View Full Version : Why follow the news?
This is something I've kicked around in my mind before....(see my sig) Why should I waste any time and energy following the news cycle? What does it do for us other than give us a quick outrage fix and an excuse for apathy? 99+% of what you read is beyond your zone of control. Why not spend the time improving yourself instead?
Assertion: Our lives would be happier and we'd be better off if we read/watched little to no current events.
Tell me why this is false.
ICantSpellDawg
11-05-2013, 02:55
Can't
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-05-2013, 02:56
This is something I've kicked around in my mind before....(see my sig) Why should I waste any time and energy following the news cycle? What does it do for us other than give us a quick outrage fix and an excuse for apathy? 99+% of what you read is beyond your zone of control. Why not spend the time improving yourself instead?
Assertion: Our lives would be happier and we'd be better off if we read/watched little to no current events.
Tell me why this is false.
It is false because, just occasionally, it's important for the average man/woman to go "hey, I didn't vote for that."
Stop watching the news and one day you WILL wake up in a world you don't recognise.
Montmorency
11-05-2013, 03:02
It's a good way to keep yourself busy in your elder years (i.e. post grade-school)...
It is false because, just occasionally, it's important for the average man/woman to go "hey, I didn't vote for that."
Stop watching the news and one day you WILL wake up in a world you don't recognise.What do I get from the news that I couldn't get more succinctly and accurately by doing 30 minutes of research before going to vote?
I check the news to ensure I am informed with what is going on in the world. If I want particular things, I start searching for them. Whilst some articles might be hogwash, I simply skim read those to know what is going on in those areas, but sometimes very good pieces come up or are mentioned which starts me going on a quest.
A small article in the corner started one quest off trying to find more information and I even ended up coming across a job opportunity during the said quest which I applied for.
I check the news to ensure I am informed with what is going on in the world.How does that affect your daily life?
Noncommunist
11-05-2013, 05:22
Provides a story to follow? One with no spoilers and no overarching author to write it. A chance to see history in the making and attempts to see the bigger picture through the weeds of everyday events. A chance to escape the minutiae of everyday life and experience the world in an entirely different light. And unlike fiction or history there's a slight possibility of entering into the story and making it your own.
a completely inoffensive name
11-05-2013, 06:27
there is a difference between following the "news cycle" and being an informed citizen.
The biggest danger in our society is that people use the same logic you are to become apathetic, when they are mistakenly conflating what comes out of large news corporations as all of news. The real news is still out there, you just need to work for it.
Did you think there was ever a time when companies was giving us the real deal?
Papewaio
11-05-2013, 07:21
"One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications? To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea.”
Cute quote.
Show me the computer chips, bridges, ships, buildings or rockets built by philosophers and I might spend more time reading their works. Until than I will assume two things.
1) something that you experience once is anecdotal and does not a trend make.
2) science is the only real news as that is about new things not repeats
Blogs are better, I don't trust the news. Serves me better, again and again.
You need the topics and anecdotes for smalltalk I think.
Montmorency
11-05-2013, 13:26
I thought Scands and Germs didn't like small-talk?
I thought Scands and Germs didn't like small-talk?
Did they say that in the News?
Montmorency
11-05-2013, 13:34
The Org.
ReluctantSamurai
11-05-2013, 14:55
Our lives would be happier and we'd be better off if we read/watched little to no current events.
I moved into my first rural farmhouse between my sophomore and junior years of college. This was well before the advent of the WWW, and the only computers available were owned by the university. I did not own a TV at this point, and would not for another 12yrs. I read very little printed news media, yet I was acutely aware of my immediate surroundings, and was very active in local events around campus and within my circle of friends. These 12 yrs. were perhaps the healthiest and happiest of my life.
Stop watching the news and one day you WILL wake up in a world you don't recognise.
It's all about perspective. If you are affluent enough to be able to afford a computer or a TV, or buy a printed media source, then perhaps the news is important. But for those too poor to afford such a luxury, or in situations where they are away from media sources for long periods of time, the "news" really doesn't matter, and has little to no impact on their daily life.
there is a difference between following the "news cycle" and being an informed citizen.
The biggest danger in our society is that people use the same logic you are to become apathetic, when they are mistakenly conflating what comes out of large news corporations as all of news. The real news is still out there, you just need to work for it.
Tell me, if I had read, watched, or listened to no news for the past 2 week, what of significance would I have missed?
well...I do standup comedy as a hobby...therefore I need the fodder.
Well, you don't make much of a distinction between methods of following news, which is a (deliberate?) oversight. Cable news and partisan news agglomeraters do exist to stir your outrage-of-the-day. That's what they do. Since outrage is not a productive emotion, cable news and partisan news sites should be avoided.
On the other hand, I find skimming The Economist (http://www.economist.com/) once a week gives me a nice overview of what's happening in the world without engaging my fight-or-flight reflex. So ... there's ways and there's ways.
Reasons to follow the news from non-hysterical sources:
Adult conversation
Basic knowledge of what's happening to your friends around the world
A minimal ability to discriminate between truthful and false statements about the world and/or nation and/or local events
Ability to answer children's questions about same
Knowledge as its own reward
If none of these matter to you, then sure, don't read anything about the world at all. I know several perfectly happy adults who don't. It's a valid way of going through your day. But you miss out on the enumerated points.
How does that affect your daily life?
Considering my post contained that due to an article, I might be getting a new job... I think pretty big changes~ ?
But it also affects a lot, from traveling, places of interest, on going situations in parliament, changes in the law. Without keeping some form of eye on it, you become blind to the world and people start talking gibberish as you are completely out of the loop, getting lost in the middle of no where.
Tell me, if I had read, watched, or listened to no news for the past 2 week, what of significance would I have missed?
Depends on what moment of time, what about 9/11 or the gearing up to a new war, the 10% increase in gas prices, the road-closure of 12 street which you regularly go on for work, the volcano which cancelled your flight to iceland... there is a lot of potential.
Mm, Tiaexz makes a good point. If I did not follow tech news, I would have difficulty in my current position, as well as problems with the start-up I'm involved with. If I were not aware of the economic situation in my region, as well as the trends in, um, various other things I'm not going to talk about, I might not have gotten involved in the start-up in the first place.
On top of which, one of my duties at my current place is being the guy who answers questions about licensing, copyright, and intellectual property. Given how fluid and fast-moving that field is, I'd be shirking my job if I didn't keep up-to-date with case law and news.
And I would never have taken on that responsibility if I weren't up on the subjects.
Basically, if news functions as an anger catalyst and perpetual outrage machine, it's worse than useless.
But if news gives you situational awareness in personal, political, and professional contexts (local, regional, national, and worldwide), you can recognize opportunities you might otherwise miss.
Tell me why this is false.
Considering my post contained that due to an article, I might be getting a new job... I think pretty big changes~ ?Yes, I deliberately disregarded that. What's to say that actively searching for a job instead of browsing news articles wouldn't have resulted in similar or even better opportunity? Saying that you do something for the random chance that it will have an unintended, yet beneficial outcome didn't really seem like much of an argument. If you spend all your available income on lottery tickets, you might win. But, that doesn't make it a good use for your money.
Depends on what moment of time, what about 9/11 or the gearing up to a new war, the 10% increase in gas prices, the road-closure of 12 street which you regularly go on for work, the volcano which cancelled your flight to iceland... there is a lot of potential.So, travel information? That seems worthwhile- it's something that directly impacts your life. And it's also an impact that you can moderate because of your knowledge. So catch the traffic report before you leave for your commute.
You'll know about a 10% hike in gas prices the first time you stop to fill up. What do you do differently having watched a news story on increasing gas prices that you wouldn't have done when you found out at the pump? What does it benefit you personally to know what parliament is debating today or yesterday? The only influence you have over it is your vote. And tracking their daily actions isn't necessary for making an informed vote.
Well, you don't make much of a distinction between methods of following news, which is a (deliberate?) oversight.Yep, it's deliberate.
Reasons to follow the news from non-hysterical sources:
Adult conversation
Basic knowledge of what's happening to your friends around the world
A minimal ability to discriminate between truthful and false statements about the world and/or nation and/or local events
Ability to answer children's questions about same
Knowledge as its own reward
If none of these matter to you, then sure, don't read anything about the world at all. I know several perfectly happy adults who don't. It's a valid way of going through your day. But you miss out on the enumerated points.
I can have adult conversations without gossiping about the news. You can also have basic knowledge of what's going on around you without regularly following the news. Knowledge as its own reward? So, intellectual curiosity?
On top of which, one of my duties at my current place is being the guy who answers questions about licensing, copyright, and intellectual property. Given how fluid and fast-moving that field is, I'd be shirking my job if I didn't keep up-to-date with case law and news.If it's in line with your professional responsibilities, you're probably well served following relevant court-cases and laws that are on the books, sure. But how does it benefit you to know who's patent trolling who today? You could argue in favor or reading trade publications in your area of expertise, but how do the latest AP headlines help?
But if news gives you situational awareness in personal, political, and professional contexts (local, regional, national, and worldwide), you can recognize opportunities you might otherwise miss.Look at it from a cost-benefit angle. When you read a story, think to yourself- how would my life have been different had I not read that? What opportunities have you missed by reading headlines instead of more actively engaging in the events unfolding directly in front of you?
Obviously, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Any regular BR poster is a fairly avid news consumer. But I think this is a pretty thought-provoking exercise. I've been toying with the notion of taking a week off from "news" just to see what it's like. So far today, I've resisted the urge to pull up any of my favorite news aggregation sites or blogs. I think it's interesting that the constant repetitive urge to check them almost starts to feel like addiction...
What does it benefit you personally to know what parliament is debating today or yesterday? The only influence you have over it is your vote. And tracking their daily actions isn't necessary for making an informed vote.
:inquisitive:
There is a bit more to it than just voting. For example if you discuss things with others you may influence their votes and then there is political activism, revolts, civil war, demonstrations and so on.
You can also have basic knowledge of what's going on around you without regularly following the news.
No, not really. If you limit yourself to what you personally see and hear, your sphere of knowledge is quite limited. So there's road construction on your commute. Who authorized it? Who's paying for it? Who got the contract? Why did someone think it was a good plan? You have no idea. Rinse and repeat.
Knowledge as its own reward? So, intellectual curiosity?
Yep.
you're probably well served following relevant court-cases and laws that are on the books, sure. But how does it benefit you to know who's patent trolling who today? You could argue in favor or reading trade publications in your area of expertise, but how do the latest AP headlines help?
Because as any lawyer will tell you, there's the law as written and the law as practiced, and the two can be very different animals. See Bridgeman v Corel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.).
When you read a story, think to yourself- how would my life have been different had I not read that? What opportunities have you missed by reading headlines instead of more actively engaging in the events unfolding directly in front of you?
Ending on a false dichotomy (http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html) kinda undermines your whole Devil's Advocate game.
I've resisted the urge to pull up any of my favorite news aggregation sites or blogs. I think it's interesting that the constant repetitive urge to check them almost starts to feel like addiction...
All things in moderation. Any habit can become a bad habit if over-indulged. I tell my kids that there's no downside to reading, but if they were to read all night, not get up for school, and then read through mealtimes ... meh. All things in moderation.
No, not really. If you limit yourself to what you personally see and hear, your sphere of knowledge is quite limited. So there's road construction on your commute. Who authorized it? Who's paying for it? Who got the contract? Why did someone think it was a good plan? You have no idea. Rinse and repeat.What difference does it make?
Because as any lawyer will tell you, there's the law as written and the law as practiced, and the two can be very different animals. See Bridgeman v Corel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.).So read case aw- as I said.
Ending on a false dichotomy (http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html) kinda undermines your whole Devil's Advocate game.What false dichotomy? Your time is a finite resource. However you choose to allocate it, there's still only a fixed amount. By reading the Economist and having "adult" conversations about it around the water cooler, you're using time you could be spending performing your job tasks. Or reading case law. Or learning carpentry. Or volunteering at a soup kitchen. Or exercising.
What difference does it make?
What difference does any knowledge make?
So read case [l]aw- as I said.
And have no context, no notion of where things are going economically or politically (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/187919-innovation-act-will-crack-down-on-patent-trolls), both of which have an impact of the field. Great man, see how that works out.
What false dichotomy? Your time is a finite resource. However you choose to allocate it, there's still only a fixed amount.
This is true of all activities, all engagements, all pursuits. The biggest time-suck in my life is children, not news consumption. If you want lots of free time and excess energy, don't have kids. Attacking a relatively minor activity, such as reading the news, is supremely silly. The time and energy investment required to be current on news is trivial compared to the time and energy investment in work, children, spouse, etc.
I declare you guilty of felony triviality.
CrossLOPER
11-05-2013, 17:51
(see my sig)
Yeah, that was a pretty terrible piece of literature.
This is true of all activities, all engagements, all pursuits. The biggest time-suck in my life is children, not news consumption. If you want lots of free time and excess energy, don't have kids. Attacking a relatively minor activity, such as reading the news, is supremely silly. The time and energy investment required to be current on news is trivial compared to the time and energy investment in work, children, spouse, etc.
I declare you guilty of felony triviality.
You're missing a crucial distinction. When you spend time with your children, you can have a direct impact on how they're raised, what values they learn- what type of adult they'll become. While with your trivial pursuits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_Pursuit), you have little to no influence on their outcomes or impacts- direct or otherwise.
Secondly, take an honest assessment of how much time you spend with "news" related pursuits. Do you watch morning/evening local news shows? Do you read blogs daily or even check multiple times a day for updates? Is the time spent really so trivial?
If you treat it as a leisure activity, I suppose you can leave it there. Many leisurely activities take time that could be employed more productively elsewhere. But we (Americans in particular) constantly tell each other that we have to follow the news to be good citizens.
I have already explained how keeping current on events impacts my professional performance. Just because you choose to dismiss my real-world experience out of hand does not make it invalid; rather, it demonstrates your lack of respect for empiricism.
Your whole diatribe about how much time I spend on news consumption is an abrupt subject change, and beneath comment. If I say my time spent on news consumption is trivial (and it is), then you can just pull a Joe Wilson and scream, "You lie!" and leave it at that. Contradiction is not an argument.
Define "more productive." Define "leisure." Your Devil's Advocate argument is full of undefined assumptions, elisions, subject changes, and fuzzy thinking.
And your conclusion about how everyone is telling everyone to consume news is silly. Define "constantly," define "have to," define "good citizen," and so on and so forth. Your sentence sounds nice until you subject it to the slightest bit of critical thinking. Also, please show me where anyone has made that argument in this thread. The moment you need to pull in broad, generalized statements made by hypothetical people, you've left the conversation.
Rather than respond to any arguments put forward on anything resembling the same plane of mutual understanding and communication, you just keep switching the subject, dismissing arguments out of hand, and then raising points absolutely nobody has made.
Your whole diatribe about how much time I spend on news consumption is an abrupt subject changeNope, that's been the theme from the beginning. From my OP:
Why should I waste any time and energy following the news cycle? What does it do for us other than give us a quick outrage fix and an excuse for apathy? 99+% of what you read is beyond your zone of control. Why not spend the time improving yourself instead?
I have already explained how keeping current on events impacts my professional performance. Just because you choose to dismiss my real-world experience out of hand does not make it invalid; rather, it demonstrates your lack of respect for empiricism.You said:
On top of which, one of my duties at my current place is being the guy who answers questions about licensing, copyright, and intellectual property. Given how fluid and fast-moving that field is, I'd be shirking my job if I didn't keep up-to-date with case law and news.To which, I replied that you would be well-served reading case law and currently enacted regulation on the subject if this is part of your official job duties. I didn't think that was a dismissal, but let me press for more detail- how much of your news consumption is dedicated to following IP and copyright trends? Half? More? Less?
"Trivial" is not a quantitative term. I pushed for more insight/examination and you responded with.... anger? Why?
Nope, that's been the theme from the beginning.
Which somehow relates to your dodge about how "everyone" tells you to read the news to be a "good citizen."
I replied that you would be well-served reading case law and currently enacted regulation on the subject if this is part of your official job duties. I didn't think that was a dismissal
It's an annoying assertion, backed by an assumption of understanding an aspect of my job that you do not have any context for understanding. Analogy: A carpenter says that reading up on geometry and modern art is helpful in his work. You blithely assert that his time would be better spent practicing his craft, i.e., he has no idea what he's talking about. It's dismissive, arrogant, and rests on an underlying assumption that you know more than other people do about their own damn work.
I pushed for more insight/examination and you responded with.... anger? Why?
"Irritation" would be far more accurate. You ask for a debate about the value of news, why it's worth spending any amount of time or energy on it, and blithely dismiss every answer given in-thread. Rather than responding as a participant in the debate, you posit yourself as judge of what is valid and what isn't. How can that not be annoying?
Also, you cheerfully ignored this point:
if news gives you situational awareness in personal, political, and professional contexts (local, regional, national, and worldwide), you can recognize opportunities you might otherwise miss.
Tell me why this is false.
It's an annoying assertion, backed by an assumption of understanding an aspect of my job that you do not have any context for understanding. Analogy: A carpenter says that reading up on geometry and modern art is helpful in his work. You blithely assert that his time would be better spent practicing his craft, i.e., he has no idea what he's talking about. It's dismissive, arrogant, and rests on an underlying assumption that you know more than other people do about their own damn work.
If a carpenter told me they're shirking their job responsibilities if they don't read the Economist, I'd be skeptical of that statement. You could just as easily claim that you need to read Playboy to perform your essential job duties and apply the same defense- 'How dare you? You don't understand my job!'. It's true, I don't. Your outraged responses aren't helpful at all along those lines. Of course, you don't have to explain yourself or your job to anyone on an online forum. But, if you're not willing to tolerate questions or challenges on it, you probably shouldn't offer it as a defense. You offer your job duties as a defense and when pressed on it, you respond with only bluster.
Also, you cheerfully ignored this point:No, I cheerfully responded to it.
Look, I intend this a something of a thought exercise. If it enrages you as much as it appears to, maybe you should just keep doing what you've been doing and read a different thread. If you're expecting me to validate the excuses/explanations you're offering, you're in the wrong place. My job here is to challenge them.
You offer your job duties as a defense and when pressed on it, you respond with only bluster.
My "bluster" largely consists of irritation at your manner.
If you're expecting me to validate the excuses/explanations you're offering, you're in the wrong place. My job here is to challenge them.
I expect some sort of reasoned and reasonable debate. "Validation" doesn't come into it, although an acceptance of common norms of communication and back-and-forth go a long way toward a proper conversation. I'm deeply amused that you consider anything I have written in this thread to be an "excuse." Your choice of words, as always, is revealing.
Montmorency
11-05-2013, 22:52
I don't read news - I read analysis. :smoking:
To be honest, I rarely read anything of any sort on 'current' current-events, though I have a long list of 'neat' news sources in one of my folders, and I'm grandfathered into a $70 Economist subscription. Many arguably significant political events that have occurred in the past two years, my first inkling of was through Backroom thread-titles.
Sometimes I'll take an hour or two to read essays on this or that, but in total none of this adds up to more than 10 hours a month.
Am I happy (in general)? Heck no. I'm slow and I'm lazy and I'd love to have learned (i.e. know) about pretty much every topic under the sun - it's just the actual learning part that always sends me to bed in fatigue.
Maybe it's like that one math-whiz kid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE) (who was theorizing in physics by age 11) said: 'Spend more time thinking and less time learning'. Of course, that's the horrible drawback: someone who can learn 20 years' math in 2 weeks, or, say, absorb every decision by every Supreme Court in the USA in 5 minutes a day, has a heck-of-a-lot more time for thinking...
Ah well, on the other hand this just gives more ammunition to my many detractors. No wonder I'm so unformidable, right? :tongue:
The Lurker Below
11-05-2013, 23:51
Tell me, if I had read, watched, or listened to no news for the past 2 week, what of significance would I have missed?
Yes please share. I have satellite radio. My normal fare is talk radio. The last two weeks I have been listening to comedy stations and have really enjoyed it. Did I miss anything?
Tellos Athenaios
11-06-2013, 00:44
It seems the fair state of Virginia decided to quit bothering with this whole news thing, too. At least that would explain their gubernatorial race.
It seems the fair state of Virginia decided to quit bothering with this whole news thing, too. At least that would explain their gubernatorial race.
Not sure what you are implying. The choices are crap, we know it, the press knows it, and the parties know it as well. I would have taken Bolling over Cuccinelli any day, but he declined to run. McAulliffe was big enough that no other Dems wanted to waste their time and money beating him out for the nomination. We didn't even get primaries, hence the two heapings of :daisy: we got served. A true "I voted for Kodos" moment.
I hope Sarvis gets a significant percentage when they count up the votes tonight, the other two are complete tools.
Tellos Athenaios
11-06-2013, 01:26
Not sure what you are implying. The choices are crap, we know it, the press knows it, and the parties know it as well.
Right, I may be missing something but generally when there is even a modicum of interest in an election such obvious terrible choices don't make the cut. Something better is eventually on offer (usually pretty quickly).
Again, the McAuliffe situation can be hardly anything else but "even though everybody is going to hate him anyway nobody can be arsed to vote against him so it's not worth bothering to try" aka the brain dead choice. If people did take an interest, surely any remotely acceptable candidate would have seized the slam dunk opportunity?
HoreTore
11-06-2013, 01:47
Why follow the news?
Because work would be boring without newspapers to read when pretending to work.
Right, I may be missing something but generally when there is even a modicum of interest in an election such obvious terrible choices don't make the cut. Something better is eventually on offer (usually pretty quickly).
There was no cut, that is the problem. Cuccinelli and McAuliffe were going to be able to beat any primary opponent on funding. Only Bolling had a slim chance there and he knew that Cuccinelli was going to sabotage the nomination process if he had a serious opponent (and even without one, as it happened). McAuliffe was the DNC Chair, so he had the party cronies behind him.
Not one of VA's finest moments. The news and people's news knowledge don't really come into play, except to publicize the bad situation to the world.
Ironside
11-06-2013, 10:31
This is something I've kicked around in my mind before....(see my sig) Why should I waste any time and energy following the news cycle? What does it do for us other than give us a quick outrage fix and an excuse for apathy? 99+% of what you read is beyond your zone of control. Why not spend the time improving yourself instead?
Assertion: Our lives would be happier and we'd be better off if we read/watched little to no current events.
Tell me why this is false.
Having done both, I say that ignorence is a bliss. You don't note what you're missing, and you get less of the gloom that's common in the news.
It's also crashing horribly with reality, when you suddenly hear some news that you find important and realise that it's too late, you aren't reacting to the news, you're reacting to the consequences of the news.
Knowing about the major news also helps in the coffie room. As in improving your social interation skills.
Basically, most news aren't that important, but you don't know which ones that are important, because you stopped listening. But on the other hand, you don't really need more than the most basic information about the important news (local, national and international), and a bit of focus on the ones that personally matter, for the last 24 hours (one news cycle) to cover it.
The Lurker Below
11-06-2013, 17:19
Talk radio is not news. Like blogs, even the good ones are shamelessly editorial.
Your snide remark indicates you didn't get the point - I didn't miss a damn thing, instead I enjoyed my drive time listening to comedy.
I'll go ahead and address your condescending remarks however. Whether you listen, read, or watch the news, you have already subjected yourself to editorializing. I cut to the chase and listen to a variety of analysis regarding the things that happened. Either way, we both learn about the things that happened. If you fail to use your own judgment regarding the spin you just heard/read/watched, that's not their fault.
The Lurker Below
11-06-2013, 23:52
If switching to the comedy channel is protesting then I encourage all to protest more.
a completely inoffensive name
11-07-2013, 00:33
By actively refusing to seek out information because life makes it too difficult for you is giving up civic responsibility.
Not as if that argument will convince you Xiahou, by your own words, you just want to be a stubborn devil advocate.
In every news story there is a important question to ask, if you take the time to identify it and think about it, you become a better citizen.
Kralizec
11-07-2013, 00:57
This is something I've kicked around in my mind before....(see my sig) Why should I waste any time and energy following the news cycle? What does it do for us other than give us a quick outrage fix and an excuse for apathy? 99+% of what you read is beyond your zone of control. Why not spend the time improving yourself instead?
Assertion: Our lives would be happier and we'd be better off if we read/watched little to no current events.
Tell me why this is false.
I agree with most of what Lemur has written, but other than that...
Personally, it doesn't take me much time and barely any energy. I don't see it as a chore. Very often I visit my favorite news sites to aleviate boredom for a short moment, even during work (or should I say, especially during work - don't pretend that you never look out of the window or engage in idle conversation when you're on the job). Allthough they're serious news sources, it's sometimes a means of recreation to me. If you can spend every waking hour of your life trying to improve yourself, good for you. I can't.
I have to admit that I'm not personally aquainted with 24/7 news channels, which you Americans seem to be fond of. I think I'm better off for it.
By actively refusing to seek out information because life makes it too difficult for you is giving up civic responsibility.
That's really just a feel-good argument isn't it? What do you mean by giving up civic responsibility?
Nah, you're misunderstanding it. Maybe at this point, I should just link (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/) the blog posting that made me ponder this idea in the first place.
Here's the opening:
The big news today is that the politicians of the United States just bumbled themselves into a Government Shutdown.
Last night, a military friend of mine mentioned the impending doom to me, which is the first I had heard of the situation. Unfortunately that triggered a late night of sweaty reading on my part, catching up on the history of this predicament, cursing the bullshit and the rhetoric of the responsible members of congress, and generally being pissed off about things. But after an uneasy sleep and a slightly groggy morning, I opened my shutters and found a clear blue sky with bright yellow sun, singing birds, and my lovely family running up to me to request hugs and breakfast. And thus, my plans for today do not include reading any more of the news.
If you’re surprised to hear that I knew nothing of the looming shutdown, and that I don’t read (or watch) the news at all, then you will get a lot from this article. Because I’m going to suggest that unless you work directly in the news media industry yourself, you too should be paying absolutely no attention to the news.
The quote from the blog that gave me a belly-laugh, given how you treated the responses in-thread: "I do still read most of the Economist every week or two, for example."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KJSnd8VzQw
Edit: Actually, I liked alot of what he was saying in that post- I found it thought provoking to say the least. But, one of the things I had a hard time squaring was the idea that you could rely on occasional reading of just 1 or 2 sources.
All sources have a viewpoint bias- some worse than others, but every author has some bias- they're not robots. To me, the best counter to biased information is to get several different takes on each major topic. By getting a handful of different takes on a topic, you can start to get a pretty accurate idea of what's really going on.
But then, that begins the defeat the notion of the "low-information diet"....
a completely inoffensive name
11-08-2013, 09:15
That's really just a feel-good argument isn't it? What do you mean by giving up civic responsibility?
Asserting that the world just doesn't concern you and that news just holds you back is the feel good argument.
Claiming that reserving yourself for "analysis" is better than following the "news cycle" is a faulty position to take because you are trading the biases of a journalist trying to get views on a page for the biases of some think-tank 'analyst' who wants to exercise his Ivy League college education by cherry picking facts and using semantics in order for a news story to conform to his proposed world view.
Either way you must face the fact, that facts are inherently tainted as soon as they go beyond the raw numbers (sometimes before that even). This means you must work to find the truth behind the affairs in order for you to make an enlightened understanding about the rapidly changing culture and context in which events take place.
Look, I stand by what I said a while back regarding the Zimmerman trial, I have done the "low-information" diet: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140826-This-Person-is-a-Member-of-the-US-House-of-Representatives&p=2053537645#post2053537645
Does the low-information diet clear your mind? Yes. Does it give you a clearer perspective on things? Yes. But only in the sense that an untapped well is cleaner than a well that people have defecated in.
In order for a proper citizen to improve the constitution of his Republic, the citizen must engage with the public on their terms as a matter of practicality. This means that despite the absolutely toxic nature of "news" nowadays, a citizen must actively be fighting to move past the bullshit and get to the heart of matter behind cases.
Example: Gay Marriage Approval
Gay marriage approval since the 1990s has changed from heavily against it, now to the point where a slight majority of Americans are in favor.
Say that you adhere to this low-information diet since the early 1990s. You have ignored every major scandal concerning tapping feet in bathrooms, to gay rights parades, to judicial challenges of DOMA and state constitutions and the propositions that elicit even more judicial rulings.....what do you have to say regarding why the public made such a rapid change other than "It happened"?
The answer is not to stop reading the news but to start sweating only if they actually report something that matters.
This guy is trying to cure his own problem of overreacting and taking every word too seriously by running away.
If he were a real men he would read morews and train himself to become a sarcastic internet hero instead of sweating all night over the latest doom and gloom hype.
Oh and if you were actually not getting paid over that story, wouldn't you have liked to know about the possibility of that happening in advance?
Either way you must face the fact, that facts are inherently tainted as soon as they go beyond the raw numbers (sometimes before that even). This means you must work to find the truth behind the affairs in order for you to make an enlightened understanding about the rapidly changing culture and context in which events take place.
Look, I stand by what I said a while back regarding the Zimmerman trial, I have done the "low-information" diet: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140826-This-Person-is-a-Member-of-the-US-House-of-Representatives&p=2053537645#post2053537645So what's the solution? You seem to be saying on one hand, it's all bullcrap, but on the other hand if you consume enough of it you'll learn to be a connoisseur.
Does the low-information diet clear your mind? Yes. Does it give you a clearer perspective on things? Yes. But only in the sense that an untapped well is cleaner than a well that people have defecated in.
Love the imagery. :2thumbsup:
Example: Gay Marriage Approval
Gay marriage approval since the 1990s has changed from heavily against it, now to the point where a slight majority of Americans are in favor.
Say that you adhere to this low-information diet since the early 1990s. You have ignored every major scandal concerning tapping feet in bathrooms, to gay rights parades, to judicial challenges of DOMA and state constitutions and the propositions that elicit even more judicial rulings.....what do you have to say regarding why the public made such a rapid change other than "It happened"?I don't follow your example. The more people are confronted with pretty much anything, the more normal it begins to seem and the less negative reaction they'll have to it. It's a variation on the boiling frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog) analogy.
I think I could still draw that conclusion regardless of whether or not I had been religiously following the news for the last 20 years.
It's not an exciting or sexy conclusion, but my takeaway from the blog post and this discussion:
There's ways and there's ways—how you consume news matters, as does your personal reaction to same.*
All things in moderation.**
* It's clear that if you're getting emotionally worked-up over things over which you have no input or control, you're wasting time, bandwidth, and energy.
** A phrase I drill into the children on a regular basis—yes, the same children who are an unmitigated time-suck, preventing me from doing all sorts of things, the little jerks.(
Montmorency
11-08-2013, 18:03
A phrase I drill into the children on a regular basis—yes, the same children who are an unmitigated time-suck, preventing me from doing all sorts of things, the little jerks.
That's one reason not to have children in the first place. I would not entrust the responsibility to myself without having done 20 years of rigorous research, and then another year of review of the research, and then another year to brush up on the latest research.
(By "research", I don't mean into child-rearing strictly, but pretty much every conceivable thing that might be useful or important for me to know or do - in general, ever.)
And even with all that, they wouldn't let you keep the infant you take from the hospital nursery. :mean:
Tellos Athenaios
11-08-2013, 20:01
That's one reason not to have children in the first place. I would not entrust the responsibility to myself without having done 20 years of rigorous research, and then another year of review of the research, and then another year to brush up on the latest research.
(By "research", I don't mean into child-rearing strictly, but pretty much every conceivable thing that might be useful or important for me to know or do - in general, ever.)
And even with all that, they wouldn't let you keep the infant you take from the hospital nursery. :mean:
Well really, you are from the country where they don't even let you experiment with the fun stuff until you're 21. So obviously you cannot have sufficient experience to be deemed a fit and responsible parent after just 22 years; not when you're still working out how to drink.
The Lurker Below
11-10-2013, 16:54
By actively refusing to seek out information because life makes it too difficult for you is giving up civic responsibility.
My wife has NEVER paid attention to national or world news. She has been room mother every year we have a kid in elementary, PTA board member/VP/Pres/Sec, volunteers at a local nursing home one Saturday a month, been team mom for half the baseball and basketball teams I coach, and been the bond that keeps all my broken in-laws together since she was 19. So since she never pays attention to the world events she has zero impact on she is civically irresponsible? Is that just a wee bit pretentious?
HopAlongBunny
11-10-2013, 18:26
I have always been a bit of a news junkie.
I prefer "joke news"; grew up listening to Royal Canadian Air Farce, re-runs of the Goon Show and stuff like that.
For some reason I prefer to see politics and social issues lampooned instead of declaimed about. Yes it adds a level of interpretation, but it often puts things in a better perspective.
I do not see it as necessary to good citizenship. The Lurker Below raises a view I can understand (though I do not follow). Working in the community and paying attention to local stuff is important.
I suspect that acting on local things that matter feels far better than getting exorcised about stuff that you cannot control and have limited impact on.
a completely inoffensive name
11-10-2013, 20:53
My wife has NEVER paid attention to national or world news. She has been room mother every year we have a kid in elementary, PTA board member/VP/Pres/Sec, volunteers at a local nursing home one Saturday a month, been team mom for half the baseball and basketball teams I coach, and been the bond that keeps all my broken in-laws together since she was 19. So since she never pays attention to the world events she has zero impact on she is civically irresponsible? Is that just a wee bit pretentious?
If Bill Gates evaded his taxes, does his charity work absolve him from that? Also keep in mind the difference between a particular deficit and being overall deficient.
My wife has NEVER paid attention to national or world news. She has been room mother every year we have a kid in elementary, PTA board member/VP/Pres/Sec, volunteers at a local nursing home one Saturday a month, been team mom for half the baseball and basketball teams I coach, and been the bond that keeps all my broken in-laws together since she was 19. So since she never pays attention to the world events she has zero impact on she is civically irresponsible? Is that just a wee bit pretentious?
That's what I'm talking about. :yes:
She spends her time "doing" rather than reading or worrying about crap that she has no control over.
---------------
Clearly she's doing her civic duty, but if she is that involved in education and the community then she is doing herself a disservice by not following news or politics. Of course you said national or world news, so I can only assume she still follows local news--which is actually much better than the crap that gets spewed on the 24-hour networks. Especially if community involvement is your thing.I doubt she would have much need of local news either. She's living it, she doesn't need to read about it. Most local news is sensationalist junk as well- car crashes, shootings, drug busts, ect.
a completely inoffensive name
11-11-2013, 08:15
So what's the solution? You seem to be saying on one hand, it's all bullcrap, but on the other hand if you consume enough of it you'll learn to be a connoisseur.
The solution is to first apply critical thinking skills on the news coming in an determine which have potential and which are dead on arrival. Celebrity gossip/scandals are dead on arrival where as following the debt ceiling crisis can provide insights if you work to get pass the garbage.
Then after you have chosen which "news" can be fruitful you glance at the first reports and you keep track of the general themes and trends and the key facts which are highlighted during these critical moments when information is just trying to get out as fast as possible.
Then you wait and follow up with the analysis and again, you don't listen to what they are saying you pay attention to what they are using to make their case. What are the dominating themes, what are the memes that have since emerged weeks after the fact. What facts are new, which facts are old and which facts have been neglected from the original reports.
The point I am trying to make here is that you are not supposed to rely on news organizations and institutions to erect filters for your benefit, you must develop your own filters by actively seeking the context and not the arguments themselves. This is how you can begin to ask the real questions and make real progress.
Love the imagery. :2thumbsup:
Thank you! :D
I don't follow your example. The more people are confronted with pretty much anything, the more normal it begins to seem and the less negative reaction they'll have to it. It's a variation on the boiling frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog) analogy.
But this argument does not hold up to history. Gays have been "out" in society since Stonewall in '69 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots). What has been the significant factor between 1969-2004 and 2004-2013? In fact the argument you are making is reliant on you following the news and knowing what you know about gay rights parades and the LGBT movement over the past 10 years...
I think I could still draw that conclusion regardless of whether or not I had been religiously following the news for the last 20 years.
I think you overestimate your ability to divine about the culture wars without front line reporters telling you where the lines are being drawn.
Ironside
11-11-2013, 10:15
I doubt she would have much need of local news either. She's living it, she doesn't need to read about it. Most local news is sensationalist junk as well- car crashes, shootings, drug busts, ect.
On the local level, those things starts to matter. Sure, you can hear about this from the gossip news, but they don't know everything and aren't reliable unless someone trustworthy is close to the source.
Togakure
12-06-2013, 11:32
This is something I've kicked around in my mind before....(see my sig) Why should I waste any time and energy following the news cycle? What does it do for us other than give us a quick outrage fix and an excuse for apathy? 99+% of what you read is beyond your zone of control. Why not spend the time improving yourself instead?
Assertion: Our lives would be happier and we'd be better off if we read/watched little to no current events.
Tell me why this is false.
Hello all.
For seven years or so now, I haven't had a TV in my home, nor do I receive a newspaper or look at news on the 'net. For the last four months I've even tried (almost) zero internet usage. I am happier, and feel that I am much better off. I get what I need from friends. If I need more on something I hear about from them, I look it up--careful not to get caught up in anything else.
With the extra time, I do so much more. And my stress levels are way down. This is important for me, as I am permanently disabled thanks to an overzealous career approach gone unchecked for too long, and a number of other Life facets that went tits-up all at the same time about a decade ago. Dr. Weil's Eight Weeks to Optimal Health recommends limiting news intake to 15 minutes a week. Apparently the stress adds up and can really cause problems for some.
Your assertion is not false from my point of view. I'm doing it, and it's been great.
Doesn't position me well for being much of a contributor in here though :).
HoreTore
12-06-2013, 14:08
Hello all.
For seven years or so now, I haven't had a TV in my home, nor do I receive a newspaper or look at news on the 'net. For the last four months I've even tried (almost) zero internet usage. I am happier, and feel that I am much better off. I get what I need from friends. If I need more on something I hear about from them, I look it up--careful not to get caught up in anything else.
With the extra time, I do so much more. And my stress levels are way down. This is important for me, as I am permanently disabled thanks to an overzealous career approach gone unchecked for too long, and a number of other Life facets that went tits-up all at the same time about a decade ago. Dr. Weil's Eight Weeks to Optimal Health recommends limiting news intake to 15 minutes a week. Apparently the stress adds up and can really cause problems for some.
Your assertion is not false from my point of view. I'm doing it, and it's been great.
Doesn't position me well for being much of a contributor in here though :).
It really depends on what you want from life as well I guess. For someone like me, being informed about what happens in society, politics, etc is what really gives me enjoyment in life. As much as I love binge-drinking, I am perfectly happy staying home on a saturday night reading some social science related stuff. I also have a job where it's absolutely vital that I do so(and I do love my job, especially since it allows me to get paid writing this post!).
Everyone knows Ignorance is bliss.
Montmorency
12-06-2013, 17:35
Everyone knows Ignorance is bliss.
And Knowledge is ignorance of Ignorance.
I'm doing it, and it's been great.
Hey man, if it's working for you, then good! Excellent!
I think there's a nugget of truth in the hypothesis, but it's not as universal as the blog post implies. Following news can become a time-suck, a substitute for paying attention to your own surroundings. It doesn't have to do so, but it can wind up like that.
I'd compare it to drinking. I can have a drink with friends, and then not touch alcohol for weeks. It's no big deal. But for some folks, a drink here or there isn't an option; they have addictive behavior about alcohol. So for those people, it's best to avoid alcohol altogether. I'd definitely agree that news-following can become an addictive behavior as well. Not for everyone, mind, and maybe even not for most.
That said, it's never a bad idea to pay attention to your immediate surroundings, including family, friends, neighbors, etc. And being mindful of the here and now, the right-in-front-of-you, is tremendously important. Going on a no-news diet seems like one of many ways to try to achieve that level of immediate mindfulness.
Togakure
12-06-2013, 23:02
Balance in all things, zanshin, managing addictive behavior ... yep :) , nice. I have found a much more wholesome and lasting sense of health, peace, and personal evolution pursuing these actively than I did puffing out my chest and blowing off steam on the 'net for a foolish decade.
paraphrased: "focus too hard on words and pointing fingers and you'll miss all the glory of the Heavens."
Riedquat
12-13-2013, 16:48
I'm doing it from the last 9 years, no papers, radio or television, internet for international news and when I want to inform myself about some specific topic, life is easier this way! :yes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.