Funnily enough, this article is one of thousands of articles I have read which are contributing to my own reading problem, as seems to be the case with many of the Journalists quoted in the article. The massive size of the media, all the angles and interpretations of all of the dizzying number of events has began to suck me in like a trap, while Slaughterhouse Five sits mostly unread. I think I'm slowly coming to the realization though that the news really isn't all that valuable to me, and I read way too much of it, and far too few books.
> I think I'm slowly coming to the realization though that the news really isn't all that valuable to me, and I read way too much of it, and far too few books.
Keeping up with the news has about as much value as watching soap operas. Maybe it's fun for you and that's fine, but the notion that it's making one a better person or allowing one to contribute meaningfully to society is mostly BS.
Blah, blah, informed electorate. Meanwhile most people have little or no grasp of the basics of political philosophy and economics, the history of both, are terrible critical readers, know little about the actual structure and functions of their government, and so on, so if your concern is being able to evaluate policy so you can make better choices in the voting booth start with those things. Which... means reading books and journals, not the newspaper or Twitter or whatever.
Wading in day-to-day news is useless or harmful without that foundational knowledge—again, except as shallow entertainment, which if that's what you're into and you enjoy it that's fine but don't subject yourself to it because you think it's making your life or anyone else's better. Even with a good understanding of the relevant topics it's mostly a waste of time unless your job is writing about it (as it is for some of the people in TFA).
I think good news should present current events in the context of such ideas, with explanations for their implications in government or the economy. There are plenty of media outlets that do this, with various biases of course. The Jacobin for instance presents everything from a socialist perspective, where the reader can understand issues and events in he context of a Marxist analysus. Many of their contributors are well versed in the key works of this academic tradition so the reader is spared from having to be as deeply familiar with them in order to get the same level of insight into what the news has to do with the economy and politics from such a perspective.
> Blah, blah, informed electorate. Meanwhile most people have little or no grasp of the basics of political philosophy and economics, the history of both, are terrible critical readers, know little about the actual structure and functions of their government, and so on, so if your concern is being able to evaluate policy so you can make better choices in the voting booth start with those things.
This is so true. I am always surprised at how many otherwise intelligent news junkies I encounter who, for example, don't understand the difference between the House and Senate.
