My entire existence is politically controversial. I pretty much have to at least be aware of recent political developments since they could affect my ability to live as myself
The news is what's new, uncommon, strange, interesting. Shiny, attractive, shocking, raging: dopamine raising and cortisol antagonising. The news doesn't describe our actual lives. But the news does sometimes contain information relevant to our lives!
I find I will hear about the relevant things from people and events around me, whether or not I follow the news. The news doesn't have any actual bearing on my life but the news does have a few stories that do have bearing.
So theres no downside of not following the news. I will hear what I need to and want to hear about from people around me or other sources.
Some think that in not consuming what they think I should consume, that this is a morally wrong thing to do. They will be personally offended, how can they ignore my story? There is a case that if we all stopped following the news then how can the other sources inform us, so there would still be a benefit to reporting...
Consider two anthropologists examining a culture. One only has remote access to every news source the culture produces for itself, the other can only talk face to face with people. Which one will understand the people more?
I think it's important to keep reading the news occasionally.
Personally, I, as a programmer, read the news in the same way as my grandad who was a farmer. I read a printed weekly publication (in my case The Economist) on Sunday morning. Outside of Sunday morning I don't read the news at all.
I prefer printed news to media-supported news, because I think the imagery (I acknowledge The Economist still has images) and presentation of news, especially on TV detracts from the message it's trying to convey a lot of the time. After reading some of Neil Postman's books (notably Amusing Ourselves to Death), I find it strange to watch televised news whereby one minute I'm watching footage of a disaster, then the next minute I'm seeing sports news updates or an advert. Just like normal learning, I think news demands longer form content for proper understanding.
Reading the news on a low frequency basis also gives time for news stories to properly develop. Breaking news can be filled with speculation and incorrect details, which even if you keep up with, you can miss later corrections or crucial details. Not to mention the stress involved in it. Chances are if some real breaking news happens, like a natural disaster or war, I'll hear somebody else tell me.
This is a reasonable choice, but of course also one that is only people who can be pretty confident of not being personally affected by newsworthy events.
I've recently been trying to avoid news. Particularly US political news. Sadly for some reason blocking sites on my Eero router doesn't seem to work. Thankfully Facebook recently put up a modal dialog asking me to subscribe or accept personalised ads (pretty sure the GDPR explicitly forbids that but whatever, everyone is doing it), it's doing a good job of preventing me seeing the usual feed of news there. At some point I'll put PiHole on my NAS and take care of Reddit etc.
I completely understand why, but on the other hand democracy relies on citizens being informed about what's happening. The risk is that one day, you wake up and there is no democracy any more.
On one hand I can see where you can draw this argument from. But on the other hand I don't think daily consumption of the huge quantity of news that exists is necessary for having a decent political opinion, especially given that most news is inflammatory junk (at least in my country). I just don't need a 5 page breakdown of every single event that some corpo decided to shove down our throats.
Also - and maybe I'm naive for this - I don't really need news to inform my political opinion because the current state of affairs is so far from my ideal world. Like no matter what could reasonably occur in the news, I still know who I'm voting for on polling day.
I completely disagree. The past 50-70yr of "people ought to care and be involved" type sentiment has resulted in mostly only the people who have nothing better to do and no serious problems having an outsize effect and in some subject areas completely dominating the political discourse to the detriment of literally everyone else and western society generally.
I completely agree. The author is incredibly naive on the "I asked myself how much of this actually affects my daily life". If there's one thing that absolutely affects your life, it's politics. Maybe not today, and maybe not immediately in a meaningful way, but it will affect you.
I realised that if I exclusively read business news I can avoid a good amount of the fluff and sensationalism. I made a browser extension which pushes the headlines from Bloomberg, Financial times Euronews Business and a few others on to my new tab from their RSS, and it's more than enough to give me a nugget of what's going on in the world without being overloaded. 1 item per new tab.
End result is: I don't read the news, but I still know what's going on without the need for Social Media's hot take.
I came to a similar realisation about world news a few years ago and live a much less stressful life now. Especially since most of the news was about the US, and I don't even live there and there's nothing I can do about it. If something really important happens, eventually I find out from friends or family.
Same when it comes to staying on top of tech news -- almost everything is a flash in the pan. I used to bookmark cool new products, never revisit them, and then a year later realise half of the links are now dead.
One thing I realised though is I still need to mindlessly browse an endless feed every once in a while for some downtime. One way or another I'll want to fill that time with something, so it's a question of being mindful what goes in it. So my drugs of choice are Hacker News, and carefully curated YouTube subscriptions.
The news is one of those markets where the following is true:
1) a large number of people are dissatisfied with the current product
2) but aren’t willing to pay for an alternative which solves the problem in the ideal way (for them)
There have been dozens of attempts at weekly news summary newsletters, minimal news sites, etc. over the years. None ever seem to go anywhere because no one wants to pay for something they are deliberately deciding has little value.
It makes me think of budget airlines: constantly critiqued for being uncomfortable and using dark patterns to get every last dollar - yet people consistently just book the cheapest flight possible.
I’ve had similar experiences. These days I only visit Hacker News to read some tech-related stuff. For me, not reading the news to the point where I ask my mom to turn off the TV when I visit is important, because I want to avoid hearing anything about wars, etc. As someone who lives in Poland, I followed so much news about the war in Ukraine in 2022 and 2023, and it was really bad for my well-being and my behavior. A few examples come to mind: not being proactive and creative when it comes to taking care of my house and family, not being present when playing with my son, being less productive at work, and literally feeling angry after consuming news — like the feeling after eating fast food and having bloating. But I’m grateful for the people who do follow the news, read it, protest against the bullshit, and participate more in the democratic process than I do.
I think the only wise thing Elon Musk ever said was "Generally newspapers seem to try to answer the question, 'What is the worst thing that happened on the Earth today?'"
I think it’s not news that’s the problem. It’s the sources of news are often biased and spend very little time explaining events in context. I much prefer an hour long news program or multi-page article that details events and perspectives going years into the past. We have a surprising large amount of influence on events around the world. Everything from the companies you support to your politics can vastly change world events.
I really dislike the notion that events outside of your country are somehow not important.
Traditionally, the news industry has been divided into tabloids, which were more sensationalist and aimed at a less sophisticated readership, and broadsheets, which were more analytical and aimed at a more sophisticated readership. From a business perspective, the articles and opinion pieces were just bait to draw in a particular class of reader; the real money came from advertising to those particular classes of reader.
The web has destroyed that business model, because the news industry now controls far less advertising space, so there is no longer enough advertising revenue to support quality journalism. The broadsheets are in real financial trouble, and most have turned to tabloid-style articles (albeit ones that promote more sophisticated worldviews) in order to pull in those social-media clicks.
I find myself increasingly interested in publications like The Economist and The Financial Times, simply because their readerships have financial interest in actually knowing what's going on in the world, and so they can charge a subscription price that supports quality journalism.
> I am considering subscribing to a magazine that covers important events in Germany, the EU, or the world every few months
I've posted the same message so many time I could get banned but if you live in the UK then Private Eye is what you want here. It's every fortnight, very funny and a bastion of genuine journalism (see the Paul Foot Award they give out each year)
I think if the news feels unbearable, the problem may not be the information but the fact that reality is moving against the assumpftions on which the person has anchored their happiness ... environemt, relgion, polticial views etc etc ..
In particular LLM summaries are great for this. Introduces risk of hallucinations which is not awesome, but it does tend to neutralise the rage bait tone and tricks that are pervasive these days. Tradeoff but one that has been working for me
I think if it's stressing you out then it's fair to step back from reading the news for a bit. It's still worth at least trying to form an understanding and an opinion on various issues - whether local, regional or international - if you're going to be voting or even just talking about them with friends and family.
it is just noise that does not really matter for your life (and mine too). This is pretty-well described in "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb, consider reading.
Once you start noticing how often you see content that references e.g. anything that's happening in the US right now (I'm in the UK), you realise how 'news' is everywhere.
If you go on reddit, unless you've curated your subreddits and never touch /all or /popular, it's very heavy with 'news'. The Google app, a left-swipe by default on your Android phone is all 'news'. Twxtter/Bluesky/etc. are full of news. Avoiding news entirely is almost impossible on today's internet.
I have had success with this approach too, but key to all this is being careful about where you go online to minimise exposure. These days I don't use any 'social media' platforms, but I do visit HN and BBC news (both of which are of higher quality than most places, and crucially only have a few stories on a typical day - the rate of new content is low). This way I stay informed without falling down rabbit holes about every twist and turn of every (mostly awful/depressing) thing happening in the World.
60 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 69.4 ms ] threadI find I will hear about the relevant things from people and events around me, whether or not I follow the news. The news doesn't have any actual bearing on my life but the news does have a few stories that do have bearing.
So theres no downside of not following the news. I will hear what I need to and want to hear about from people around me or other sources.
Some think that in not consuming what they think I should consume, that this is a morally wrong thing to do. They will be personally offended, how can they ignore my story? There is a case that if we all stopped following the news then how can the other sources inform us, so there would still be a benefit to reporting...
Consider two anthropologists examining a culture. One only has remote access to every news source the culture produces for itself, the other can only talk face to face with people. Which one will understand the people more?
Personally, I, as a programmer, read the news in the same way as my grandad who was a farmer. I read a printed weekly publication (in my case The Economist) on Sunday morning. Outside of Sunday morning I don't read the news at all.
I prefer printed news to media-supported news, because I think the imagery (I acknowledge The Economist still has images) and presentation of news, especially on TV detracts from the message it's trying to convey a lot of the time. After reading some of Neil Postman's books (notably Amusing Ourselves to Death), I find it strange to watch televised news whereby one minute I'm watching footage of a disaster, then the next minute I'm seeing sports news updates or an advert. Just like normal learning, I think news demands longer form content for proper understanding.
Reading the news on a low frequency basis also gives time for news stories to properly develop. Breaking news can be filled with speculation and incorrect details, which even if you keep up with, you can miss later corrections or crucial details. Not to mention the stress involved in it. Chances are if some real breaking news happens, like a natural disaster or war, I'll hear somebody else tell me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
Excerpt from comment submitted to Hacker News, an online news aggregator
On Wednesday
Is Hacker News news
That said, you do notice it when the currency crashes.
It's been discussed several times on HN[2]. I had periods I go through without news. It's been harder to do that lately.
[1]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews
[2]: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=i+hate+the+news
Also - and maybe I'm naive for this - I don't really need news to inform my political opinion because the current state of affairs is so far from my ideal world. Like no matter what could reasonably occur in the news, I still know who I'm voting for on polling day.
I realised that if I exclusively read business news I can avoid a good amount of the fluff and sensationalism. I made a browser extension which pushes the headlines from Bloomberg, Financial times Euronews Business and a few others on to my new tab from their RSS, and it's more than enough to give me a nugget of what's going on in the world without being overloaded. 1 item per new tab.
End result is: I don't read the news, but I still know what's going on without the need for Social Media's hot take.
Same when it comes to staying on top of tech news -- almost everything is a flash in the pan. I used to bookmark cool new products, never revisit them, and then a year later realise half of the links are now dead.
One thing I realised though is I still need to mindlessly browse an endless feed every once in a while for some downtime. One way or another I'll want to fill that time with something, so it's a question of being mindful what goes in it. So my drugs of choice are Hacker News, and carefully curated YouTube subscriptions.
1) a large number of people are dissatisfied with the current product
2) but aren’t willing to pay for an alternative which solves the problem in the ideal way (for them)
There have been dozens of attempts at weekly news summary newsletters, minimal news sites, etc. over the years. None ever seem to go anywhere because no one wants to pay for something they are deliberately deciding has little value.
It makes me think of budget airlines: constantly critiqued for being uncomfortable and using dark patterns to get every last dollar - yet people consistently just book the cheapest flight possible.
They used to show news channels.
He said clients would come in all stressed out. So they changed to a home improvement channel.
I really dislike the notion that events outside of your country are somehow not important.
The web has destroyed that business model, because the news industry now controls far less advertising space, so there is no longer enough advertising revenue to support quality journalism. The broadsheets are in real financial trouble, and most have turned to tabloid-style articles (albeit ones that promote more sophisticated worldviews) in order to pull in those social-media clicks.
I find myself increasingly interested in publications like The Economist and The Financial Times, simply because their readerships have financial interest in actually knowing what's going on in the world, and so they can charge a subscription price that supports quality journalism.
I've posted the same message so many time I could get banned but if you live in the UK then Private Eye is what you want here. It's every fortnight, very funny and a bastion of genuine journalism (see the Paul Foot Award they give out each year)
In particular LLM summaries are great for this. Introduces risk of hallucinations which is not awesome, but it does tend to neutralise the rage bait tone and tricks that are pervasive these days. Tradeoff but one that has been working for me
If you go on reddit, unless you've curated your subreddits and never touch /all or /popular, it's very heavy with 'news'. The Google app, a left-swipe by default on your Android phone is all 'news'. Twxtter/Bluesky/etc. are full of news. Avoiding news entirely is almost impossible on today's internet.
I have had success with this approach too, but key to all this is being careful about where you go online to minimise exposure. These days I don't use any 'social media' platforms, but I do visit HN and BBC news (both of which are of higher quality than most places, and crucially only have a few stories on a typical day - the rate of new content is low). This way I stay informed without falling down rabbit holes about every twist and turn of every (mostly awful/depressing) thing happening in the World.
And these days, you're misinformed with a good dose of dramatic Hans-Zimmer-like soundtrack and visuals designed to evoke fear and outrage.