little impact on your life.

Can't be said better.

------
rdtsc
I went back to watching the news, but as comedy.

For a while Fox was the best for that. Really good entertainment with all the
stupidity and ridiculousness so it was kind of interesting. Then during the
election cycle CNN, NYT, and other major ones joined the ranks. I will always
remember the "Reading these document is illegal, it is different for us, the
media, so come to use for interpretation". That for me exemplified the new low
the mass media has sunk to recently.

It is of course useful to re-read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky
and keep that in mind then news makes a lot more sense.

------
snake117
I've done something similar. I have stopped watching the mainstream national
news networks, namely ABC World News and similar programs. I watched these for
a little over a year and after awhile you realize just how little informative
news they have to offer.

Take ABC World News for instance, they throw the big headlines in the
beginning, which you already know if you've checked any other news site/app.
Then, they have these stories on a major car accident or one house somewhere
catching on fire and somehow that merits it being on the national news. I
obviously have some amount of sympathy for what these people go through, but
the name of the program is ABC _World_ News, and yet, there are never any
stories about anything outside the US. And don't even get me started about the
amount of commercials they throw in.

For sometime I was contemplating about not keeping up with the news for
similar reasons that the author stated; certain stories may not interest me
and the inevitable realization that there isn't anything I can do about it and
making you feel depressed. I found, however, that I like staying informed on
what is going on, not only in my local area and the US, but also international
affairs. I try to limit my intake of mainstream news through my local paper,
BBC World news, and their app; that's it. It doesn't take a lot of my time
(maybe 45 minutes in total), I get to be informed on important topics, and see
it as a productive way to take a break from school/work.

------
beezle
After 2008 I dropped cable. This is sometimes a hassle for sports, but
otherwise it has been a boon. No more MSNBC, FOX, CNN talking head non-sense
24/7\. That stuff just sucks you in and pounds you into submission, whether on
political topics or "omg the world is gonna end!" type stuff.

I do still scan the headlines from news.google.com once or twice a day and
only read a story if the topic is truly compelling/news worthy. This allows me
to still have some clue about whats going on without the agita and time sink.

------
teaneedz
Agreed. I stopped reading the general news this year too. I feel better.

------
ajaimk
Mattias nails it - I've been doing this for about 3 years now and everytime
I'm in public and see CNN or Fox News on TV, I cringe and reinforce my belief.
On top of Hackers News, Facebook, Twitter and the Daily Show, I still tune
into Bloomberg sometimes which is the closest I get to traditional News.

I do have to give them props for taking a good spin on real world events (like
major natural disasters) and talking about them about the impact they have on
the world after they occur vs just non-stop clips of people suffering. This
might seem harsh but a few people being killed by a terrorist makes no
difference in the grand scheme of things - 4 days on non-stop talk about it on
the News just increases paranoia and concern.

Always had the idea that the 24 hour news cycle would be a lot better if they
just balanced it out with puppy videos to restore our faith in humanity.

Funny story - Opened the CNN app the other day to read about the Christmas
incident in Germany - 17 links that basically ruin all faith in humanity - The
last one (18th) was extremely clickbaity but the only one that was positive.
The headline: "Bill Gates was her Secret Santa" \- It's like you can't get
good news without Tech being involved somehow.

------
open-source-ux
I understand the sentiment that news is often very depressing but I strongly
disagree with the suggestion we should stop reading it.

Don't rely on social media for your news. Pick your news sources carefully,
read more than one source too. Consider listening to radio if you want to
avoid emotive images or screaming headlines. But don't stop reading (or
listening to) the news. The Internet makes it possible to read or listen to
English language news from sources from around the world. If you are
dissatisfied with news in your region or country, go and explore those other
sources.

And I disagree that you can't do anything about events in the news. Millions
of people donate or give money to charity or fundraising campaigns as a result
of events in the news. Life isn't comfortable for millions of people around
the world, but why insulate yourself from what's happening around you? I can't
even begin to imagine what the world would be like if we all stopped reading
the news. Knowing what's happening around the world (and your own back yard)
has spurred so many people to take action big and small.

And even if you think "I'm never going to take action, there's nothing I can
do", you can still form an opinion - that might be an important thing when it
comes to election day and you have to decide who you vote for. Not being
interested in the news is exactly how politicians slip legislation under the
nose of the electorate.

If you find reading the news depressing, read this for an inspiring story of
how a Design & Technology student was spurred into action after watching a
harrowing news report on Syria:

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

------
coreyp_1
"Watching" is a very low-bandwidth way to consume news. I stopped watching
about 8 years ago. I'm glad to see that the rest of the world has caught on!

FWIW, I generally know about everything a day before it hits the major news
outlets. After being freed from the slow, commercial-filled news cycle of tv
and radio, who would ever want to go back to such a slow delivery system?

~~~
h1d
TV news is such a joke, in 20 minutes you get to see 1 important topic of the
day and a couple random things you don't even want to know about in a hope
that they will tell you something interesting which will not be the case.

Using the web you can narrow that down to 5 minutes without occupying your
mind memory too much to something uninteresting which I think is important to
keep some room to fill in or use for your creativity.

Also for other reasons that TVs are not productive, I ditched that thing 10
years ago after getting out of college. Never missed it.

------
jaunkst
I stopped a few years ago. If its important it will find its way to you.

------
davidmr
I'm conflicted about this.

On the one hand I have also decided to become as ignorant as possible about
the news because (at the risk of overusing the phrase), I think we have firmly
moved into a post-truth American society. If election outcomes aren't based on
facts, what's the point of knowing them?

On the other hand, many other people in this thread are saying that there's
never been a more important time to know the news. I understand the sentiment,
but I would phrase it differently: there's never been a more important time
for good journalists to be doing good journalism. Except for the tricky issue
of how to keep good journalists employed without people reading them, I don't
feel any particular obligation to be informed. I decided to donate money to
ProPublica in the hope that they'll keep the government as honest as possible
without me having to deal with it.

~~~
emodendroket
If a bunch of good journalists are cranking out great investigative reporting
but nobody reads it or gives a damn then it will do nothing to "keep the
government honest."

~~~
davidmr
I realize this is a stupid argument, but as long as someone else is reading
it, I don't feel like I have to. I'm not recommending everyone stop reading
the news, just me.

------
bredren
I also stopped watching / reading news, on or around November 16th. I thought
Apple Watch had made me use my phone less, but this change has increased the
amount of attention I have by a ton.

My primary news outlets were G News and Twitter. I had to quit using twitter
as well, which has been somewhat of a bummer as I've had tweet ideas. But I
just let them pass now because it is more valuable to not have the distraction
of reading others.

I also have been keeping up on tech news, primarily Apple rumors and here on
hacker news. Also, Reddit and various subreddits offer largely 'news free'
content for when I just want to consume.

If anything, these new filters have helped me see that most 'news' is really
just content. And at least for now, I'm not interested in content that makes
me feel bad or steals attention from my life.

~~~
emodendroket
So you don't have time to know even the basic outlines of current affairs or
politics but you _do_ have time to obsessively follow Apple rumors? Does it
not bother you to have such narrow interests?

------
mb_72
I don't really follow the news where I live (Estonia) but I do check the news
and weather for my Australian hometown daily. Why? So I can communicate with
my parents about their garden and thoughts on local (to them) matters. It
really helps bridge the 14,000km between us.

------
overcast
I stopped being involved with social media in 2015, no news in 2017 sounds
like a good next step.

------
dmfdmf
Here is an interesting blog post by John D. Cook on how too much news creates
an "Inverted Sense of Risk"
[http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2014/09/05/inverted-sense-
of-r...](http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2014/09/05/inverted-sense-of-risk/)

While I highly recommend not being too connected to the concretes and noise of
the day, i.e. news, I think sticking your head in the sand is not such a great
idea either. Nobody planned on or set out to design and build tanks, cars,
plane, guns, bombs, ciphers or databases for the Nazis but people actually
did.

------
zorked
Being from a country that has commercial news (clickbaity, alarmist, etc.) I'm
finding it ok to watch the news from European public TV. You get to know
what's going on in the world but avoid most of the emotional drain.

------
emodendroket
Is this a parody or something? I guess it'd explain a lot about HN if there
are a lot of people on here who only read about start-ups and JavaScript
frameworks and never look at other kinds of news.

------
stephenboyd
Unless you live in a total dictatorship, it's selfish to be completely
disinterested in what's going on in the world, more so if you're personally
unaffected by a deluge of horrors happening to others. We don't yet live in
that dictatorship here in the US, and the actions and expressed preferences of
common citizens are still influential in politics, especially if you care
enough to call up your legislators and write to your newspapers. We are the
cast, not the audience.

------
kayman
It's key to differentiate between watching the news and being informed.

I haven't watched the news in over a decade (except for when I'm over at
someone's house being polite) and my life has been better because of it.

Instead, I pay for NYTimes, Wall St Journal and read Hacker news which I find
keeps me more informed than the average joe watching news stories on "what's
trending on social media" type journalism.

------
legodt
In the US and Europe now is a very dangerous time to give up on news. Cables
news should be dropped, but I'm seeing in the comments here a few people
ardently against all news. Considering that a white nationalist backed
candidate is in-office with full party support starting this year, ignoring
the news is a luxury only affordable to the rich white male class. Everybody
else is affected.

~~~
stephenboyd
Unless you live in a total dictatorship, it's selfish to be completely
disinterested in what's going on in the world. We don't actually live in that
dictatorship yet here in the US, and the actions and expressed preferences of
common citizens are still influential in politics, especially if you care
enough to call up your legislators and write to your newspapers. We are the
cast, not the audience.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>We don't actually live in that dictatorship yet here in the US, and the
actions and expressed preferences of common citizens are still influential in
politics, especially if you care enough to call up your legislators and write
to your newspapers. We are the cast, not the audience.

Many people participate, and push back, but we can see which way the wind is
blowing. Dictatorship? Well, maybe not _outright_ dictatorship, but certainly
heavy authoritarianism along the lines of Putin and Erdogan.

------
hacker_9
My thoughts:

UK News: Getting worse each year, though usually high quality, they go so into
murder details these days it makes you sick if you aren't already
desensitized.

US News: these channels are all a joke, honestly Fox and CNN? I turn to these
channels when I want to have a laugh.

Reddit/HN: Aggregated news, actually pretty good. Though of course very
western focused, Russia is the 'bad guy' etc.

------
dandare
I am not sure what is the right thing to do but I feel not watching the news
is not right. I too feel anxious and depressed when I follow the news and
politics but I feel that I become part of the problem if I decide to live
under the rock.

I think the solution should be something like being able to filter the
negativity and keep the zen while watching the news, not close the eyes.

------
itaysk
I've been doing this for a few years now, and I highly recommend. I am still
subscribed to various tech news feeds, but haven't watched the TV news
edition, or browsed to any news website just to check the news in a very long
time. I still get the important news by hearsay, Facebook, work talk, etc. I
don't feel like I'm missing anything.

------
bvinc
I've decided to stick with "slow media". I'm not going to get my news from
24/7 news channels, or reddit, or Twitter.

I'm going to pick a news outlet I trust to give daily facts. I might even
subscribe to a physical newspaper. I think a happy medium exists where you can
stay informed, but avoid being consumed by bullshit.

------
BatFastard
I can totally sympathize with the feeling you are having. Mainstream news has
become too celebrity oriented and sensational for my tastes.

So what I think I really want is better news. The PBS news is more suited to
my tastes, but the form is too long for my available time. Some news is
visual, most can be auditory. And it needs to be portable and always
available.

~~~
emodendroket
Shit, if only someone came up with some way to get news on your phone, that
would be perfect.

------
Imagenuity
I stopped watching the news in the late 90's because of the sensationalization
and shallow reporting. I haven't missed it, especially now with the media
bias.

There are better ways of keeping up to date, especially with news feeds that
you can get just the topics you want news on.

But people still think I'm nuts for not watching the news.

------
formula_ninguna
News disturb you and make anxious. Besides, reading news is no use
[https://playforitsownsake.com/articles/why-reading-
political...](https://playforitsownsake.com/articles/why-reading-political-
news-and-history-is-useless-for-predicting-events)

~~~
tudorw
I'm with you, it's a mantra that takes effort to maintain, I'm easily sucked
into a 'serious news' narrative, then mine for background information
obsessively so as to form an 'informed opinion', then what, it's formed but
neutered, extending my understanding of a topic does nothing to change the
situation... my existential inclinations are not well serviced by what I see
as a self-indulgent and negative voyeurism, a better reaction, to double down
on local, small scale, personal improvements.

------
Clubber
I would recommend instead of completely ignoring the news, just stick to the
30 minute national news on CBS/ABC/NBC/NPR (maybe FOX). Everything that
happens in the world in a day will fit in 30 minutes. Everything else is
mostly opinion and speculation which serves the writers more than you.

~~~
tunap
Scannng headlines in RSS feeds from a dozen or so sources gives me a glimpse
of the state of world events in under 10 minutes. I rarely open TFAs unless it
is a topic that is of particular interest to, or directly affects, me.

Then I come to HN _comments_ for non-clickbait sources and insights into
topics I do care about.

~~~
Clubber
I do that too, but I have to keep in mind that most headlines are sensational.
HN comments are great.

------
teddyh
Many others have expressed similar sentiments; here’s one very good
explanation:

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-
informatio...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-
diet/)

------
hkmurakami
Imo you need to avoid social media as well, since headlines enter your mind
through your timeline as well.

------
sandworm101
When the artists and revolutionaries disconnect other forces run rampant. When
everything is horrible, this is when we most need the thinkers to remain
focused. You dont make the world better by ignoring its problems. If politics
is depressing, get involved and make it less so.

------
libeclipse
This seems to be concentrating on devoting your time to things (be it news,
donations, events, initiatives) that make YOU feel better, rather than
anything else. Weigh that against your personal beliefs and ethics before you
start following what this article says.

------
imgabe
I've taken this up as well and expanded to just watching less TV in general. I
find myself always saying I don't have enough time to do all the things I want
to do, yet I manage to watch an astounding amount of TV. The solution is
obvious.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Not watching TV since more than 5 years (also no Netflix etc.) - blocked every
new source except HN at the beginning of 2016 (using leechblock in Firefox).

Much happier.

------
Kenji
The problem with not watching the news is that when you socialise with other
people, your discussions will be one long string of Aleppo moments (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOT_BoGpCn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOT_BoGpCn4)
) because the newspapers pick some random thing and make it super important,
shaping the discourse of people while completely ignoring other events that
are just as important if not more important.

------
hnbro
i'm inclined to think there is no such thing as a "free press". i'm also of a
mind that even when one presumes such a thing exists, there's no reason to
believe that this leads to "truth" or "reliability" in reporting.

i hope there's a third way between corporate news and government news.

------
jankotek
One hour per week seems like just enough time to spend on general news.

------
jasonlotito
This is nothing special. We all do this already. We don't watch or read news
from certain sources already, and stick to other ones we come to trust, and
this is all the author is doing. I honestly don't see the big deal.

------
photoatomic
already done since 2015, I live better than ever.

------
pryelluw
I stopped years ago. Best decision ever. I also dont really use social media
outside of work. My life is muuch much much better.

------
tempodox
s/ostridge/ostrich/

Apart from that, I can only agree. I started on the same path several years
ago.

------
ulrikrasmussen
Ugh, this is so short-sighted. I get that reading about some of the awful
stuff that has happened in past years will make you sad and uncomfortable, but
the answer is not to put your head in the sand and ignore them. If you want to
feel less depressed, I propose that you stop reading news (and especially
commentary) on social media, and instead subscribe to high-quality news
outlets such as newspapers. A digital subscription to nytimes is actually
pretty cheap.

~~~
wooter
I find NYT to be absurdly biased.

~~~
ulrikrasmussen
Every news outlet is biased, that's unavoidable. Subscribe to at least one
whose bias you agree with, and one you don't. Something that is just as
important as getting news is to try to get an understanding of how people who
disagree with you think. Try to see things from their perspective and compare
it with your own.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> Every news outlet is biased

...ranging from slightly to hugely.

> Subscribe to at least one whose bias you agree with, and one you don't.

Yet you'll have zero guarantee that any number of outlets you pick will cover
the whole spectrum. They might very well span a very small spectrum.

