I found that when I let mainstream news go and tried to stay informed via social media, blogs, and Reddit, I felt informed.
Then I got a Kindle and tried a mainstream newspaper subscription.
I quickly noticed that the newspaper often disagreed with what I'd "learn" from Reddit and blogs, and upon further investigation the newspaper was almost always correct. Apparently the Reddit circle jerk is not as good at news as professional journalists.
Trapwire: funded by rich people who don't want to get noticed
Flame: software showing off the usa's capability for cryptovirology and basically saying our most public stuff beats your best secret shit
There is bad mainstream news as well as online. But i would agree that near it's peak professional journalism (eg the economist, democracy now, new scientist) is generally better. But are these, or increasingly any serious newspapers 'mainstream'? US TV news is almost universally tripe.
I recently had the opposite revelation: Most social sites are too much of a distraction, feeding us with pointless weakly-written opinions and things that have zero effect in my life. Their signal to noise ratio is definitely lower, and is not compensated by the higher amount of info they pile up.
Humans are by nature curious about what's happening, and no matter how much one bulks up at the local gym, they are probably not quenching their thirst in that way.
> I recently had the opposite revelation: Most social sites are too much of a distraction, feeding us with pointless weakly-written opinions and things that have zero effect in my life.
I don't think TFA is suggesting that you replace mainstream news with social news - just that you should cut mainstream news out of your information diet.
> Humans are by nature curious about what's happening, and no matter how much one bulks up at the local gym, they are probably not quenching their thirst in that way.
Humans are "by nature" a lot of things, many of which we've come to fight quite successfully. There's no reason why this would be any different.
You're presenting a false dichotomy: Joel never said "switch to social sites"; in fact, he suggested we all go out and do things.
If you feel like you need to "quench your thirst" for current news, maybe traditional outlets work better for you than social media. Personally, I agree with Joel; most of us in the modern world are gluttons for information, and consume more than we even want, let alone what we need.
Yes, I realize the irony of posting this to a social news site.
One of the problem that the OP blog points out is that mainstream news dish out bad news that encourage an exaggerated and wraped fearful worldview. For example, when a mass murder incident happens, people talk a lot about gun violence and how it's gripping the country and we should do something about it. Of course, they forgot that 40K people die in car accidents, 600K more die of heart disease and about 500K more die of cancer each year. A mass murderer is essentially an amateur when they are compared to inanimate or impersonal killers like cells going out of control or high blood pressure.
People aren't going to stop talking about these incidents and they aren't going to stop being terribly uninformed with just this blog post. What they need is some sort of media campaign to inform them of the real risk of dying and what they really need to fear.
In essence, fear inoculation is basically protection against memes that promote irrational fear of certain things like terrorist incidents and airplane crash.
You are aware that gun deaths are on course to exceed auto deaths this year? While the gov. has spent billions over decades to prevent auto deaths, cancer deaths, etc., effectively $0 have been spent to study and prevent gun deaths; how is it irrational to be concerned about that?
go ahead, tune out the news. please stop voting though, democracy relies on the informed voter. and good luck in the capitalist economy, that one relies on information as well.
as this is hn, let's focus on the founder's perspective. if you have no clue about what's going on in the world, how can you compete within it? if you have no clue about your target group's current situation? pick anything, like healthcare - great opportunities, but good luck not staying informed.
back to the general reason why this terrible advice:
being ignorant makes you a terrible citizen. it is already bad in the US, if you're only watching tv news you're already clueless about the world. whenever i am in the us i am amazed about the lack of true world news - CNN International is a very different channel than CNN.
as a voter it is your frickin responsibility to stay informed. your worldview baffles me.
Baffled because you think that "the news" == keeping informed. The two have little to do with each other. If you want to learn something, turn off the idiot box and pick up a book.
"democracy relies on the informed voter"
yeah, get informed by mainstream media - totally does wonders to democracy. did work hefty fine in itally where the former head of state owned a large slice of tv/newspaper. by coincidence he was voted on and on and on. same for some african countries. democracy export country no1 - USA - has just exchanged the single person who controls the media with a network of controllers. so dumb voters will not notice that they are manipulated. "they said it twice on different tv channels, so it must be true". don't know if the US got that from the Germans or the other way around cause they got the same system.
And even that system could be applied to HN, too. Just have 10 friends submit, upvote and comment on the latest and greatest technology/company. Readers that just get themselves informed through HN must think that gazillions of people now love and use this technology.
Long story short: Do not just consume news. Always ask why you should believe what you just read and who will benefit from you believing that. Now knowing that, ask yourself: What is your benefit from that news again?
He stopped reading "mainstream news," not all news. Whether you solely read newspapers or Hacker News, you're getting an insignificant and unrepresentative sample of "what's going on in the world." Personally, I think that building one's own sampling technique (for example, by reading a variety of blogs or sites like this) can deliver a much more accurate picture of the world than your average newspaper.
Here is the kernel of good advice in this post: consuming news can be addicting, can create a negative worldview, and might not provide the informational content you think it may.
However, the author then makes a series of suggestions for all the things you should be doing with your time, such as: (a) playing videogames; (b) mentoring other startup founders; (c) building your own startup; (d) writing on your blog; (e) going to the gym.
All of these suggestions for what you should be doing with your time are... surprise, surprise... things that the author does with his time, instead of reading the news.
The reflection I got out of this post was perhaps the opposite of intended: I need to stop reading HN!
I agree with this, because it's something I've done for a while, but for different reasons (primarily to do with mental health).
But as an addendum to that it's also important to know and accept that, as a result, you are more ignorant. This isn't a bad thing, for as long as you know that you're willingly less informed. As stated, this is the opportunity cost for pursuing things more important to you.
As an aside, I'd like to recommend Flat Earth News[0] to anyone who wants a journalist's insight into how the news isn't always truthful.
As another one, I saw a comment saying Americans are how they are because they don't watch the news. I disagree. Watching the news does not make you culturally sensitive.
Did you stop absorbing news altogether or you just stopped looking at mainstream news? What is your definition of mainstream news?
I think it is reasonable to be an observer of your local news - the news which affects your immediate environment - otherwise rest of the long distance news is irrelevant so I am in agreement.
I'll just share my news diet and what I think of each of them. I take all news with a grain of salt and try to mix it up. I think it's a mistake to just give up news altogether though.
HN: interesting technical pieces occasionally and good coverage of tech industry but is often an echo chamber (granted one I agree with) and features a lot of fluff pieces written by bloggers lacking original thought and research skills
WSJ: good coverage of business but features a world-view that's almost completely obsessed with money and right-wing ideology, yet the pieces are still thoughtful and original
NYTimes: I occasionally read to find out about world events since they have great breadth and coverage
Local papers: generally a crap-hole of AP content and crime reports but is useful for sports and city council/schools coverage
Slashdot: for teh lulz. but these people share my outrage at government intrusion in our lives so I like reading up
Facebook: I have good friends who link to good stories in publications I would otherwise never read
NPR/public radio: insightful and original story ideas, but they're very much into intellectual naval gazing
AM conservative radio: they're entertaining, and I enjoy hearing their take on recent events which often have a lot of valid points. at least they wear their bias on their sleeves even if it gets in the way of legitimate reporting/analysis
Local TV news: completely pointless and depressing recap of local crime and fluff pieces. useful in the event of local severe weather. decent sports interviews but mostly resorts to flimsy soundbites
Daily Show: you can always count on Jon to call people out on their BS and point out absurdities
Google News: extremely useful for getting up to speed on what's happening but is often trapped in a monotonous cycle of iPhone news, 'radical' health discoveries which are overblown, violence in foreign countries, and gaffe-centric political reporting
Twitter: I follow over a 1000 people so it's like sifting through a pile of periodicals in the bathroom which sometimes turns up some good finds but is mostly just perfume ads
This is terrible advice and not something I think people should be recommending to others. I love Joel's posts enough to subscribe to the rss feed (which I have never done for any site ever) but this post is something I strongly disagree with for many good reasons.
The idea he puts forth is incredibly naive and has not been taken to its natural conclusion. He talks about the negative side of keeping up with the news while ignoring the many positives.
He puts forth a simple solution to a complex problem. The solution he comes up with is naive and extreme. The problem seems to be that news being biased and overwhelmingly negative puts a damper on your mood. It can also harm productivity when becoming too engrossed in it and when the news stirs up strong emotions. His point is valid but his solution is extreme.
I think it's this kind of attitude that is making Americans stupid when it comes to civics. People in this country (the US) have no clue what's going on in the world or domestically because they either don't follow the news at all or because all they can process at any given moment is some asinine sound bite that barely comes close to touching on the substance of an issue.
Following news isn't harming anyone's mental well being. Not following the news is what causes harm. We pay a price for ignorance and the bill is about due. Following the news keeps you informed, it expands your world beyond the narrow little bubble most people live in, and it makes you an informed citizen which then gives you the tools to make smart decisions and, if you're an entrepreneur especially, gives you insight into where your next opportunity may come from.
While Joel's points about the detrimental effect the news can have and the problems with the media itself are pretty valid, tuning out is the wrong solution. The real solution is to be aware that what you see and hear is often biased. Being aware of the business side of the news will make you a better, more informed consumer of news thus making any news you consume more valuable and often actionable.
Now, if watching the news and reading mainstream news outlets creates anxiety for you then you probably have to brush up on your skills as a consumer of news. You don't need to watch 8hours of CNN or read the newspaper cover to cover to be informed. Consuming mainstream news reasonably shouldnt be detrimental in any way to you.
Furthermore, the fact that he singles out "mainstream" news makes me worry. It implies that news sources outside of the mainstream are somehow better or more true. This is not the case. Many of these news sources outside the mainstream like the brag about how they are the only ones with the balls to report the "truth". Whenever anyone appoints themselves the authority on truth it's time to be skeptical. Everyone has an agenda and while mainstream news may have some major problems with bias and conflicts of interest, it doesn't mean they are completely without any credibility news outside the mainstream can be just as bad if not worse than mainstream news. These organizations often push a very biased agenda or peddle ridiculous conspiracy theories while claiming to be sources of truth. Many times both the conspiracy theories and extreme bias go together in a news outlet beyond the mainstream in an effort to push some agenda. I used to be a believer in "truth" and conspiracy theories (often being unable to tell the difference). Now I understand that truth is not always so clear cut. There are degrees of truth.
The best thing to do is not to ignore mainstream news but embrace it. Embrace it with a healthy amount of skepticism and logic. It will expose you to new ideas and keep you up on what's going on in the world. So long as you consume it smartly you won't have a problem.
This whole post seems to be born out of a non-problem. I mean it's a problem but a problem born out of going to extremes. I happen to be keeping up with the news and in particular the US presidential election. It sometimes makes me angry but not to the point of disrupting my life in any way at all. It doesn't keep me from being productive. I listen to the radio as I drive to the train and sometimes read a paper on the train itself. Thoughts of the news don't distract me at work or socially. And when I see or hear nonsense I can tell its nonsense and go on with my day.
This post is a recipe for ignorance. If you plan to live a monastic life or a certain lifestyle that allows you to get away with being uninformed then this is good advice. But for the vast majority of us living modern lives trying to get by in this world, it's a shortcut to happiness that has a price.
"Not following the news is what causes harm." - I totally agree with Joel here, and disagree with you. I've spent the last 5 years pretty much a news junkie. I spent 2-3 hours a day, equally split between the NYT, WSJ, Economist, and weekends spent listening to NPR.
What I've realized is that, in general, I'm not better informed about the world, but I am more indoctrinated into the Left Wing (NYT), Right Wing (WSJ) and Intellectual-conservative-laissez-faire-right (Economist) world views.
I guess for a more complete picture of the opposing world view philosophies, I could add BBC, al jazeera and CSMonitor to my mix - but these outlets don't inform, they promote their world views and, more importantly, pander to the desires of their audience. Suggesting the news is a way of getting unbiased knowledge of the world is like saying the Supreme Court of the United States makes judgements based on law.
You want to get an unbiased view of the world? Go out, and see it with your own two eyes, smell it with your nose, touch it with your hands.
I don't believe, after spending the last years comparing and contrasting the WSJs/NYTs takes on stories (often comedic in their different perspectives) that I'm any better informed about the world than if I had just watched the Daily Show, or even, god forbid, tuned into CNN/Fox News.
The one exception, that I've found, is Nate Silver's column - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/. I'm not sure what worldview he is promoting, other than "Math is cool" - and I do tend to trust it with regards to what's happening in term of Polling data regarding the US election.
Other than that, though, I appreciated and agree with pretty much everything Joel wrote in his post.
Why is tuning out the wrong solution? Almost everyone can "get away with being uninformed," because current events have no bearing on most people's lives most of the time. I can name one hundred things that I could learn in twenty minutes which would be more useful to me than reading the morning paper.
If something is actually interesting, then news sources which I have meticulously populated with interesting things -- my RSS feed and my friends -- will help find it. A politician giving another speech is not interesting. Another instance of a crime is not interesting. An editorial by a non-expert on something complicated is not interesting.
We pay a price for ignorance and the bill is about due...for the vast majority of us living modern lives trying to get by in this world, it's a shortcut to happiness that has a price.
This article comes at a very opportune moment for me, as I've been reading "Bowling Alone" over the past weeks. The book chronicles the many facets of decline in civic participation in the US (voting, church attendance, donation to charity, engagement with local schools, running for local office, etc.) and explains some of the consequences of the decline.
HN readers, as a whole, are very focused on science, technology, and startup businesses; this focus produces incredible innovation and wealth, but at a very real cost to communities, family life, and other "olive trees" that make life worth living.
Not a recipe for ignorance but good advice. Nassim Nicholas Taleb gave almost identical advice years ago:
"Don’t read newspapers for the news (just for the gossip and, of course, profiles of authors). The best filter to know if the news matters is if you hear it in cafes, restaurants... or (again) parties." and
"If something is going on, I hear about it. I like to talk to people, I socialise. Television is a waste of time. Human contact is what matters."
Taleb is right: if it's important you'll hear about it from a friend or acquaintance.
I agree with this. In order to be a citizen of a democracy, you need to be informed. Most things require research and listening to different points of view. They can't just be reasoned out. They require paying attention. Most of what you hear in mainstream or most any news will be noise, but there are bits in the stream that you need to sift out in order to participate in the government of your society.
Of course, democracies around the world are flawed, and being informed about the world will not necessarily lead to change, but being uninformed about the world will necessarily lead to change for the worse. Being a citizen of a democracy is about more than voting every few years. It's a full-time responsibility, and if you just take yourself out of it, you lose it.
The issue is that news in its raw form lack context. You just read the event and only have the news you immediately read before it for context. Most information is better understood from a larger window. Mainstream news does not bother to educate you in those terms. That is why it isn't informative to just read the daily paper is have a very myopic understanding of the world.
This also means we are likely better off reading longer, meatier articles that provide context for what is happening. They are the ones that explain why we have the present problems and why all actors are behaving as they are.
Critical thinking is still required for this kind of information, but this information isn't really news. It's a sort of longform journalism that is a bit removed. But it is informative and doesn't leave the reader ignorance to current events.
Why do you think that being informed about "what is going on in the world" will translate into smart decision, which will themselves translate into changing the world?
(also, should we want to change the world? it's it better on its own??)
More so, do you think that what is short in the news are the most important problems, the real priorities?
It seems highly doubtful at best. Knowing may be half the battle, but if you can't action that knowledge it's useless.
Not following the news is what causes harm. We pay a price for ignorance and the bill is about due.
Following the biased and agendized mainstream news machine is even worse. If you only hear one side ever every story, your sense of reality and judgment will be warped (this is brainwashing). You will be out of touch with reality more so than if you did not follow the news at all because you will be biased based on what you have always heard.
"Not only is watching news going to put an out of proportion amount of negative thoughts in your mind, which will affect what you can achieve, it is also valuable time where there are many amazing and meaningful things you could be doing"
Well let's add to this then. What about time wasted sitting in synagogue or church saying the same prayers over and over again? To me that's even a bigger waste of time. What if people got together and actually learned something during that time (if together) or on their own. To me at least the sermons were always interesting (ymmv of course) but they were mainly filed under "entertainment" value.
That said there is a value to main stream news depending on what your business or product is. It is important to have the beat on what others are watching and thinking to me it does have value. Some people say "who cares what the WSJ or NYT thinks"? But the truth is others care and carry that info out to people and it's a good idea to know what others are going to believe and think. That doesn't mean that you have to watch mainstream everyday, but I wouldn't go as far as saying the right approach is to stop watching TV totally as Joel says he has done. Or reading mainstream news.
The more mainstream news is, the easier it will reach you, whatever you do, whether you spend time looking for it or not. That's kind of obvious, in hindsight, that's why it's called mainstream. Consequently, watching and reading news is useless, since you will always find someone eager to talk to you about the important stuff, and you can always double check the facts afterwards.
Reading already curated sources of info, preferably quite a few of them, coming from varied backgrounds, and doing a more focused research afterwards if it seems worth it, beats mainstream news most of the time.
And by curated, I mean low volume sources. My rule of thumb is that if an rss feed (which is where most of my news comes from) gets more than four or five updates a week, it's probably not worth it (or I subscribed to it because it's a type of noise that I like, but it's still noise).
I feel the same way about the information that we are bombarded with on a daily basis. He is right, in the sense that much of it is very negative, though I also feel some of it is information that everyone should know. With that in mind, I would like to know where everyone goes for their information. It seems that alot of the information and news that everyone should know, be it positive or negative, is very difficult to find. This raises the question, how do we get this information into the mainstream media? The biggest problem for me is the lack of control, users have over the information that they are presented with. Even Google is able to show us the content they want us to see, or think we want to see. I think that this control is really destroying our ability to change as personalities in the online and offline world.
I stopped following the TV news years ago and almost never browse news websites. I use my social feeds (Twitter, HN, Facebook) and the Reddit frontpage as a high-pass filter for what news events I might care about digging more into. This cuts out almost all "X is bad for you!" scaremongering and celebrity nonsense (which I have almost a separate filter for mentally). When something like the recent anti-Islam movie fiasco happens I hear about it and dig in more. It's very freeing not to have to hear distorted stories about how everything's going to hell.
Right now the local mayoral election has made me pay more attention to the local news and I almost always regret that additional noise, even though the local organization I use (The Voice of San Diego) is about as good at journalism as I've seen.
As I get older, I've grown to understand that you can't ignore news and media completely, you just need to filter it to the point that you can make it useful for your needs. Like any other media, 99.99 percent of news is crap. Between smart phone apps and RSS feeds I can limit my "daily consumption" to what I want and need with a modest amount of ads and fluff taking up my time. But periodically I hit the browser or the library and get caught up on subjects that may require deeper knowledge. The best source of links to a broad spectrum of media I have found is here:
http://www.insideautomotive.com/sources.htm
A year or two ago I read Tim Ferriss' The 4-Hour Work Week. Most of the advice in the book did not pertain to me, but one tidbit of knowledge that I gain is that you can save time by simply ignoring the news. Most of us are not in the position to change anything, and much of the news does not pertain directly to us. The benefit from being informed often not great than the cost of losing the time needed to read/watch the news.
[+] [-] tzs|13 years ago|reply
Then I got a Kindle and tried a mainstream newspaper subscription.
I quickly noticed that the newspaper often disagreed with what I'd "learn" from Reddit and blogs, and upon further investigation the newspaper was almost always correct. Apparently the Reddit circle jerk is not as good at news as professional journalists.
[+] [-] batgaijin|13 years ago|reply
Trapwire: funded by rich people who don't want to get noticed Flame: software showing off the usa's capability for cryptovirology and basically saying our most public stuff beats your best secret shit
[+] [-] polshaw|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intellegacy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zerostar07|13 years ago|reply
Humans are by nature curious about what's happening, and no matter how much one bulks up at the local gym, they are probably not quenching their thirst in that way.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
I don't think TFA is suggesting that you replace mainstream news with social news - just that you should cut mainstream news out of your information diet.
> Humans are by nature curious about what's happening, and no matter how much one bulks up at the local gym, they are probably not quenching their thirst in that way.
Humans are "by nature" a lot of things, many of which we've come to fight quite successfully. There's no reason why this would be any different.
[+] [-] huggah|13 years ago|reply
If you feel like you need to "quench your thirst" for current news, maybe traditional outlets work better for you than social media. Personally, I agree with Joel; most of us in the modern world are gluttons for information, and consume more than we even want, let alone what we need.
Yes, I realize the irony of posting this to a social news site.
[+] [-] diego|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiba|13 years ago|reply
People aren't going to stop talking about these incidents and they aren't going to stop being terribly uninformed with just this blog post. What they need is some sort of media campaign to inform them of the real risk of dying and what they really need to fear.
This is what I called "fear inoculation", a term I coined at http://kibabase.com/articles/notes-and-thoughts#fear-inocula...
In essence, fear inoculation is basically protection against memes that promote irrational fear of certain things like terrorist incidents and airplane crash.
[+] [-] jberryman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pinaceae|13 years ago|reply
go ahead, tune out the news. please stop voting though, democracy relies on the informed voter. and good luck in the capitalist economy, that one relies on information as well.
as this is hn, let's focus on the founder's perspective. if you have no clue about what's going on in the world, how can you compete within it? if you have no clue about your target group's current situation? pick anything, like healthcare - great opportunities, but good luck not staying informed.
back to the general reason why this terrible advice: being ignorant makes you a terrible citizen. it is already bad in the US, if you're only watching tv news you're already clueless about the world. whenever i am in the us i am amazed about the lack of true world news - CNN International is a very different channel than CNN.
as a voter it is your frickin responsibility to stay informed. your worldview baffles me.
[+] [-] mixmastamyk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stripe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enoch_r|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelmonkey|13 years ago|reply
However, the author then makes a series of suggestions for all the things you should be doing with your time, such as: (a) playing videogames; (b) mentoring other startup founders; (c) building your own startup; (d) writing on your blog; (e) going to the gym.
All of these suggestions for what you should be doing with your time are... surprise, surprise... things that the author does with his time, instead of reading the news.
The reflection I got out of this post was perhaps the opposite of intended: I need to stop reading HN!
[+] [-] aggronn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tbeseda|13 years ago|reply
*News being defined as important information about important events. (Not TMZ, GMA, opinion columns/shows, etc.)
[+] [-] swombat|13 years ago|reply
In Switzerland, the best source of info is usually the documentation that comes with the voting papers. News is just noise and opinion.
[+] [-] graeme|13 years ago|reply
If something is important, people mention it.
[+] [-] FuzzyDunlop|13 years ago|reply
But as an addendum to that it's also important to know and accept that, as a result, you are more ignorant. This isn't a bad thing, for as long as you know that you're willingly less informed. As stated, this is the opportunity cost for pursuing things more important to you.
As an aside, I'd like to recommend Flat Earth News[0] to anyone who wants a journalist's insight into how the news isn't always truthful.
As another one, I saw a comment saying Americans are how they are because they don't watch the news. I disagree. Watching the news does not make you culturally sensitive.
[0] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distor...
[+] [-] webwanderings|13 years ago|reply
I think it is reasonable to be an observer of your local news - the news which affects your immediate environment - otherwise rest of the long distance news is irrelevant so I am in agreement.
[+] [-] alinajaf|13 years ago|reply
* Glance Newspaper headlines on the metro or at newsstands.
* Every quarter or so, pick up a copies of The Economist and New Scientist.
* Hit wikipedia for an intro to issues/subjects that I find interesting.
* Track down books/papers on anything that I want to delve deeper into.
[+] [-] logn|13 years ago|reply
HN: interesting technical pieces occasionally and good coverage of tech industry but is often an echo chamber (granted one I agree with) and features a lot of fluff pieces written by bloggers lacking original thought and research skills
WSJ: good coverage of business but features a world-view that's almost completely obsessed with money and right-wing ideology, yet the pieces are still thoughtful and original
NYTimes: I occasionally read to find out about world events since they have great breadth and coverage
Local papers: generally a crap-hole of AP content and crime reports but is useful for sports and city council/schools coverage
Slashdot: for teh lulz. but these people share my outrage at government intrusion in our lives so I like reading up
Facebook: I have good friends who link to good stories in publications I would otherwise never read
NPR/public radio: insightful and original story ideas, but they're very much into intellectual naval gazing
AM conservative radio: they're entertaining, and I enjoy hearing their take on recent events which often have a lot of valid points. at least they wear their bias on their sleeves even if it gets in the way of legitimate reporting/analysis
Local TV news: completely pointless and depressing recap of local crime and fluff pieces. useful in the event of local severe weather. decent sports interviews but mostly resorts to flimsy soundbites
Daily Show: you can always count on Jon to call people out on their BS and point out absurdities
Google News: extremely useful for getting up to speed on what's happening but is often trapped in a monotonous cycle of iPhone news, 'radical' health discoveries which are overblown, violence in foreign countries, and gaffe-centric political reporting
Twitter: I follow over a 1000 people so it's like sifting through a pile of periodicals in the bathroom which sometimes turns up some good finds but is mostly just perfume ads
[+] [-] bpatrianakos|13 years ago|reply
The idea he puts forth is incredibly naive and has not been taken to its natural conclusion. He talks about the negative side of keeping up with the news while ignoring the many positives.
He puts forth a simple solution to a complex problem. The solution he comes up with is naive and extreme. The problem seems to be that news being biased and overwhelmingly negative puts a damper on your mood. It can also harm productivity when becoming too engrossed in it and when the news stirs up strong emotions. His point is valid but his solution is extreme.
I think it's this kind of attitude that is making Americans stupid when it comes to civics. People in this country (the US) have no clue what's going on in the world or domestically because they either don't follow the news at all or because all they can process at any given moment is some asinine sound bite that barely comes close to touching on the substance of an issue.
Following news isn't harming anyone's mental well being. Not following the news is what causes harm. We pay a price for ignorance and the bill is about due. Following the news keeps you informed, it expands your world beyond the narrow little bubble most people live in, and it makes you an informed citizen which then gives you the tools to make smart decisions and, if you're an entrepreneur especially, gives you insight into where your next opportunity may come from.
While Joel's points about the detrimental effect the news can have and the problems with the media itself are pretty valid, tuning out is the wrong solution. The real solution is to be aware that what you see and hear is often biased. Being aware of the business side of the news will make you a better, more informed consumer of news thus making any news you consume more valuable and often actionable.
Now, if watching the news and reading mainstream news outlets creates anxiety for you then you probably have to brush up on your skills as a consumer of news. You don't need to watch 8hours of CNN or read the newspaper cover to cover to be informed. Consuming mainstream news reasonably shouldnt be detrimental in any way to you.
Furthermore, the fact that he singles out "mainstream" news makes me worry. It implies that news sources outside of the mainstream are somehow better or more true. This is not the case. Many of these news sources outside the mainstream like the brag about how they are the only ones with the balls to report the "truth". Whenever anyone appoints themselves the authority on truth it's time to be skeptical. Everyone has an agenda and while mainstream news may have some major problems with bias and conflicts of interest, it doesn't mean they are completely without any credibility news outside the mainstream can be just as bad if not worse than mainstream news. These organizations often push a very biased agenda or peddle ridiculous conspiracy theories while claiming to be sources of truth. Many times both the conspiracy theories and extreme bias go together in a news outlet beyond the mainstream in an effort to push some agenda. I used to be a believer in "truth" and conspiracy theories (often being unable to tell the difference). Now I understand that truth is not always so clear cut. There are degrees of truth.
The best thing to do is not to ignore mainstream news but embrace it. Embrace it with a healthy amount of skepticism and logic. It will expose you to new ideas and keep you up on what's going on in the world. So long as you consume it smartly you won't have a problem.
This whole post seems to be born out of a non-problem. I mean it's a problem but a problem born out of going to extremes. I happen to be keeping up with the news and in particular the US presidential election. It sometimes makes me angry but not to the point of disrupting my life in any way at all. It doesn't keep me from being productive. I listen to the radio as I drive to the train and sometimes read a paper on the train itself. Thoughts of the news don't distract me at work or socially. And when I see or hear nonsense I can tell its nonsense and go on with my day.
This post is a recipe for ignorance. If you plan to live a monastic life or a certain lifestyle that allows you to get away with being uninformed then this is good advice. But for the vast majority of us living modern lives trying to get by in this world, it's a shortcut to happiness that has a price.
[+] [-] ghshephard|13 years ago|reply
What I've realized is that, in general, I'm not better informed about the world, but I am more indoctrinated into the Left Wing (NYT), Right Wing (WSJ) and Intellectual-conservative-laissez-faire-right (Economist) world views.
I guess for a more complete picture of the opposing world view philosophies, I could add BBC, al jazeera and CSMonitor to my mix - but these outlets don't inform, they promote their world views and, more importantly, pander to the desires of their audience. Suggesting the news is a way of getting unbiased knowledge of the world is like saying the Supreme Court of the United States makes judgements based on law.
You want to get an unbiased view of the world? Go out, and see it with your own two eyes, smell it with your nose, touch it with your hands.
I don't believe, after spending the last years comparing and contrasting the WSJs/NYTs takes on stories (often comedic in their different perspectives) that I'm any better informed about the world than if I had just watched the Daily Show, or even, god forbid, tuned into CNN/Fox News.
The one exception, that I've found, is Nate Silver's column - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/. I'm not sure what worldview he is promoting, other than "Math is cool" - and I do tend to trust it with regards to what's happening in term of Polling data regarding the US election.
Other than that, though, I appreciated and agree with pretty much everything Joel wrote in his post.
[+] [-] quesera|13 years ago|reply
It just isn't. By and large, it's noise, which you either have time for in your life, or you do not.
I understand your worry about ignorance, and it's valid, but I believe that tuning into the noise makes people stupid.
Ignorance can be resolved much more quickly and on-demand than stupidity can.
[+] [-] mquander|13 years ago|reply
If something is actually interesting, then news sources which I have meticulously populated with interesting things -- my RSS feed and my friends -- will help find it. A politician giving another speech is not interesting. Another instance of a crime is not interesting. An editorial by a non-expert on something complicated is not interesting.
We pay a price for ignorance and the bill is about due...for the vast majority of us living modern lives trying to get by in this world, it's a shortcut to happiness that has a price.
What is the price? I see no price.
[+] [-] eldavido|13 years ago|reply
HN readers, as a whole, are very focused on science, technology, and startup businesses; this focus produces incredible innovation and wealth, but at a very real cost to communities, family life, and other "olive trees" that make life worth living.
[+] [-] giardini|13 years ago|reply
"Don’t read newspapers for the news (just for the gossip and, of course, profiles of authors). The best filter to know if the news matters is if you hear it in cafes, restaurants... or (again) parties." and
"If something is going on, I hear about it. I like to talk to people, I socialise. Television is a waste of time. Human contact is what matters."
Taleb is right: if it's important you'll hear about it from a friend or acquaintance.
[+] [-] gathly|13 years ago|reply
Of course, democracies around the world are flawed, and being informed about the world will not necessarily lead to change, but being uninformed about the world will necessarily lead to change for the worse. Being a citizen of a democracy is about more than voting every few years. It's a full-time responsibility, and if you just take yourself out of it, you lose it.
[+] [-] cf|13 years ago|reply
This also means we are likely better off reading longer, meatier articles that provide context for what is happening. They are the ones that explain why we have the present problems and why all actors are behaving as they are.
Critical thinking is still required for this kind of information, but this information isn't really news. It's a sort of longform journalism that is a bit removed. But it is informative and doesn't leave the reader ignorance to current events.
[+] [-] mixmastamyk|13 years ago|reply
As I wrote before, if you want to learn something pick up a good book.
[+] [-] guylhem|13 years ago|reply
(also, should we want to change the world? it's it better on its own??)
More so, do you think that what is short in the news are the most important problems, the real priorities?
It seems highly doubtful at best. Knowing may be half the battle, but if you can't action that knowledge it's useless.
[+] [-] goggles99|13 years ago|reply
Following the biased and agendized mainstream news machine is even worse. If you only hear one side ever every story, your sense of reality and judgment will be warped (this is brainwashing). You will be out of touch with reality more so than if you did not follow the news at all because you will be biased based on what you have always heard.
[+] [-] larrys|13 years ago|reply
Well let's add to this then. What about time wasted sitting in synagogue or church saying the same prayers over and over again? To me that's even a bigger waste of time. What if people got together and actually learned something during that time (if together) or on their own. To me at least the sermons were always interesting (ymmv of course) but they were mainly filed under "entertainment" value.
That said there is a value to main stream news depending on what your business or product is. It is important to have the beat on what others are watching and thinking to me it does have value. Some people say "who cares what the WSJ or NYT thinks"? But the truth is others care and carry that info out to people and it's a good idea to know what others are going to believe and think. That doesn't mean that you have to watch mainstream everyday, but I wouldn't go as far as saying the right approach is to stop watching TV totally as Joel says he has done. Or reading mainstream news.
[+] [-] Wilya|13 years ago|reply
Reading already curated sources of info, preferably quite a few of them, coming from varied backgrounds, and doing a more focused research afterwards if it seems worth it, beats mainstream news most of the time.
And by curated, I mean low volume sources. My rule of thumb is that if an rss feed (which is where most of my news comes from) gets more than four or five updates a week, it's probably not worth it (or I subscribed to it because it's a type of noise that I like, but it's still noise).
[+] [-] ahquresh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattGrommes|13 years ago|reply
Right now the local mayoral election has made me pay more attention to the local news and I almost always regret that additional noise, even though the local organization I use (The Voice of San Diego) is about as good at journalism as I've seen.
[+] [-] xradionut|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donretag|13 years ago|reply
I tried to find some quotes from the book, but the best I could find was only this article: http://www.evomend.net/en/tim-ferriss-4-hour-workweek-3-5-le...
[+] [-] fecklessyouth|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] v0cab|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 5partan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OoTheNigerian|13 years ago|reply
If you did not know Barack Obama was the president of the United States, would your life be affected?
For me, the answer is no. You?