As I've noted here a few times:<p>Just over 10 years ago, I conducted an experiment. I watched an hour of CNN every night but it was never that night's coverage. It was from exactly two weeks ago.<p>It was amazing how much "breaking news!" was irrelevant or just outright wrong, how many large trend predictions were wrong, and how many "[person] will do X" were wrong. While the predictions could have been portrayed as opinions, they were presented as facts and the obvious next steps or conclusions.<p>I realized pretty quickly that avoiding CNN kept out the blatantly wrong information so even if I didn't replace it with anything, I was net ahead.<p>A few years ago, I discovered this article and realized that some portion of it was probably on purpose:<p><a href="https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts" rel="nofollow">https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...</a>
> They found that those watching the most partisan television news sources—on both the left and the right—were often less knowledgeable about world events than those who consumed no news at all.<p>This is some very fancy footwork to leave out some key information. The study found that those watching <i>only</i> Fox News and MSNBC answered worse than people who watch no news programs at all. As far as I can tell, this latter group doesn't exclude people who read newspapers, blogs, political websites, etc. Meanwhile, all of the viewers of other programs/networks (NPR, Daily Show, CNN, etc.) score higher than average, so saying "often less knowledgable" kind of buries the lede if you ask me, which is that some "partisan" viewers are in fact, much more informed than others. Also, since the quiz the survey participants answered was split into domestic and international topics, FOX is the only network whose viewers consistently failed both on exceeding the average number of correct questions than achieved by "no news" viewers—MSNBC at least seems to be informing their viewers on domestic issues better than that baseline.<p><a href="http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf</a>
I get very frustrated, sad and emotional when I read CNN or any of the major news sites. So I avoid it.<p>Instead I use Wikipedia once a month : <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/September_2020" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/Septembe...</a>
I put myself into a news bubble about six weeks ago. I still very occasionally read local news and a mainstream front page (say, every few days), which seems sufficient to let me know what's going on in broad terms. Stuff leaks into the bubble (e.g., via HN) but the point is not to be totally isolated, just not to get caught in hours-long doom spirals.<p>I've given money to the campaigns that are going to get money from me. I voted yesterday (which answered the question, "are we going to get our mail-in ballots on time?"). I'm done.<p>As a consequence I'm getting more done and I'm happier. I'm reading a lot more books.
This point rings strongly true to me. I have a number of members of friends/family who have become very difficult to be around, because they’ve become so intense/constantly outraged about politics, even if they are on the same end of the political spectrum as me:<p>> The research doesn’t reveal precisely why we tend to dislike overly political people, but it doesn’t take too much imagination to guess that constant foam-flecked political outrage makes one quite tedious. It also impedes our ability to think clearly: At least one experiment has shown that people become less accurate in interpreting data when the data concern something politically polarizing.
I reconnected with an old friend from childhood a few years ago. I knew he was politically opposite from me so I kept politics out of our conversations... do you know how hard that is? It's hard enough that it requires effort, effort that he noted. He accused me of being closed off and never saying what I really wanted to. I made it clear we should not go there.<p>He told me that several years ago watching the news made him physically ill and his GP told him to avoid news. His health improved. In 2016 he admitted to me he does not watch any news, read any news, but he believes in voting. I asked him how he could vote if he hasn't educated himself on the candidates. How a person like me who thinks you either eat politics or it eats you, sees an uninformed voter, proudly ignorant of the candidates, but voting with his gut, what am I supposed to say? This deeply offended him. He then accused me of living in a bubble despite the fact I read news from all over and he reads none.<p>I asked him how should educated voters feel about gut-feeling voters with uneducated opinions? I think his response was "Fuck off". We do not talk anymore because any subject he brought up that had any hint of politics to it was an empty conversation. I would bring up things related to the subject and he would default to making jokes. Serious conversation was beyond him.<p>Tone deaf, dumb, and blind. He eventually said he found all women of my wife's race "unattractive" and then could not understand why I was upset at him. Ex-Navy man, ex-Nuclear Engineer, ex-friend.
The economist is great for this.<p>Views aside, getting a single bolus of well-considered, well-written news once a week is wonderful.<p>You “miss out” on the “did you hear what X said” water cooler talk, but the gains in understanding and attention are significant
Much of it isn't "news". It is mostly propaganda.<p>Quoting Garry Kasparov: "The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth."
Social Media and 24-hour Cable News were designed for addictive effect. it's all based on fear. Fear of missing out mainly. The monkey brain wants constant reassurance.<p>Then, to be assaulted with ads while consuming these "information sources" on top of the crap. It's designed to sell you things you don't really need or want, and if your mental health suffers as a result, well, neither the producers or the advertisers give a shit.
About 15 years ago, it didn't seem like the news added anything of value to my life, so I stopped actively consuming news. You get some from the environment if you don't live in a cave, but I don't go to any news sites, listen to or watch news, even click one-off news links on HN or reddit. I've stopped <i>all</i> active news consumption.<p>I was right. It really didn't add anything of value to my life. I've never missed it.
I’ve come to realize that if someone is making money from delivering news, it’s not news in the sense of the priory being to deliver facts.<p>The priority is to make money, with news and “facts” being secondary (or even further down the list). Most of the time, facts are uninteresting and therefore not prone to gain a lot of viewers — at least not when there is competing “news” that is more about being interesting than factual.<p>In other words, I no longer trust viewership and/or ad-driven “news”. Which pretty much means almost all news of all forms, including TV, web-based, and social media.
More accurately, GIGO: those that watch garbage sources, i.e. Fox, MSNBC, are poorly informed compared to those getting news from more legitimate sources such as NPR, BBC, etc.<p>If you want a quality education in anything, choose your sources carefully. For instance, Al Jazeera is a good source, except on the subject of Qatar.
I rarely post, so apologies if this has been posted here before, but this excerpt from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1807 seems relevant. In short, the problems described about modern news media are entirely true, but - frustratingly - not at all novel.<p>"To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer ‘by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.’ yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. it is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it’s benefits, than is done by it’s abandoned prostitution to falsehood. nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. the real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time: whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. general facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will &c &c. but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. he who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."<p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5737" rel="nofollow">https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5...</a>
The author, Arthur Brooks, is the past president of a Republican thinktank, AEI.<p>Republicans have a strong incentive to encourage citizens to ignore the political news, because their policies are deeply unpopular. Republicans rely on a non-engaged citizenry for votes.<p>Brooks is one of the Republican elites who shapes Republican political strategy. He has a deep conflict of interest when he tells you to stop reading about politics.
This article seems well written but not critically examined.<p>Based on the data presented, the article seems to conflate “correlation as causation”. Specifically, there is no mention of eliminating selection bias.<p>Typically if people are currently fortunate and aren’t in need of social safety nets, these people are both more likely to be happier and, given the lower risk, they can afford to be politically agnostic.<p>Meanwhile, when people are in need of social safety nets/political change in general, they are likely to be less happy with their current lives and also more politically opinionated.<p>So while the article’s data says: political agnosticism is correlated with well being, the article’s narrative incompletely/incorrectly creates a causal link between being politically opinionated and a level of well being.
I've been trying to cut news and social media out of my daily habits as much as possible, and am attempting to replace it with reading books whenever possible. It sure isn't easy, but I feel significantly more productive, healthier, happier and overall more human on days where this works particularly well.<p>What helps is to not have the phone in your bedroom and charge iit elsewhere instead - replace it with a Kindle or a book and rread that instead for a few minutes upon waking up.
I was surprised to learn that Bukowski submitted poems and stories to The Atlantic in his early, hungry years. In my lifetime, I've only known it as an outlet for partisan opinion pieces.<p>On the occasions that I do visit the site, I wonder what he would say about what The Atlantic has become. Not in terms of how it would suit his political biases, but in the agenda first, logic last, unimaginative partisan hackery. I imagine him ranting at length or condemning them eloquently.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDiLfQUBnyA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDiLfQUBnyA</a>
>Don't read the news, don't stay informed.<p>>If you read too much news, it's bad for you.<p>I do enjoy the idea of a newsbubble, as it really does not add much to your everyday life, knowing something bad happened here, or there - because the news is a marketing machine of commercials and local interests that sell your attention to sell stuff.<p>But, it's also hilarious how they say too much is bad, it's akin to buzzfeed saying these websites are good, these that don't agree with us is bad.
--<p>I use a pihole, but you can just add a rule into your HOSTS file or local firewall to block access and untrain your body. I used to always be on reddit, consuming, not really contributing much.<p>Then I realized I spend way to much time, reading, which itself, is not a bad thing, but then I realized the communities of the people who may post in them may not be the best or really useful/smartest and then some communities turn into a "selfie" parade to whomever has some small budget can easily swing conversation.<p>Then I stopped going, and missed nothing. Once I realized the people online wouldn't be the ones I would normally want to be "seen" with or socialize with, it helped break the distinction and neutrality of a screen with words on it.<p>Now I'm more careful of whom I read articles from online, and forums, it's pretty much hit or miss, good for opinion swaying but any true info I make sure to verify and not rely solely on Google/AMP links, but if they are published and which vector of publishing are they on (from New York Times to Dailymail for example.)<p>And even then it isn't enough, all news suck and really does not matter to <i>you</i>.<p>Stoicism is best.
The Lindy effect: The Lindy effect is a theory that the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things like a technology or an idea is proportional to their current age, so that every additional period of survival implies a longer remaining life expectancy. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect</a><p>From that I reasoned that breaking headlines are really not much use for anything. Concentrate on old books or documentaries if you want to know what is going on in the world.
> After controlling for household income, education, age, gender, race, marital status, and political views, I found that people who were “very interested in politics” were about 8 percentage points more likely to be “not very happy” about life than people who were “not very interested” in politics.<p>If we could locate these philosopher-kings from Aristotle and put them in charge, then ignoring politics might be safe.<p>But your disdain for bossing others around isn't reciprocated by the Chads and Karens seeking office.<p>This, detachment from the swamp is a sin of omission. You and your wallet will be punished.
Read the news with a goal in mind: understand civic life. My 20+ years of reading news daily has brought me a personal understanding of the world, and it’s way better than when I started out in my teens ignorant, confused, and unmoored.<p>I know what’s most important to me now, and I know how to participate in those issues.<p>Of course, there are many news outlets that don’t offer much in terms of better understanding the world, so avoid those.
Not being informed enough to be politically involved is often the worst possible thing for your wellbeing in the long term. If you don't fight for your wellbeing, someone who is fighting for theirs might do so at your expense.<p>But of course, news is a pretty questionable source for this goal, because its always filtered through an ideology that might not really have your wellbeing in mind.
If you have a decent income you should consider getting your news from magazines and history books. I subscribe to Australian Geographic which covers issues I actually care about. Another good source for global news is Delayed Gratification [0]. Aside from the coronavirus pandemic, if you live in a stable developed country (not the USA) there is pretty much no piece of news you can't wait a while to become informed about.<p>I have found I know much more about politics now that I read history books and biographies rather than Sydney Morning Herald headlines.<p>0. <a href="https://www.slow-journalism.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.slow-journalism.com/</a>
On the Media (podcast) ran a good piece Friday about how the problem with news (especially right now with the election) is that journalists are treating the candidates as the protagonists of their own stories (and the media then get the voter reactions to what those protagonists deem important) when what’s needed is for us voters to be the protagonists who set the priorities for what the campaigns should be talking about.
De Botton's "The News: A User's Manual," inspired me to cut back on my news consumption. The blow-by-blow of the news isn't particularly enlightening.<p>De Botton's other books are worth a look, too.
Sorry but what exactly is non-political news?<p>I’m convinced that people who talk about “politics” as a thing external to them are just refusing to engage with the parts of the world that are uncomfortable to them.
Egoistically, the less you care about politics - the better it is for you. Caring about politics is actually a duty, a contribution (of your time and health in particular), but in reality, for most of the people who seemingly care, it's merely a drug.
I find news as a concept quite weird, since it implies recent data is important data, with all its side effects. There is a ton of old news, maybe even years, that did not loose relevance, but we simply ignore it.
We have to learn to compartmentalize political news and keep it separated from our personal life.<p>And we have to be honest with ourselves about our personal life. For many of us, and it's probably fair to say most of us here on HN, life is pretty good. But we have to put that statement in perspective to see it that way. Where I live, in the Ozarks, life 100 years ago was pretty tough and even compared to when and where I grew up life is pretty good here right now.<p>In fact it's pretty amazing. Stuff I find here on HN amazes me almost daily.
If you are frustrated by politics but do want to know what the US government is doing, might I once again recommend the Federal Register. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/" rel="nofollow">https://www.federalregister.gov/</a><p>You'll find some stuff that probably affects you that isn't being reported on at all. The "Proposed Rules" section is always interesting.
I think the problem isn't the news, but the obvious injustice that politics gets away with.<p>In germany, the minister of transportation lost the taxpayer 500 million euros, with a publicity stunt to bolster his party in a local election.
He is now lying in people's face about it, everyone knows it and he does not have to step back.<p>Instead, they wrote a fluff piece about him, because he managed to buy some masks for the nation by using some connections from his home town. The article that came out two weeks later about these masks being fake and another million euros lost was for some reason behind the paywall of the online newspaper.<p>It's not the news that makes people unhappy, it's the blatant bullshitting we have to endure.
Political news just expose the selfish nature of human being.<p>It is mostly a continuous attempt at manipulating people into thinking your party is good and that you should vote for this guy vs another.
It shows how corrupted and dishonest people become, the more power they get.
It's unhealthy by definition.<p>I disagree that the answer is ignoring the problem or tuning out politics as if it's something we can't control.
Sure, we're powerless inside the golden prison of democracy, believing the lies of the current psychopath leading the country and without a real choice.<p>But we need to be aware of how rotten the situation is, fight state mandated indoctrination and hope enough people over time are going to reach the understanding that the root problem is centralisation of power, not what's the name of the current buffoon in charge of spending half of your salary.<p>I may be reading too much into this article; this is probably just another new age attempt at getting people to ignore whatever bombshells are being dropped between candidates before the elections.
Well then that’s bad news because boy have things changed. Growing up in Cali in 80s with a robust social life, I cannot remember having or hearing a single political discussion at all.<p>Now I think it’s the norm for kids to have deeply felt political views.<p>I wish I knew how that changed. Maybe it’s the teachers because I also cannot recall any political discussion in me elementary or high school classrooms.
This coming from a highly partisan outlet.<p>To me all sides are a joke with both of their arbitrary soap opera drama (Hunter Biden, the Impeachment, the russia collusion junk, PizzaGate (lol that one). Stop with the madness and made up crap... tell voters what you will do for them and the issues that matter! Politics doesn't need to be reality TV but that's what it has become and not just because of only the reality tv star in office; again both sides feed this madness/reality tv drama b.s.<p>The Atlantic ... is a joke just like the majority outlets feeding this reality tv narrative! Which is just about each and everyone of them; most local news isnt as bad, though.
I like many others also decided to effectively dodge the news as much as possible. For the last three years, I subscribed to the British magazine called 'Private Eye' which comes out fortnightly which keeps me up to date, but I see no reason for me to know what's happening at a higher frequency than that.
We launched <a href="https://www.thefactual.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.thefactual.com</a> over a year ago, to solve exactly this problem.<p>Get a daily email that informs you of the main events with multiple perspectives, with a sprinkling of interesting articles.<p>We are a paid service ($1/month, with a 2 week trial), no ads.
News is akin to social media. Its engineered to capture your attention, albeit, in maybe a psychologically more damaging way. Everything is breaking and urgent, everything is going to kill you, fear and death are around the corner. Otherwise, what's the point of reporting things at their face value?
I stopped using Twitter for a couple weeks because the trending section that's forced you was always showing political garbage. It was driving me insane.<p>When I came back, I installed an extension to get rid of the trending section and some other garbage on there. It's been so much nicer since then (Retweets can still be problematic, but I don't want to block them entirely because I use Twitter as a way to follow artists that were forced to flee Tumblr. Retweets are how those artists share art from others that they like)<p>In the time that I was off Twitter, I didn't fully disengage from the news. I checked Apple News+ to stay up-to-date, but that was only once or twice a day instead of dozens.
I've all but quit reading Facebook and Twitter and Parler. I use Facebook Messenger on my Mac to keep in touch with a couple of friends.<p>I've stopped bringing my phone to bed. Leave it in the office downstairs. The only device upstairs is a Kindle loaded with a lot of fiction and some nonfiction.<p>It's a start, anyway. I now believe that it's possible to be too well informed, be exposed to too much information of an ephemeral nature. Our brains aren't really designed for it.
“Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.”<p>Thomas Gray
<a href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44301/ode-on-a-distant-prospect-of-eton-college" rel="nofollow">https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44301/ode-on-a-distan...</a>
'News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier' Ralf Dobelli UK Guardian 2013, changed my life<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...</a>
I discovered The Congressional Digest at my public library and thoroughly enjoy it. It’s a monthly publication that picks a topical issue and presents pro and con arguments from various publications and officials. <a href="https://congressionaldigest.com/" rel="nofollow">https://congressionaldigest.com/</a>
Yes, spectating is bad for your well being. If you want to feel better, join a political organization that accommodates discussion, education, strategizing, and action. I recommend most socialist outfits as they take democracy seriously. Even just having a regular live discussion of the news with close friends is a good start.<p>Here are some good books to read:<p>- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_Un...</a><p>- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent</a><p>- <a href="https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/democracy-incorporated-2" rel="nofollow">https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/democracy-incorporated-2</a><p>- <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing" rel="nofollow">https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing</a><p>- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Power" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Power</a>
NPR is a little biased but the tone is really quite demure and it's fairly factual. Since they are not blasting information in your face and they have different incentives, I find it reasonable.<p>Also, read 'other countries news' about your home country.<p>And then read the local news, which tends to be more matter of fact.
News with its focus on recent data only is quite weird concept, given its popularity. The implication that recent data is relevant totally ignores all the former news that would still be a relevant and probably a much better source of information.
News with its focus on recent fata only is quite weird concept, given its popularity. The implication that recent data is relevant totally ignores all the former news that would still be a relevant source of information.
Imagine you're in a revolution in some country, and every day people are marched out in front of your window to be executed.<p>This is bad for your well-being. But blaming the window for your problems is false to the fact.
These days, instead of reading the news in the evening, I play a game of chess. I check the headlines on news.google once per day, but don't delve in much.
I feel that most people would benefit more from reading or watching financial news rather than political news.<p>Financial news is about numbers and events that pertain to companies relevant to people's everyday life. Financial news is immediately actionable, you could choose to invest your money based on your interpretation of what's going on in markets or various companies. Politics will occasionally creep their way in, but not in a way that dominates the conversation or appeals to emotion.
Actually, watching “news” on TV is even worse that reading news. I spend five minutes every morning reading The Guardian’s morning email to US subscribers and I think that is time well spent.<p>I have fright spend a couple of hours a day obsessing and watching the news, and I politely tell them their behavior is idiotic.
I stick with I stopped reading The Atlantic because they keep pushing these rag newspaper articles.<p>What's on the front page of The Atlantic right now? "Evangelicals Made a Bad Bargain With Trump" and "After Trump, the Republican Party May Become More Extreme."<p>Garbage.<p>I stick with Reuters, PBS NewsHour, and others because I want news and not think pieces.
Too much is bad by definition. How much is too much according to the author? tldr;<p><i>The solution is to ration your consumption of politics, and set proper boundaries around where you talk about it. I recommend limiting the consumption of all news—not just politics—to 30 minutes a day</i>
Anyone else find it funny that this is being published just after the Joe Biden corruption was released? <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden...</a>
The debate between Trump and Biden epitomizes why political news is a mental health risk. No questions about long term goals and how we get there. Yes Trump is bad but I don't think it would be any different without him. Just questions that lead to petty, divisive tit for tat.
Reading too much negative anything is bad for the psyche. It just so happens that the MSM is full-on TDS and they can't seem to let go. Trump is the blackhole for MSM, everything is somehow connected to "Orange Man Bad".
Moreover, the Washington Post reported that 90% of Trump's coverage is negative [1].<p>Do you know anyone that is 90% terrible? I doubt it. Taking a step back from one's political views, which is hard for a lot of people, it becomes obvious that there's little honest and unbiased reporting going on within MSM.<p>Sure it's fine to read information with a particular viewpoint (be it conservative or liberal), as long as the reader is made aware that the "facts" are framed from a particular viewpoint. Otherwise it's just brainwashing and intellectually dishonest. I think any rational person can get behind this sort of "zero-trust framework".<p>[1] <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/15/a-broadcast" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/15/a-broadcast</a>...
> Reading Too Much Political News Is Bad for Your Well-Being<p>unconvinced that atm the words "reading" and "news" are needed or helpful in calibrating where we all are
Right. Probably says something more about the Atlantic editors than the people who actually do incredible and productive things either on Show HN or Product Hunt to even waste an hour on reading dreadful articles like this one.<p>Now if you excuse me, I have to continue counting the pages of sales from my paid customers for this week.
Its living in a fucked up society that is bad for your well being. These fucks would rather have you stay ignorant happy and complacent. Fuck them. I wish I could jam political news down the throat of everyone that is dumb enough to say I dont give a shit about politics.