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.
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.
You're not wrong that politics is enormously complex, but I think you are wrong that the average person is able to pick a side perhaps only because they lack analytical depth or consideration. Rather, it may be that most people are more comfortable than you are at making judgments in these fraught, ambiguous scenarios, and that this is not at all a bad thing.
Most art, politics, and even sports (physical qualities being considered equal) are all areas that can't really be solved by a complete analysis because, as you say, there are too many variables. Nonetheless, some people are much better at these things than others due to qualities that are hard to describe exactly. This ability to make good split second decisions without a complete analytical understanding of the problem or even the current state is one of those qualities.
I don't think this ability is superficial, or without value. Rather, it just goes to show how different people are from one another. So I would encourage you not to suggest to others who do have strong political views that their views are unfounded just because they are strong and the domain is complex.
I totally agree with you on the complexity of the issues. The news won't help much with that. News are mostly about sentiment.
I don't want to hear all those people trumpeting their simple "truths" on all news channels ever more aggressively.
But I fear if I stop listening to those sentiments I could miss the moment when it's time for me to leave or warn others.
I have often wondered how my ancestors could have missed what was going on and end up in a nazi death camp.
Did they not get the news? Did they not believe it? Did it all sound too similar to what had come before until it was too late? Was it too complex to predict?
I don't know, but I can't take my eyes off the ball now even though my eyes hurt.
I stopped watching the news for similar reasons. I got tired of the polarization, spin, editorializing, and vilification. I got tired of politics too, since most people simply play team-sports, and couldn't care less what the facts are.
Having said that, I can speak to your comment on global warming. People reject it because:
1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.
2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen.
3. In 2005, climate scientists predicted that by 2010, global warming would cause oceans to rise to the point that populations would be decimated, and we would have 50 million "climate refugees" fleeing these flooded areas of the globe. Didn't happen.
4. NASA, CRU, NOAA, and other government and scientific organizations have been caught falsifying data.
5. There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas.
Sure, if you only look at scientific climate data, it may look like climate change is an issue. However, if you look at government behavior, scientific scandals, evidences of falsified data, historical climate facts, and even current temperatures, there is more than enough evidence to cast a serious doubt on the accuracy and even legitimacy of climate change data, don't you think?
> I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme depth to figure out "the truth"
That is because the average person believes they are playing a zero-sum game, in which competition is inescapable
And because each side has a set of values that must be protected, anything that threatens those values needs to be defeated.
Whether the thing threatening the values has an underlying "truth" that matches up with the surface is less relevant.
* EDIT - also, enlightenment-rationalism is a liberal value; just present people the facts, they will reason to the right conclusion (science!)... false — people don't think so literally about things (they think metaphorically); they think inside a frame shaped by the value framework.
"Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out."
I feel exactly the same way.
I can't tell if this is an introvert trait, or whether it arises from the kind of problem your mind is attuned to solving (perhaps both).
Reading social news makes me pessimistic for the future, and feel more withdrawn from the world. Reading about mathematics or science excites me, makes me more optimistic for the future, and makes me want to engage with as much as possible.
> and I find that ruminating over news or politics drains my energy.
To many people it's entertainment. Just like watching football or any sport. Political drama is interesting and lends itself to speculation and monday morning quarterbacking and plenty of drama and personalities.
> Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out.
I think your exhaustion comes from the moral labeling always connected to social issues. Strip out the morality and social issues really are just math and science.
You don't have to make up all your opinions from scratch. Pick a person who you trust and who you think shares your values. For me, that could be President Obama. Whatever position Obama has on a given issue, I will find that position reasonable virtually 10 out of 10 times. If I happen to be expert in some issue, I might presume to disagree. Outsourcing the problem to someone who does think about policy all day is a big time saver.
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.
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.
Yes. There _is_ a duty to be informed, but it's not important how. You don't need twitter or cable news--you may be better informed without both, honestly.
And there's definitely a value is slowing down and avoiding the bottomless pit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Dropping cable and not watching CNN, Fox, or what ever your preference would be hardly counts as 'turning ostrich'. That would imply that cable news actually had some value beyond entertainment. Which, I think can be argued it hasn't. And in fact staying 'educated on what's going on' should probably be achieved some other ways and medias - especially if being 'educated' is the keyword here.
> Staying educated on what's going on feels very important to me
When people randomly talk about random news that they don't even remember the next day or some celebrity news that have no impact on him/her whatsoever, I'd feel that the person isn't really focused on his/her life.
I've ditched TV for 10 years but do read headlines on national news site daily at least to catch what's going on generally but otherwise spending time for myself that's supposed to matter more than "following" the world which is very unproductive.
I stopped watching the MSM news propaganda years ago along with websites that don't allow direct comments to the stories. I would say the MSM is the worst way to stay educated.
I find that some of the alternative sites where everyone beats themselves over the topic with opposing views far better method to dissect the truth (middle-ground) than from a MSM news source.
Also helps that I don't constraint my thinking and views by boxing myself into one political ideology over another. I also don't do social media news and couldn't be happier.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] Xcelerate|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] arglebarnacle|9 years ago|reply
Most art, politics, and even sports (physical qualities being considered equal) are all areas that can't really be solved by a complete analysis because, as you say, there are too many variables. Nonetheless, some people are much better at these things than others due to qualities that are hard to describe exactly. This ability to make good split second decisions without a complete analytical understanding of the problem or even the current state is one of those qualities.
I don't think this ability is superficial, or without value. Rather, it just goes to show how different people are from one another. So I would encourage you not to suggest to others who do have strong political views that their views are unfounded just because they are strong and the domain is complex.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|9 years ago|reply
I don't want to hear all those people trumpeting their simple "truths" on all news channels ever more aggressively.
But I fear if I stop listening to those sentiments I could miss the moment when it's time for me to leave or warn others.
I have often wondered how my ancestors could have missed what was going on and end up in a nazi death camp.
Did they not get the news? Did they not believe it? Did it all sound too similar to what had come before until it was too late? Was it too complex to predict?
I don't know, but I can't take my eyes off the ball now even though my eyes hurt.
[+] [-] innocentoldguy|9 years ago|reply
Having said that, I can speak to your comment on global warming. People reject it because:
1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.
2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen.
3. In 2005, climate scientists predicted that by 2010, global warming would cause oceans to rise to the point that populations would be decimated, and we would have 50 million "climate refugees" fleeing these flooded areas of the globe. Didn't happen.
4. NASA, CRU, NOAA, and other government and scientific organizations have been caught falsifying data.
5. There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas.
Sure, if you only look at scientific climate data, it may look like climate change is an issue. However, if you look at government behavior, scientific scandals, evidences of falsified data, historical climate facts, and even current temperatures, there is more than enough evidence to cast a serious doubt on the accuracy and even legitimacy of climate change data, don't you think?
[+] [-] platz|9 years ago|reply
That is because the average person believes they are playing a zero-sum game, in which competition is inescapable
And because each side has a set of values that must be protected, anything that threatens those values needs to be defeated.
Whether the thing threatening the values has an underlying "truth" that matches up with the surface is less relevant.
* EDIT - also, enlightenment-rationalism is a liberal value; just present people the facts, they will reason to the right conclusion (science!)... false — people don't think so literally about things (they think metaphorically); they think inside a frame shaped by the value framework.
[+] [-] yaseer|9 years ago|reply
I feel exactly the same way.
I can't tell if this is an introvert trait, or whether it arises from the kind of problem your mind is attuned to solving (perhaps both).
Reading social news makes me pessimistic for the future, and feel more withdrawn from the world. Reading about mathematics or science excites me, makes me more optimistic for the future, and makes me want to engage with as much as possible.
[+] [-] gist|9 years ago|reply
To many people it's entertainment. Just like watching football or any sport. Political drama is interesting and lends itself to speculation and monday morning quarterbacking and plenty of drama and personalities.
[+] [-] tshadley|9 years ago|reply
I think your exhaustion comes from the moral labeling always connected to social issues. Strip out the morality and social issues really are just math and science.
[+] [-] mtdewcmu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway91111|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] andreygrehov|9 years ago|reply
I do read a lot of Hacker News, paper(!) books and a little bit of reddit.
[+] [-] untog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cacti|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jasonthevillain|9 years ago|reply
And there's definitely a value is slowing down and avoiding the bottomless pit.
[+] [-] guelo|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] simonw|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rixrax|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] h1d|9 years ago|reply
When people randomly talk about random news that they don't even remember the next day or some celebrity news that have no impact on him/her whatsoever, I'd feel that the person isn't really focused on his/her life.
I've ditched TV for 10 years but do read headlines on national news site daily at least to catch what's going on generally but otherwise spending time for myself that's supposed to matter more than "following" the world which is very unproductive.
[+] [-] StavrosK|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steelbird|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crapolasplatter|9 years ago|reply
I find that some of the alternative sites where everyone beats themselves over the topic with opposing views far better method to dissect the truth (middle-ground) than from a MSM news source.
Also helps that I don't constraint my thinking and views by boxing myself into one political ideology over another. I also don't do social media news and couldn't be happier.
[+] [-] maxander|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] bane|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
More importantly: the news didn't consume me like it swallowed some of my friends
[+] [-] emodendroket|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] z5h|9 years ago|reply
The problem is that most news business models compete for attention via:
There aren't as many entities who simply try to deliver balanced news and perspectives. Try reading the Economist, apnews.com, wikinews.org.[+] [-] Esau|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] insickness|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acchow|9 years ago|reply
I don't have data to prove it, but it seems intuitive that this results in them taking less real action?
[+] [-] webwanderings|9 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] emodendroket|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wenderen|9 years ago|reply
http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...
http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...
[+] [-] paulpauper|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
Can't be said better.
[+] [-] discombobulate|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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|9 years ago|reply
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.