No News Is Good News?

[Duque de Bragança]

I avoid comment sections.

That's the trick. I have a couple of browser extensions that hide them, works pretty well.

Lemonde.fr hides them for non-subscribers which is perfect. 

Avoiding 24-hour news channels is easy, as well.

[Bauer]

Yes the 24 hour news channels, social media, and comment sections are the best things to avoid.

Also the standard associate press stuff repeats itself with little insight.  The best sources are the ones you pay for that actually put on their thinking caps.

[Savonarola]

Have you considered not listening/watching or reading about the news for an extended time?

If so what did you find were the benefits and costs?

Is there a moral position as regards being engaged with the news?

Yes, I just gave up reading the news for Lent.  The thing that really surprised me is how little changed in that time (between early March and late April.)  The wars are still going on, Trump is still making unreasonable demands on Zelensky, Trump's on again/off again tariffs are still happening, Elon Musk is still running amok, Trump is still pardoning corrupt politicians, Trump and academia are still feuding.  Each news cycle had seemed like a momentous chaotic event when viewing it in real time; but taking a few weeks off it seems the Trump administration is  more like Groundhog's Day.

So the benefit was perspective and certainly a much less stressful life.  The cost was not knowing the exact reason why my 401(k) was taking a beating (though I had a pretty good guess why.)

I do think that there is a responsibility a voting citizen has to be informed; but being hyper-connected wasn't working for me.  It probably would be best to quit reading online news entirely (other than weather reports) and just getting a subscription to The Miami Herald; but I'm not ready to take that step yet.

[mongers]

Have you considered not listening/watching or reading about the news for an extended time?

If so what did you find were the benefits and costs?

Is there a moral position as regards being engaged with the news?

Yes, I just gave up reading the news for Lent.  The thing that really surprised me is how little changed in that time (between early March and late April.)  The wars are still going on, Trump is still making unreasonable demands on Zelensky, Trump's on again/off again tariffs are still happening, Elon Musk is still running amok, Trump is still pardoning corrupt politicians, Trump and academia are still feuding.  Each news cycle had seemed like a momentous chaotic event when viewing it in real time; but taking a few weeks off it seems the Trump administration is  more like Groundhog's Day.

So the benefit was perspective and certainly a much less stressful life.  The cost was not knowing the exact reason why my 401(k) was taking a beating (though I had a pretty good guess why.)

I do think that there is a responsibility a voting citizen has to be informed; but being hyper-connected wasn't working for me.  It probably would be best to quit reading online news entirely (other than weather reports) and just getting a subscription to The Miami Herald; but I'm not ready to take that step yet.

Wise words, Sav.

Because I've been doing a bit of traveling in recent weeks, I've had days were I've not seen any network news programmes and because I prefer to look out of train windows rather than looking at a smartphone screen, I've had several days were I haven't read, seen or heard any news all day.

Can't say I've missed it, though I have recorded some broadcast news to catch up on later day.

And this is an evolving pattern for this month, I think I've five "No news days" out of eleven so far this month, so maybe just ignore the news every other day and possibly catch up a bit on the next day will work for me?

[mongers]

Well today was the 1st time in a week that I'd seen, heard or read the news; can't say I've missed it.

Not having a daily dose of BS is refreshing, probably allow my own BS to 'grow' more vigorously?   

[Josquius]

I'd really like to find a more curated news source.

Less of the endless loop of look what the orange idiot said now, here's more malnourished children being blown up in Palestine, etc... And more...
They've got an election in Kenya and this leading candidate is a really interesting woman who used to be in a thrash metal band.
Here's this new rail line they're building in Mongolia and isn't it nifty,.
Here's how a small village in France is dealing with a influx of Chinese tourists after their historic well was in a Korean drama, and other such stuff.
Not banal nonsense. Not "ohh here's poppy mcpopstars new dress".
But more diversity and less depressing stories.

[Tamas]

I'd really like to find a more curated news source.

Less of the endless loop of look what the orange idiot said now, here's more malnourished children being blown up in Palestine, etc... And more...
They've got an election in Kenya and this leading candidate is a really interesting woman who used to be in a thrash metal band.
Here's this new rail line they're building in Mongolia and isn't it nifty,.
Here's how a small village in France is dealing with a influx of Chinese tourists after their historic well was in a Korean drama, and other such stuff.
Not banal nonsense. Not "ohh here's poppy mcpopstars new dress".
But more diversity and less depressing stories.

Yeah. I have mentioned this but I find this a decisive difference between far-right and centrist/leftist media. When the Right does something the press aligned with them always is trying to put a positive spin on it, not to mention outlets like Fox News or GB News.

Now you go and browse the Guardian front page for an extended period of time during this Labour government and you see stuff like:
"OMG winter fuel payment cut is going to kill a whole swath of pensioners" x 25
"OMG they have U-turned on the winter fuel payment cut, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE BUDGET NOW?!
"OMG this random analyst is saying the government will be FORCED to raise taxes. WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY?"

and this on a repeat cycle with different topics. They are not less gloomy since the Labour government, but MORE. FFS.

Plus yes the individual reporting on every poor sod who was caught in a crossfire / was deliberately machine gunned down while trying to get food for their family in Gaza. I am not saying to keep quiet on it but god damn.


Otherwise, what you are looking for Josq used to be The Economist. But a couple of years ago I concluded the quality of their writing was on a steady fall and could no longer justify the cost.

[Josquius]

The Independent back when paper news papers were a thing was really good for that too.
Its amazing how that one fell, it used to be the thinking man's Guardian.

[Grey Fox]

Sounds like a very British problem.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. I have mentioned this but I find this a decisive difference between far-right and centrist/leftist media. When the Right does something the press aligned with them always is trying to put a positive spin on it, not to mention outlets like Fox News or GB News.

GB News, like the Mail and the Telegraph has a faction in a fight on the right. They were not comfortable supportive allies for, say, Sunak or May or Cameron for that matter (even if they rowed in at election time). Plus I mentioned it at the time but the Mail and the Telegraph were breaking Partygate stories even though it was damaging "their" PM - I think that's because the desire for a scoop and breaking news outweighs partisan interest. I think GB News is a little different (but less important as a news publisher).

The BBC doesn't do opinion pieces really it does news and analysis (and I question some of their news decisions which is a bit too celebrity/online driven for me). And the rest of the more centrist press like the Times sit behind a paywall. The Daily Mail and the Guardian doesn't. Which means I think the Guardian is now the most visited news site in the UK and the Daily Mail is second. The Times has influence as a brand but it isn't actually read by very many people because it's behind a paywall. I don't think I've read a Telegraph article in about a decade I've just seen people (including me) dunking on what we assume is in the article based on headlines shared on social media.

Now you go and browse the Guardian front page for an extended period of time during this Labour government and you see stuff like:
"OMG winter fuel payment cut is going to kill a whole swath of pensioners" x 25
"OMG they have U-turned on the winter fuel payment cut, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE BUDGET NOW?!
"OMG this random analyst is saying the government will be FORCED to raise taxes. WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY?"

and this on a repeat cycle with different topics. They are not less gloomy since the Labour government, but MORE. FFS.

The government isn't competent. But I think in the very first episode of Black Mirror about the PM fucking a pig's head that this was a joke. I think a character turned around and said "Oh God, the Guardian have started a liveblog"

That is kind of their thing - just today I think they had a British politics, European politics, US politics (and there is an Australian politics one too in the right timezone), Business, Middle East Crisis, Wimbledon and Cricket liveblogs.

On the Orange idiot point I'd also flag that the US is the growth market for most UK media companies. The Guardian and Mail have 100+ reporters and standalone newsrooms in the US. They're both top 10 for pageviews in the US. I saw an interview with Guardian US editor or CEO and they were pointing out that the Guardian sits between the Washington Post and WSJ in internet traffic in the US and I think they said the best day for revenue the Guardian has ever had was the day they endorsed Kamala Harris (the day after Bezos spiked the Washington Post's endorsement). I think the Independent, Sun and Telegraph all have plans to launch in the US given the success of the Guardian and Mail there in terms of opening a new and significant revenue stream.

That does mean they both produce a lot of US content that then becomes our news too. But I also think it means their position is slightly starker. So the Guardian was centre to left when I was young - I think it is significantly more liberal left/progressive now and I believe a large part of that is because that's their position in the US as a paper with a strong liberal/progressive view.

Plus yes the individual reporting on every poor sod who was caught in a crossfire / was deliberately machine gunned down while trying to get food for their family in Gaza. I am not saying to keep quiet on it but god damn.

Otherwise, what you are looking for Josq used to be The Economist. But a couple of years ago I concluded the quality of their writing was on a steady fall and could no longer justify the cost.

I'd defend them but this is a challenge for news publishing.

Since covid there is an industry wide decline in people reading news on websites. It's across all sites, of all quality and persuasions. No-one's fully sure why (theories are people got out of the habit of following news after an initial spike in covid and have never got back into it, there's just too much and it's too distressting etc). But I think if we have newspapers I think it is almost a moral duty to be reporting everyday on people being killed in wars whether that's Gaza or Ukraine.

FWIW I think this is also the experience of reading news via a website/app. It is curated and edited but it is still the hard news first. With a physical newspaper the editing is more noteworthy of balancing out stories - but also you could turn straight to sport or review or opinion and then work through to the bits in the news. The browsing a news website/app experience of basically going through from front to back is not how people read papers.

And to be honest that would be my tip which I generally try to keep to unless I'm really interested in a story or it's breaking - get a newspaper. It's news that's been thoughtfully edited, selected with a bit of distance (at least a day) and curated with other content that you might not otherwise see. It is so much better and healthier than refreshing news websites or browsing their apps.

I'd recommend the Times too.

[garbon]

Guardian is sort of behind a paywall now. You either pay or agree to let them track and sell your data. I've not read them since that policy came into play(as I first saw with The Sun and Daily Mail).

[Sheilbh]

Guardian is sort of behind a paywall now. You either pay or agree to let them track and sell your data. I've not read them since that policy came into play(as I first saw with The Sun and Daily Mail).

I think this an area where California got the law right in drawing a distinction between "sale" of data/personalised advertising v other stuff.

Because European law requires an accept/reject choice to cookies. And you also need cookies to show contextual advertising (I'm aware of one company in Europe that has a genuinely cookie-free solution and even that relies on the fact that the Dutch implemented European law wrong ). There was a decision in Germany on this just today. It's why the consent or pay/pay or okay model is fairly common in Europe - and I sympathise with it. They need to make money and they can either do that through advertising or people paying for their content. Though I fully get it's crap from a user perspective.

And it's why I prefer California's model because actually the thing users opt out of isn't contextual advertising, or analytics, or marketing or anything else powered by cookies/access to a device - instead you opt out of the sale of your data into the personalised advertising world. I think Europe's is purer - but I think California is more effective and balanced.