6 ms·

It turns out there are a few stories that are important to be immediately aware of (declarations of war, local events like service outages or celebration - and

by munk-a 2mo ago

It turns out there are a few stories that are important to be immediately aware of (declarations of war, local events like service outages or celebration - and only if they're planned with short notice). Most of the rest of the news is important for the purpose of holding people to account but outside the influence of regular people. We can live in a society where a massive scandal happens and it takes two months for the systems and mechanisms to respond to it. I genuinely believe that most stories are better delivered with full information and nuance well after the event occurs than immediately.

piker 2mo ago
Nassim Taleb has a note about this idea in one of his books. Essentially just pointing out how unimportant most news headlines are a few years out.
- bandofthehawk 2mo ago
  If you are interested, Daniel Boorstin wrote about similar ideas much earlier in The Image.
  - exq 2mo ago
    Another one: Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman
smoe 2mo ago
15 years after making the decision, while working for a major news outlet, to no longer read “the news,” I can pretty confidently say: if something is important enough for you to know, it will reach you eventually anyway. Consuming news has little to do with being informed. Quite the opposite, at times.
- watwut 2mo ago
  I have seen people who don't follow news confidently say fairly absurd things. They tend to assume things are kind of like they were those 15 years ago and don't want to believe a party of or a country or a situation could have change in the meantime. It is fairly maddening when you know what they say is completely inconsistent with what was happening.
  - smoe 2mo ago
    I wonder, do those people you talk about also happen to avoid the other forms of journalism, such as investigative reporting, analysis, essays, documentaries, books, and long-form features in general? Those are the things among many others that actually make you informed about the world, in my opinion, not the news feed.
    - paulryanrogers 2mo ago
      I grew up in a family that read almost exclusively partisan media like The Washington Times, The News Herald, and later Fox News. Now it's NewsMax. Worse than knowing nothing, they know only party talking points.
- regexorcist 2mo ago
  6 or 7 years here, no news or socials. I keep telling people the same thing, you find out about the important stuff real quick regardless. The rest is noise and rage bait.
  - ChrisRR 2mo ago
    It's sad how effective rage bait is on many people, and how oblivious they are to it.
- djeastm 2mo ago
  >if something is important enough for you to know, it will reach you eventually anyway Through a friend or family member who's been watching the news?
  - smoe 2mo ago
    Inevitably, yes, that is one of the ways. Albeit not a very useful one. Keep in mind that the definition of news I’m using is specifically “reporting on recent events,” not all forms of journalism or ways in which information is shared. It’s the former that I have gripes with and see people consume like a drug. It takes significant effort to be informed about the world, and reading the news, I think, is not a very good way to do so. The time and mental energy are better spent elsewhere.
BrenBarn 2mo ago
The other thing is that I find a fair number of "news" stories these days are basically one or two small details about the latest update on some ongoing situation, followed by a long summary of what happened before. So most of the news is already old.
BeetleB 2mo ago
I used to be somewhat of a news junkie. When life finally happened, I had to force myself to "slow" down. By "slow" I don't mean read less news, but rather I'd dedicate a week a month for catching up to the prior month's news (via RSS, etc). And that's where I learned the same lesson as you: It's better to read about a news event a month or so after the actual event. The first few days is mostly speculation, and it's best not to get rumors in your head. Seeing all those articles at once makes it easy to glean what did and didn't happen. Seeing them piecemeal over a month made it harder. (I don't bother with news any more, but that lesson stuck with me).
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
para_parolu 2mo ago
The problem is that sometimes declaration of war means bombs are falling on your head. Or you are drafted. Sometimes you want to be a bit ahead of big news.
ChrisRR 2mo ago
My anxiety levels were massively reduced when I stopped reading the news years back, including blocking any "top story" sidebars, unsubbing from major subreddits. Sure I'm late to finding out some important information, but it's better than every piece of news that doesn't personally affect me being treated as if it's a world ending event that I must know about right now
amelius 2mo ago
We need a hippocratic oath for ethical journalism. And we need to stop taking anyone seriously who doesn't abide by it. Kick them out of mainstream media if necessary.

by munk-a 2mo ago

piker 2mo ago

Nassim Taleb has a note about this idea in one of his books. Essentially just pointing out how unimportant most news headlines are a few years out.

bandofthehawk 2mo ago
If you are interested, Daniel Boorstin wrote about similar ideas much earlier in The Image.
- exq 2mo ago
  Another one: Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman

smoe 2mo ago

15 years after making the decision, while working for a major news outlet, to no longer read “the news,” I can pretty confidently say: if something is important enough for you to know, it will reach you eventually anyway. Consuming news has little to do with being informed. Quite the opposite, at times.

watwut 2mo ago
I have seen people who don't follow news confidently say fairly absurd things. They tend to assume things are kind of like they were those 15 years ago and don't want to believe a party of or a country or a situation could have change in the meantime. It is fairly maddening when you know what they say is completely inconsistent with what was happening.
- smoe 2mo ago
  I wonder, do those people you talk about also happen to avoid the other forms of journalism, such as investigative reporting, analysis, essays, documentaries, books, and long-form features in general? Those are the things among many others that actually make you informed about the world, in my opinion, not the news feed.
  - paulryanrogers 2mo ago
    I grew up in a family that read almost exclusively partisan media like The Washington Times, The News Herald, and later Fox News. Now it's NewsMax. Worse than knowing nothing, they know only party talking points.
regexorcist 2mo ago
6 or 7 years here, no news or socials. I keep telling people the same thing, you find out about the important stuff real quick regardless. The rest is noise and rage bait.
- ChrisRR 2mo ago
  It's sad how effective rage bait is on many people, and how oblivious they are to it.
djeastm 2mo ago
>if something is important enough for you to know, it will reach you eventually anyway Through a friend or family member who's been watching the news?
- smoe 2mo ago
  Inevitably, yes, that is one of the ways. Albeit not a very useful one. Keep in mind that the definition of news I’m using is specifically “reporting on recent events,” not all forms of journalism or ways in which information is shared. It’s the former that I have gripes with and see people consume like a drug. It takes significant effort to be informed about the world, and reading the news, I think, is not a very good way to do so. The time and mental energy are better spent elsewhere.

BrenBarn 2mo ago

The other thing is that I find a fair number of "news" stories these days are basically one or two small details about the latest update on some ongoing situation, followed by a long summary of what happened before. So most of the news is already old.

BeetleB 2mo ago

I used to be somewhat of a news junkie. When life finally happened, I had to force myself to "slow" down. By "slow" I don't mean read less news, but rather I'd dedicate a week a month for catching up to the prior month's news (via RSS, etc). And that's where I learned the same lesson as you: It's better to read about a news event a month or so after the actual event. The first few days is mostly speculation, and it's best not to get rumors in your head. Seeing all those articles at once makes it easy to glean what did and didn't happen. Seeing them piecemeal over a month made it harder. (I don't bother with news any more, but that lesson stuck with me).

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

para_parolu 2mo ago

The problem is that sometimes declaration of war means bombs are falling on your head. Or you are drafted. Sometimes you want to be a bit ahead of big news.

ChrisRR 2mo ago

My anxiety levels were massively reduced when I stopped reading the news years back, including blocking any "top story" sidebars, unsubbing from major subreddits. Sure I'm late to finding out some important information, but it's better than every piece of news that doesn't personally affect me being treated as if it's a world ending event that I must know about right now

amelius 2mo ago

We need a hippocratic oath for ethical journalism. And we need to stop taking anyone seriously who doesn't abide by it. Kick them out of mainstream media if necessary.