Regarding the news cycle and the ensuing anxiety levels:
long ago I opted to watch the local news for weather and headlines, and the standard national broadcast news (ABC, NBC, CBS) - get the important updates in the first 15 minutes and then turn it all off. Read a paper or two, and then go for a walk. DO NOT WATCH cable news for any reason! They have to fill 24 hours of air time and the only way to keep you tuned in is to scare you or piss you off. Same goes for the Sky Is Falling Weather Channel.
Lately, I'm not watching much TV at all because of the non-stop political ads. I'll watch the local evening news but avoid everything else. If I need updates on the conspiracies, lies, personal attacks and the Russian annihilation of Ukraine, 5 minutes on my Twitter feed supplies the latest.
News watching has been dramatically curtailed over the last 5 years in our household. I get the majority of my news from online paid subscriptions as well as two "in real life" hand held newsprint on my fingers newspapers delivered daily. The biggest difference I find by reading the newspapers and then their online versions are the online versions are much harder to skim and zip to news that catches one's eye. It's 100% controlled by the paper in what you see one article at a time as you scroll down as opposed to being less curated irl paper where I can jump all over the place if need be. It may not seem like a big deal, but the amount of news I can soak up in a morning paper is much more varied and efficient than online.
During the Iran Hostage Crisis I became a news addict who obsessively watched ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel. I didn’t read newspapers much back then and relied on TV and radio for news. When the hostage situation was resolved, ABC continued the program but I lost interest. I became a reader of newspapers and never really watched TV news or listened to radio news again. I like the fact that reading gives me control of the pace and focus of the news I get. TV and radio just don’t do a good job of covering complex and nuanced developments. Plus, it seems like half the TV news air time is consumed by insurance and Big Pharma commercials. Now I read the Daily Herald and a few internet newsfeeds so it’s still mostly reading with little watching or listening. On the whole, I didn’t completely disconnect from the news but I sure don’t spend much time or energy on it.
My family did not have a TV until I was 12; we got it to watch the 1968 Democratic convention. That was educational! I haven't watched TV news since. Newspapers allow one to dip in and out of issues, depending on how much psychic energy you have. In addition, if something important happens, it will be on the front page next morning. I don't need to know everything the moment it happens.
How much news? I go through phases, occasional moments of binge that quickly taper off. I think my friends would say that I'm a news junkie, but I am getting jaded. There isn't much new under the sun. I rarely watch cable news because I have a confident belief that in any given 24-hour period the world did not generate 24 hours of things I need to know; nor do I believe that what really matters in this world regularly shoehorns itself into 24-hour packages. I do subscribe to three newspapers digitally, but most days only look at one. I'll watch a Sunday morning news show for a while, then get sick of the partisan sniping and tune out for a while. I'll try and catch David Muir before dinner. But I'm not enthusiastically devoted to any of this. Part of this is that it all begins to sound like an 8-track tape that just keeps playing the same things over and over without end. And right now, the political ads are just toxic. I doubt I'll ever go cold turkey like your friend, but I do think an interest in news can devolve into a neurosis and certainly can induce anxiety. I know for sure that the utter contempt I have developed for certain Supreme Court justices does not add to my bliss and personal flourishing. And yet I can't look away.
I'm very done with TV (except Bill Maher and the occasional Meet the Press). Pretty done with NPR. I subscribe to the major papers online (NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Trib), and I scan them for the fresh and engaging on a daily basis. I check in on 538 during election season. No other websites, no social media, and no newsletters except this one and Jonathan Chait's. I get the Economist, New Yorker, NYROB, and Atlantic -- all of which are pretty hit or miss for me. I used to feel compelled to clean my plate. Now I only read what interests me. I don't follow closely the ups and downs of politics -- so much speculation (most of it wrong) about what's about to happen anyway. What's the point? My parents tell me about the latest twists and turns in the various efforts to punish Trump for his gross misdeeds, all of which I sort of wrote off in my mind long ago. It feels like a generational switch -- they're gobbling up MSNBC, and I can't stand it. So much fruitless dudgeon.
I do feel that with the Wokening, "my side" sort of left me, a la Reagan in re Democrats, so I find progressive echo chambers increasingly insufferable. I used to love John Oliver, for example. I'm now more apt to see the arguments and points he's missing, rendering his self-righteous tone and style hard to take. I fill a longish commute with podcasts -- Bari Weiss, Blocked and Reported, Conan O'Brien (really funny!), Yascha Mounk, Sam Harris, Al Franken, Glenn Loury, Freakonomics, old Car Talks, Mincing Rascals, of course -- and I'm happier.
Totally agree on Conan O'Brien's podcast. He is incredibly quick and funny and his team is very good as well. The interview with Kevin Nealon was sidesplitting.
Your logic in re: "Are you better off...?" is circular, at best. " First of all, whether you, personally are better off now than you were at the time of the last election almost certainly has little to do with the current officeholder in the race in which you are voting." And then you follow that with "...but discerning voters need to ask themselves which best reflect their ideas about how their lives could be made better, and, in the case of a candidate seeking reelection, whether life would have been better had they lost." Cannot have it both ways.
I admit I listen to NPR from 6-8AM every day and I read the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times online. I don't watch network television as I am addicted to murder and mayhem in the British Isles and only watch Acorn and Britbox. I try to escape from most of the political ads but keep getting texts and emails that I immediately delete. In two weeks I will be on a silent retreat and totally unplugged for three days. It is bliss personified.
I spend little to no time paying attention to today's versions of the news. The problem with most news is that it is written/delivered with very little context. It is not delivered with "here are two sides of the story...you decide". Instead, it is delivered with a "here's what we think you should think." Rarely do news reports go beyond sanctioned press releases by looking at the pros and cons of what is being presented. I try--emphasis on try--to make and espouse my conclusions of any pressing issue by understanding things as completely as possible. I ask my liberal and conservative friends if they've considered both sides. This means, to me, not just reading the New York Times, but the Wall Street Journal. I believe the Times' and Journal's opinion writers bring clarity on their sides of issues, making me confident in my opinions. Of course there is a lot of legitimate commentary onlline, I just find reading The Times and the Journal good choices.
I've stopped watching cable news entirely during the elections because they make me feel too anxious and worried. I sometimes listen to NPR when I just want the basic facts about what's happening. Lately, I'm not even reading the NYTimes or WAPO, either.
I stopped watching the local "news" 40 years ago. SO I missed a lot of the "if it bleeds, it leads' stuff. And I stopped the national "news" maybe 30 years ago. I never watched the morning "news" programs. [If making omelets is news, please let me know!]
I had to stop listening to NPR (except for Fresh Air, etc.) in 2016. TOOOO much of "The Former Guy's" words. - [Can't call it news because news implies facts.]
So instead I subscribe to the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and the New Yorker. - I can skim the headlines and stay up to date with whatever without having to listen / read every story.
I do wish that every time the "news" includes "X Number Dead in Faraway Country Today" it would be paired with "X number Killed by Guns in the USA Today." EVERY TIME, EVERY DAY. Maybe that would bring the full horror of our gun violence to the attention of those who can pass laws to reduce these atrocities.
re 'no news is good news': in the last 4-6 weeks of the 2020 presidential election campaign, my wife & i decided we had had enough - it was too stressful, too depressing to watch and read the news every day. we did not, however, stop listening to/reading news completely - we agreed to 'no news saturday'. this one-day per week respite - a 'no news sabbath of sorts' - reduced our stress levels substantially. we have continued 'no news saturday' to some extent ever since.
Regarding the news cycle and the ensuing anxiety levels:
long ago I opted to watch the local news for weather and headlines, and the standard national broadcast news (ABC, NBC, CBS) - get the important updates in the first 15 minutes and then turn it all off. Read a paper or two, and then go for a walk. DO NOT WATCH cable news for any reason! They have to fill 24 hours of air time and the only way to keep you tuned in is to scare you or piss you off. Same goes for the Sky Is Falling Weather Channel.
Lately, I'm not watching much TV at all because of the non-stop political ads. I'll watch the local evening news but avoid everything else. If I need updates on the conspiracies, lies, personal attacks and the Russian annihilation of Ukraine, 5 minutes on my Twitter feed supplies the latest.
News watching has been dramatically curtailed over the last 5 years in our household. I get the majority of my news from online paid subscriptions as well as two "in real life" hand held newsprint on my fingers newspapers delivered daily. The biggest difference I find by reading the newspapers and then their online versions are the online versions are much harder to skim and zip to news that catches one's eye. It's 100% controlled by the paper in what you see one article at a time as you scroll down as opposed to being less curated irl paper where I can jump all over the place if need be. It may not seem like a big deal, but the amount of news I can soak up in a morning paper is much more varied and efficient than online.
During the Iran Hostage Crisis I became a news addict who obsessively watched ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel. I didn’t read newspapers much back then and relied on TV and radio for news. When the hostage situation was resolved, ABC continued the program but I lost interest. I became a reader of newspapers and never really watched TV news or listened to radio news again. I like the fact that reading gives me control of the pace and focus of the news I get. TV and radio just don’t do a good job of covering complex and nuanced developments. Plus, it seems like half the TV news air time is consumed by insurance and Big Pharma commercials. Now I read the Daily Herald and a few internet newsfeeds so it’s still mostly reading with little watching or listening. On the whole, I didn’t completely disconnect from the news but I sure don’t spend much time or energy on it.
My family did not have a TV until I was 12; we got it to watch the 1968 Democratic convention. That was educational! I haven't watched TV news since. Newspapers allow one to dip in and out of issues, depending on how much psychic energy you have. In addition, if something important happens, it will be on the front page next morning. I don't need to know everything the moment it happens.
I used “emotional hemophilia” in my comment last Thursday, and then noticed Maher use it on his show the next night. He must be a PS subscriber.
That was a good one.
The coffee filters visual tweet almost made my coffee spout from my nose!
How much news? I go through phases, occasional moments of binge that quickly taper off. I think my friends would say that I'm a news junkie, but I am getting jaded. There isn't much new under the sun. I rarely watch cable news because I have a confident belief that in any given 24-hour period the world did not generate 24 hours of things I need to know; nor do I believe that what really matters in this world regularly shoehorns itself into 24-hour packages. I do subscribe to three newspapers digitally, but most days only look at one. I'll watch a Sunday morning news show for a while, then get sick of the partisan sniping and tune out for a while. I'll try and catch David Muir before dinner. But I'm not enthusiastically devoted to any of this. Part of this is that it all begins to sound like an 8-track tape that just keeps playing the same things over and over without end. And right now, the political ads are just toxic. I doubt I'll ever go cold turkey like your friend, but I do think an interest in news can devolve into a neurosis and certainly can induce anxiety. I know for sure that the utter contempt I have developed for certain Supreme Court justices does not add to my bliss and personal flourishing. And yet I can't look away.
I've adopted many a Maher saying. Emotional hemophiliac is just the most recent.
I read nothing but The Picayune Sentinel.
Well, that and Giant Boats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jdw2Gi9Now
I'm very done with TV (except Bill Maher and the occasional Meet the Press). Pretty done with NPR. I subscribe to the major papers online (NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Trib), and I scan them for the fresh and engaging on a daily basis. I check in on 538 during election season. No other websites, no social media, and no newsletters except this one and Jonathan Chait's. I get the Economist, New Yorker, NYROB, and Atlantic -- all of which are pretty hit or miss for me. I used to feel compelled to clean my plate. Now I only read what interests me. I don't follow closely the ups and downs of politics -- so much speculation (most of it wrong) about what's about to happen anyway. What's the point? My parents tell me about the latest twists and turns in the various efforts to punish Trump for his gross misdeeds, all of which I sort of wrote off in my mind long ago. It feels like a generational switch -- they're gobbling up MSNBC, and I can't stand it. So much fruitless dudgeon.
I do feel that with the Wokening, "my side" sort of left me, a la Reagan in re Democrats, so I find progressive echo chambers increasingly insufferable. I used to love John Oliver, for example. I'm now more apt to see the arguments and points he's missing, rendering his self-righteous tone and style hard to take. I fill a longish commute with podcasts -- Bari Weiss, Blocked and Reported, Conan O'Brien (really funny!), Yascha Mounk, Sam Harris, Al Franken, Glenn Loury, Freakonomics, old Car Talks, Mincing Rascals, of course -- and I'm happier.
Totally agree on Conan O'Brien's podcast. He is incredibly quick and funny and his team is very good as well. The interview with Kevin Nealon was sidesplitting.
That whole episode was like performance art, like Andy Kaufman. "Why are you attacking me??"
Your logic in re: "Are you better off...?" is circular, at best. " First of all, whether you, personally are better off now than you were at the time of the last election almost certainly has little to do with the current officeholder in the race in which you are voting." And then you follow that with "...but discerning voters need to ask themselves which best reflect their ideas about how their lives could be made better, and, in the case of a candidate seeking reelection, whether life would have been better had they lost." Cannot have it both ways.
I admit I listen to NPR from 6-8AM every day and I read the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times online. I don't watch network television as I am addicted to murder and mayhem in the British Isles and only watch Acorn and Britbox. I try to escape from most of the political ads but keep getting texts and emails that I immediately delete. In two weeks I will be on a silent retreat and totally unplugged for three days. It is bliss personified.
So with you on TV -- what is it about British murders?
One thing I like is that the police and most of the criminals don't have guns. So the shows concentrate more on the cerebral part of the mystery,
Exactly.
I spend little to no time paying attention to today's versions of the news. The problem with most news is that it is written/delivered with very little context. It is not delivered with "here are two sides of the story...you decide". Instead, it is delivered with a "here's what we think you should think." Rarely do news reports go beyond sanctioned press releases by looking at the pros and cons of what is being presented. I try--emphasis on try--to make and espouse my conclusions of any pressing issue by understanding things as completely as possible. I ask my liberal and conservative friends if they've considered both sides. This means, to me, not just reading the New York Times, but the Wall Street Journal. I believe the Times' and Journal's opinion writers bring clarity on their sides of issues, making me confident in my opinions. Of course there is a lot of legitimate commentary onlline, I just find reading The Times and the Journal good choices.
I've stopped watching cable news entirely during the elections because they make me feel too anxious and worried. I sometimes listen to NPR when I just want the basic facts about what's happening. Lately, I'm not even reading the NYTimes or WAPO, either.
I stopped watching the local "news" 40 years ago. SO I missed a lot of the "if it bleeds, it leads' stuff. And I stopped the national "news" maybe 30 years ago. I never watched the morning "news" programs. [If making omelets is news, please let me know!]
I had to stop listening to NPR (except for Fresh Air, etc.) in 2016. TOOOO much of "The Former Guy's" words. - [Can't call it news because news implies facts.]
So instead I subscribe to the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and the New Yorker. - I can skim the headlines and stay up to date with whatever without having to listen / read every story.
I do wish that every time the "news" includes "X Number Dead in Faraway Country Today" it would be paired with "X number Killed by Guns in the USA Today." EVERY TIME, EVERY DAY. Maybe that would bring the full horror of our gun violence to the attention of those who can pass laws to reduce these atrocities.
re 'no news is good news': in the last 4-6 weeks of the 2020 presidential election campaign, my wife & i decided we had had enough - it was too stressful, too depressing to watch and read the news every day. we did not, however, stop listening to/reading news completely - we agreed to 'no news saturday'. this one-day per week respite - a 'no news sabbath of sorts' - reduced our stress levels substantially. we have continued 'no news saturday' to some extent ever since.