No news 'til November
I'm going on a news fast until after Samhain (that's Hallowe'en for you non-heathens). Still figuring out what, exactly, that means, but basically, I'm minimizing (ideally, eliminating) my exposure to ... hmmm ... I guess "unnecessary stress and anxiety" is the best summary.
Turned off my Feedly (ahem) feed. No more Mastodon, etc. I'll still be visiting Tildes, but less ... and I just finished tuning out the news from my postings list (unsubscribed from ~enviro, ~finance, ~health, ~lgbt, and of course, ~news ... added a bunch of tag filters — covid, Trump, politics, the FAANG corps, etc). That seems to have killed 95% of the stress-inducing headlines. Will add more tag filters, as they prove necessary.
Thoughts? Anyone already try this? Anyone wanna join me?
PS: I have no idea how to tag this post. Tildes ModGods, please have at it, but try not to add any tags that'll inadvertently hide my own post from me. Danke, y gracias.
I used to be a news nerd. First thing I loaded up in the morning was various news sites, I'd have Radio 4 (BBC news/current affairs channel) on all day, that kind of thing. It was terrible. Stopped doing it years ago and my life is much better.
The thing is, there's no point in me knowing most news. I can't do anything about most of it, even if it does affect me - which most of it does not. I need to know about hyper-local stuff like upcoming roadworks on my street or changes to how the busses run or something. But my local council website provides all of that. The only thing most news actually changes in my world is cause me extra stress and worry.
I don't get zero news now, I still get what surfaces here and to some extent on reddit and Facebook (my FB friends list is carefully curated to be quality people so things arriving there are easily as trustworthy as here and certainly better quality than reddit). I've unsubbed/filtered some bits but not much. I occasionally seek out tech news via places like ArsTechnica just for interest, but I don't recall having made a decision to load the Guardian or the BBC or whatever other homepage for many years now. I don't graze on news, I do sometimes still read the occasional article.
Now when I'm having my morning tea I read a folder full of webcomics and Atlas Obscura and it's a much nicer way to start the day. I'm less anxious, less stressed, less angry - and the world goes on exactly as it did before regardless.
I started following the news more closely in 2016 for obvious reasons (although that was also when I graduated college and started my "adult life", so I suspect my new consumption would have gone up anyway.) Personally I love consuming everything and even the slight dread that's always there, but at the same time I traveled abroad Spring of 2019 and ignored all news for the 10 days I was gone, it was such an amazing and fantastic break.
I just struggle to disconnect when I'm in the country.
Since you're asking for thoughts, here's the resistance I have to things like this.
If I've misunderstood and you didn't solicit this kind of feedback, please just ignore this comment :)
As a detox, I think a break from news can be healthy to change habits. I don't think skipping out of news is a good mid/long-term solution.
Sure, as an individual person I can't change the world much. Ethically, I believe I have a responsibility to do my part in society, and to do so, I need to know what's going on. These days, An important part of that is ensuring that news as the fourth estate has resources to do a good job. Otherwise the systems of checks and balances weaken drastically.
I'd make the exact same type of arguments for people who opt out of politics: It's an arena we don't have to be super active in, but can't afford not to follow. Or others are free to exploit the situation that's left.
Adding on, if you live in a democracy, it behooves you to participate in it, and doing so requires being informed—even moreso when efforts are being made to dis/misinform you.
I agree with you... but at the same time I have to wonder; How many people really haven't made up their minds yet on who they are going to vote for in their next election? And IMO, even those that haven't yet decided would probably be better served by simply watching official debates, reading all the candidates/parties published stances and plans, and looking at their voting records (for the incumbents) rather than following the 24 hour news cycle.
I'd argue that participating in democracy doesn't start or end at casting your ballot for the highest office. As for the debates, they require an awareness of current events to be able to understand what's discussed, and they require a familiarity with what's true and what's not within the candidates' talking points.
Even then, even if you know exactly what the candidates stand for, if you're not informed on what's going on in the world, how can you prioritize which issues in the platforms are most pressing for you right now? How can you put a candidates' plan of action in context without knowing what it's in response to.
I think casting the alternative to OP's idea of a complete news boycott as "following the 24-hour news cycle" is a little unfair. That term suggests rapidly changing, sensationalist news of little importance. But part of being a savvy media consumer is separating the bullshit and spin from the important parts (and not all media outlets make it easy for you—nor are they all trying to make it easy for you). Many readers of online news, for example, cannot or do not attempt to differentiate between opinion content and news reporting (see this Poynter story, for example).
I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying but I don't think that you have to regularly read much in the way of news to be informed. Elections happen rarely and it's fairly easy to get up to speed in advance of them. A couple of hours reading every couple of years would be plenty.
In an ideal world before elections I would go and look at the candidates voting records, occasionally their speaking records as well - and compare that to their advertised platforms. In the real world I just vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Tory because that's the only thing which matters in First Past The Post voting. But it's entirely possible to inform myself without reading any news - looking at people's records and the outcomes of those votes provides higher quality information that news stories do. That said, all I need to know right now is that my country is run by a load of corrupt, incompetent liars (and to be honest I know that from the name of the ruling party alone). The details don't actually matter and only cause me stress to read about.
I refuse to make myself angry and upset for some nebulous goal of "being informed" when doing so achieves nothing positive whatsoever.
In my opinion that's way too little. I'd say the minimal amount to hit "responsible citizen" status in my book is more along the lines of a couple hours every week. You can't just check out for two years and competently understand the events that have happened within just a few short hours.
It's more than two years between elections where I live. There are only two things I get to vote for, local council and national parliament. Both those elections are entirely foregone conclusions so me turning up or not makes no difference. I still turn up, but it's only for the look of the thing.
The only "choice" I get is vote for the guy who is on team utter fucking arseholes (aka "The Honourable Member for Norfolk South"), or I vote tactically against him. It doesn't even matter what the alternative option is or what they stand for, just that they stand even a fart's chance in a hurricane of defeating him. They never do. I've voted every single time I've had the chance since age 18 and my vote has counted precisely twice in all that time (in referendums) and I'm probably old enough to be your dad.
So I would argue that informing myself about current events doesn't achieve anything except making me sad. A couple of hours of extra stress and worry a week will just kill me quicker than spending that time reading comics.
In my experience as someone who occasionally does something worthy of printed ink, my trust of the press is right around zero. They way hackneyed narratives are carved around scientific papers, around the work nonprofits do, and around the projects of communities leave me uninterested in the work of most journalists.
Don't get me wrong of course, I understand the fundamental issue: most things that happen aren't spectacular, and spectacle is what drives clicks and sells papers. That said, the problem isn't helped by treating the business of news with any more respect than it is actually due, based on it's outcomes.
Everything is in intense competition for our attention. News has to be interesting enough that people spend time/money on it rather than all these other things.
I'm lucky to have a good local paper. That used to be taken for granted, but has changed the last years. The result is increasing subscription numbers. The paper (according to their own reports) have gone from more than 70% ad-funding to more than 70% subscriber-funding. The flip-side is that for those who don't subscribe, the local paper provides very, very little. Almost everything worthwhile is paywalled.
If we (folks in numbers) don't care about the actual narratives new research results underpin, or don't care about what nonprofits, or local projects so long as they aren't in my own backyard, then those things don't get covered in that way.
In the past everyone in reader surveys obviously read the foreign pages, and important society events when asked. When we see what they actually read online, they don't. Either they never did and answered in line with expectations, or we read online news in seriously different ways than previously.
In any case, where there used to be a news monopoly, now serious journalism drowns in the junk that's everywhere in tabloids, on blogs and social media. All the more reason to support those that do a good job. Their role really is more important than ever. From combatting lack of information, now news has to first get heard over misleading nonsense.
The issue I take is that most real deal -funded by a print or media organization- journalists, are actually providing misleading coverage as well. I've seen press large and small butcher details scientific papers, coverage of community events they attended, coverage of town hall events they attended, etc. I'm not only talking about people publishing statements in a selective way to form an inaccurate narrative, but also writing statements that are factually untrue in an attempt to mislead readers, typically for sensational reasons. I don't think I've ever interacted with a good journalist, but I have run into half a dozen bad ones.
Sure, I'll hop on this train with you. I went ahead and unsubscribed to all the same groups you did, and have blocked reddit and hacker news on my laptop and desktop via the HOSTS file. I don't use twitter or any other social media enough to bother blocking them.
Good luck to ya.
I did a news and social media hiatus for part of 2017 into 2018 (broken pretty much when I joined Tildes) and it was incredibly healthy for me. I didn't realize how much of my time, energy, and mental stamina I was spending on the internet until I took a break from it. The process made me calmer, more patient, and more fulfilled.
There is something to be said for being informed, but there's also something to be said for mass media using that impulse against us and playing to our human vulnerabilities. So much of mass media is designed to get you angry, make you feel that you're missing out, and throw every problem in the world directly into your living room. Continually engaging with those can be deeply destructive over time, and there is nothing wrong with stepping away from from a destructive force and finding a quality of life on your own terms.
I think its a great thing to do. I use the reddit "Slide" app for iOS (even though its buggy it really cuts down on the BS of the default app, and there's no way in hell I'm paying for an app to browse reddit...) and it allows you to block entire subs from all feeds. I think I have just about every single major subreddit on reddit blocked from there. Any actually big news (like the recent death of RBG) will surely make its way to me one way or another. I've noticed I'm not only less angry but have actually managed to break out of the liberal circlejerking that happens on reddit.
I think, for ethics and politics, I can do my research a few days before voting, and that's fine. I don't think you owe it to anyone to stay informed, and you only owe it to yourself to do what makes you happy. People love to espouse self-care but often put themselves under incredibly stressful situations, never really being themselves.
It's really frustrating that the Slide app claims to be a "beautiful Reddit browser" but then provides no screenshots to back that up.I didn't realise it was also on the App Store. Downloaded and given it ago, thanks!
I had to come back here, I’ve been using Slide since this morning and it’s amazing! Thanks for the suggestion.
I just realized this morning that I pretty much have been doing this for the past few weeks -- I used to listen to NPR all the time, but any more, it's just too depressing/stressful. I listen to a lot of college radio now.
I still check the news, but I can skim the headlines that way. I also see some of the major stories pop up on Reddit (which I realize is like, the worst way to view news).
(I do admit this is a full month late. Also, have a satire article and a meme as a congratulations, lol.)
So now that it's over, what do you think about it? Do you do it more? Would you reccomend other people do it more?
Yeah, IDK. I missed a lot of really big stuff ... RBG died, Trump got Covid. It legitimately stresses me out not knowing what important things are happening in the world. Now I have the added stress of wondering what-if-anything else did I miss during my news-cation ('cuz gods forbid any news source ever go back and revisit something that happened more than 3 days ago).
Apart from that, though, the actual break did feel freeing, and I do read less news now, feel less addicted to finding out what's happening. Maybe a 2nd, longer break is in order, down the road.
And it's not like I can do anything about 99% of the news I see. If one if going down shit's creek w/o a paddle, is it better to examine every turd that floats by, or just close your eyes and wait to see where you end up? IDK.
Great idea, says I! Confine your online browsings to your hobbies and interests, and you stand to be be much happier, healthier and more productive! The odd digital detox has done a lot for me in the past. Trying to study while also avoiding the call of multiple browser tabs, Telegram and Discord, is a right bastard.