Part of the problem is that I feel most people underestimate the enormous complexity of social issues. There's so many variables and so many different types of interactions that my opinion on a lot of issues is "I don't have enough information" or "it's too complex for me to pick a side". A lot of people get upset if you say this to them though, and then they attempt to persuade you otherwise using some well-known argument that I've already researched in depth and found to be largely inconclusive. It's easier just to abstain from these conversations.

I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme depth to figure out "the truth"; the surface level conversation is much more interesting to them. How many people have actually looked at the original studies on climate change themselves? I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming. Strong opinions based on weak data seems to be the prevailing theme lately, but perhaps that's just my perception.

A snippet: "no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed.

So how did the public respond to my claim that BOTH sides of the debate look convincing? They berated me for not sufficiently researching materials from ONE side of the debate that happens to be their side. Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science.

That is a massive public illusion."

What kind of egomania is that? How is the prevention of a possible global catastrophe a question of "betting against" a cartoonist?

If the scientific consensus is right, we should do everything to avoid the disaster. And if it's not, we've invested in renewables and saved some single-use fossil fuels for a "rainy day". (These are the only fossil deposits for the lifetime of the planet -- does it make sense to spend them all within 200 years?)

There are no downsides to taking action here. But Adams thinks we should first engage in meta-discussion about "persuasion", so it's not time to do anything yet...? Sigh.

Scott Adams likes to describe himself as smart (as he does in the linked post), and I wouldn't argue with that. But his is the kind of non-constructive smartness that works to find flaws in everything and everybody without actually forming a rigorous holistic view of anything. It's an excellent basis for a three-panel daily comic, but not for global policy.

And it is a strawman attack

"Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science."

Obviously you can't get down to climate science, no serious person is suggesting it. The same as with LIGO, you can't get down to gravitational waves and understand them. The reason is that these people have decades of experience and studied some really hard topics - not liberal arts. To get to the bottom you need to take the same route into the topic.

I might be the last person believing in the usefulness of experts in these days - real experts on a topic not those "experts" on CNN and Fox. I know this is unpopular.

It's also funny that people want to understand climate change when from my experience with people many can't even add simple numbers or correctly work with percentages, e.g. calculating VAT. This is the illusion of I-can-do-everything-if-I-want-something. No you can't. Sometimes it takes decades of training, say piano, to do something. Everyone thinks today he is entitled to understand this and entitled to have an opinion that is as valuable as the opinion of someone who did something for years. THIS is the illusion.

Site note to Scott Adams: Reality - climate in this case - does not care the least what you think of it.

[Edit] In short: I don't care about the opnion of a comic writer about climate science.

To be more precise:

No non-expert in field X can evaluate claims with respect to field X.

The phenomenon you're talking about is with respect to lay people. But there is a parallel phenomenon that happens with intelligent people with expertise in unrelated fields. It's relatively easy to read a handful of papers in a field other than your own and convince yourself that you are qualified to pass judgement. But how can you be sure you'd see a problem in the methodology of a paper, even if it existed? And the larger problem: how do you know the set of papers you read is representative?

In the worst case, there could have been a shift in the field that no one bothered to document (perhaps because the shift was due to a lack of publishable results). This is my number one gripe reading old papers in computer science: sometimes an idea just disappears from the literature because frankly it didn't work, but you can't cite a paper that just says that outright, even though everyone (who works closely in the field) knows it to be true.

In my experience, both problems take time and experience to solve. Which means that if you don't have those, you're better off finding an expert you trust and asking them---in person---what papers are worth reading.

There is not a similar debate about climate change.

I would assume that any scientific claim which results in a public policy change that creates losers and winners would create a very different kind of debate where scientists are subject to external influences and non-scientists feel the need weigh in in order to avoid being the loser.

There aren't any "sides". There's the science, and there's a propaganda campaign that's driven by energy corporations, and to a smaller extent deluded conspiracy theorists like Adams. Framing it as a debate at all is intellectually dishonest and just makes public confusion worse.

Most art, politics, and even sports (physical qualities being considered equal) are all areas that can't really be solved by a complete analysis because, as you say, there are too many variables. Nonetheless, some people are much better at these things than others due to qualities that are hard to describe exactly. This ability to make good split second decisions without a complete analytical understanding of the problem or even the current state is one of those qualities.

I don't think this ability is superficial, or without value. Rather, it just goes to show how different people are from one another. So I would encourage you not to suggest to others who do have strong political views that their views are unfounded just because they are strong and the domain is complex.

Some people are in very high positions of power and can make decisions that impact peoples lives. Ignoring them and letting them do whatever they want may not always lead to good outcomes. But I will agree that purely ruminating on it does not improve one's situation.

Let me ask you this. Take something you believe 100%, how much evidence the other way will it take for your opinion to change? Now imagine that item is somehow part of your identity. It's not an easy fight every single day.

The reason I bring this up is instead of saying 'some of these people', it's better to say all of us.

I don't want to hear all those people trumpeting their simple "truths" on all news channels ever more aggressively.

But I fear if I stop listening to those sentiments I could miss the moment when it's time for me to leave or warn others.

I have often wondered how my ancestors could have missed what was going on and end up in a nazi death camp.

Did they not get the news? Did they not believe it? Did it all sound too similar to what had come before until it was too late? Was it too complex to predict?

I don't know, but I can't take my eyes off the ball now even though my eyes hurt.

Having said that, I can speak to your comment on global warming. People reject it because:

1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.

2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen.

3. In 2005, climate scientists predicted that by 2010, global warming would cause oceans to rise to the point that populations would be decimated, and we would have 50 million "climate refugees" fleeing these flooded areas of the globe. Didn't happen.

4. NASA, CRU, NOAA, and other government and scientific organizations have been caught falsifying data.

5. There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas.

Sure, if you only look at scientific climate data, it may look like climate change is an issue. However, if you look at government behavior, scientific scandals, evidences of falsified data, historical climate facts, and even current temperatures, there is more than enough evidence to cast a serious doubt on the accuracy and even legitimacy of climate change data, don't you think?

Nowhere in my post did I ever speak to, or infer, my views on the subject, since they are irrelevant. I merely answered a question with factual data.

I find the knee-jerk down-votes and negative commentary disturbing, since my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided, but rather based entirely on the irrational assumption that I don't think the same way others do. I would think, being the intelligent lot we're supposed to be here on Hacker News, we would see my commentary as a list of obstacles to overcome in order to reach those who reject climate change based on these observations, rather than killing the messenger, so to speak. Seems like the prudent course of action to me, anyway.

Actually, it is. Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation. That's why you're receiving downvotes.

Phrasing things as e.g. "People are told that the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" would be a better way to put things, if you're merely stating factual information. Phrasing it as something like "the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" makes it sound as if you yourself believe it.

Being a college-trained writer, I'm having a difficult time discerning the difference between, "There are claims that..." and "People are told that..." Both are passive sentences, suggesting that some unspecified entity is making claims, and others are believing them. Perhaps you could explain the difference between the two with whatever English degree you have. From my professional perspective, innocentoldguy literally said exactly what you just suggested he should have said, which leads me to believe that he is correct, and that you are judging his post based on emotion rather than rational thought.

As innocentoldguy said, whether people agree or disagree with climate change is not the issue. The issue is that many people don't agree with it, and they believe they have legitimate reasons not to (some of which innocentoldguy outlined in his post). As someone who thinks climate change IS an issue, and wants something to be done about it, you can either down-vote and insult those who you perceive as not agreeing with you (and I’m not convinced innocentoldguy falls into that category), or you can acknowledge their concerns, and work to fix whatever negative perceptions exist in your position. In other words, you can listen to their concerns, and then work to resolve them.

You're never going to convince anybody when you shout them down and down-vote them, but you might if you actually try to listen to what they’re saying and try to have a reasonable dialogue with them. Which seems to be the brightest course of action to you?

Here's a HuffPo article you can read that outlines many of the same issues innocentoldguy brought up, if you still have doubts as to the validity of his statement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-ps...

> 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.

I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent.

> 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen.

Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this.

I find 'many of us' to be a problematic phrase. You're making a claim beyond your personal experience using this phrase and it sure doesn't apply to me.

It may be your experience, and that's fine. But I'm not giving you a pass on claiming it was anyone's experience beyond your own.

I am interested in where you encountered these perspectives; I am aware I may be retro-fitting my own memories.

[edit: as per usual fixing mobile autocorrect and formating ]

Really? I do: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970...

> Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this.

I think he's referring to either the "acid rain/forest die-off: http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac...

or the rainforest (this article contains a bunch of environmental scares that didn't happen): http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac...

Or maybe the forest fire commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_MW0Bi7L4

Or maybe conflating them to make a point.

However, I think it's still an important point that climate change skeptics CLAIM to have been told these these in the 70s, and use it as an important part of their argument.

> I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent.

(I believe climate change is real, is happening, and is caused by human activity).

It's weird that people say warnings about ice ages were non existent, because they really weren't.

We can talk about whether they were taken seriously by relevant scientists, or if they were just pop-sci nonsense, but we can't say they didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I guess I'm responding in particular to your words:

> and I do not recall ever hearing this.

when perhaps I should be reading

> and I do not recall ever hearing this from scientists.

At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so

In addition, the legitimacy of of climate change wasn't his point. He was answering the original posters question, as to how anybody could not believe in climate change. In this, his points were factual. Those are the exact reasons that naysayers give.

The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming."

To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change.

I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views.

Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue.

Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.

You haven't said anything out of line.

I typically don't take sides on issues, because I feel very few issues are defined well enough to do so without blinding myself to other information and possibilities. I find no intelligence in rejecting information, simply because it does not fit into my world-view, so I choose not to do so. I also like to reevaluate information frequently, since things are rarely, if ever, static. This may not be for everyone, but I like living in an ever-changing world of uncertainty, discovery, and reevaluation. It works for me.

Therefore, rather than take sides, I act. I do what seems right for me, given my current understanding. With regards to pollution, and its effects on our climate, I drive an electric car, ride public transportation or walk when I can, use renewable sources to heat my home (solar, Trombe wall), insulate my home beyond spec, do not use air conditioning, have replaced all my lights with LEDs and skylights, etc. I live in a fairly large home, but I consume less than half the energy of my neighbors, who live in homes half the size. That's what I chose to do about pollution. It seems to be a lot more effective than getting worked up over nothing and down-voting people online, but to each their own.

Maybe you can understand now why I said my opinions on the matter are irrelevant. They don't fit into the polarized, team-sport camps of believers vs. non-believers. Yes, I can read and understand scientific papers, charts, and other data. I can even act upon them, as I've explained. What I won't do, however, is marginalize people and blind myself to the legitimate concerns of others. For example, the federal government has been a huge propagator of lies, fraud, and other evils around the world throughout my lifetime, so when someone runs from climate change based solely on the federal government's involvement, I can only agree that they have a legitimate concern. I believe it would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

I doubt that has been of much help, but that is the way I approach most things.

I think this will be quite hard with climate change, considering the myriad other issues in life that are much more immediate concerns for people.

In my experience, the reason people usually want to know someone's personal opinion is simply to further their own fallacious, ad hominem arguments. I hope you had something more noble in mind.

That is because the average person believes they are playing a zero-sum game, in which competition is inescapable

And because each side has a set of values that must be protected, anything that threatens those values needs to be defeated.

Whether the thing threatening the values has an underlying "truth" that matches up with the surface is less relevant.

* EDIT - also, enlightenment-rationalism is a liberal value; just present people the facts, they will reason to the right conclusion (science!)... false — people don't think so literally about things (they think metaphorically); they think inside a frame shaped by the value framework.

I feel exactly the same way.

I can't tell if this is an introvert trait, or whether it arises from the kind of problem your mind is attuned to solving (perhaps both).

Reading social news makes me pessimistic for the future, and feel more withdrawn from the world. Reading about mathematics or science excites me, makes me more optimistic for the future, and makes me want to engage with as much as possible.

To many people it's entertainment. Just like watching football or any sport. Political drama is interesting and lends itself to speculation and monday morning quarterbacking and plenty of drama and personalities.

I think your exhaustion comes from the moral labeling always connected to social issues. Strip out the morality and social issues really are just math and science.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be Obama. It could be almost any Democrat, like the Clintons, Biden, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi. They all agree on 99.9% of issues, because they have a common set of values.

I do read a lot of Hacker News, paper(!) books and a little bit of reddit.

I can't even see how that would be correlated with the news.

People make their decisions about voting and stick to them. 99.99% of the news that could change their vote is then rationalized away.

It's easy to say that when you know your President will kill you for being too involved in politics, as happens in Russia.

Or maybe I am reading it wrong? Anyway, please be careful with this tone, it's very bad (as Italian, I know very well since 80% of the people I meet ask me "hey, what's up with mafia?").

It's like the Kardashians, they actively make an effort to be in the news for something, to maintain top of mind awareness...of their degeneracy.

The news is not entrainment, it's _news_. Yes it can be exhausting sometimes, and yes it can be hard to get out of an echo chamber, and yes some news is just ad-driven BS, but that is part of life. Sticking your head in the sand is not life.

And BTW, I'm not advocating 24/7 immersion. Short breaks are fine, just don't go shunning the world... you do live there after all.

And if you're getting sick of the same stories, read another source! There's only about a zillion newspapers, journals, letters, etc out there. There's more than enough to keep your interest if you don't glob into cable news all day.

Name three? I suspect it feels more like it's useful than it actually is, and you'd get much of the same information second-hand anyways.

And there's definitely a value is slowing down and avoiding the bottomless pit.

Honestly, I think the people that have the luxury of ignoring all news are the privileged and selfish. We have a duty in a democracy to stay informed and join the fray. That's the price of living in a free society. If there is no grassroots involvement then the government ends up being run by the moneyed interests.

I consume local news daily as local issues tend to affect me more directly, but I don't find it nearly as bad as the internet's daily quest to find the most gruesome national or international news story to spew everywhere. Also avoiding news subreddits and comments sections is key. I like Hacker News because the dialogue is usually pretty good and it's mostly about industry news.

The key question to ask yourself is "Does this improve my life at all?" The answer is mostly no. Maybe one could argue there is some small "entertainment" value. In this case, I would opt for quality over quantity. For example, watching a quality movie for 2 hours rather than spending 2 hours clicking through useless articles and videos.

But the year I came out as non-binary is the same year my country elected a President with a VP candidate that wants to make discrimination against me not only legal but protected. E.g., under Pence's prior proposals someone could fire me because I am NB to "protect their moral conviction" and even if that firing was against corporate policy it could not be punished or easily recanted. His prior two attempts at the law also were written in a way where local and state laws could not override the federal law, which makes it even scarier.

So I actually need to watch the news and remain "plugged in" because it's very much a situation for me where I am now exposed to a lot of potential damage.

As such I do not feel that burying my head in the proverbial sand is a luxury I can't afford. For those who can, enjoy it.

It's so progressive to want the government involved in every facet of our lives under the guise of "effective regulation". That is, until, you disagree with the tyrant in charge. Whatever happened to life liberty and the pursuits of happiness? Seems to be pushed aside as libertarian mumbo jumbo.

> His prior two attempts at the law also were written in a way where local and state laws could not override

Careful now. Supporting states rights will firmly label you as a racist.

Every American should be concerned about the idea of making it legal for police to selectively enforce law based on "moral convictions" about marriage and lifestyle. If you're not concerned about that kind of legislation then I'm not prepared to debate you on such a fundamental tenant on a mobile keyboard. Suffice to say: I'm opposed fundamentally.

As for why know about it: be real. We've got a lot more influence than you imply we do. I've got comparatively enormous financial resources to back certain people, along with the ability to finance a defensive emigration attempt.

From the perspective of the LGBT community it's never been a safer time to be open (which in no way implies it's not full of challenges and danger). But significant progress has been made.

And while America is still deeply structured around racism, the dialogue has never been more open and the problems have never been made more clear to a broad swath of the population, which when polled generally agrees that core problems like income inequality and unfair police enforcement / incarceration need to end now.

That is not to paint a rosy picture of the entire affair. It's a mixed bag. America's foreign policies have been troublesome in many ways. And yeah, surveillance and speech rights are a sore spot for some people. I don't disagree there are issues.

But sitting here telling me I've never had it worse won't work. I assure you 5 years ago it was substantially worse for me.

I need to keep an eye out so if nothing else, I know when I need to leave the country.

Perhaps, but I'm sure there's a better way than sifting through piles of BS that is news. (If you can't tell, I hate the "news"). Maybe the ACLU should set up a monthly email alert with a barometer reading. But I agree with OP. Avoiding the news will make you a more sane person.

I see no reason to retreat into a bubble because the news isn't happy. The things that nearly drove me to self-harm were real people, not an overcooked headline.

Staying educated on what's going on feels very important to me right now - especially in order to keep an eye out for opportunities to make a positive impact.

Classic quote comes to mind: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

To be clear this is not a jab, rather the observation that this is how most of us will respond.

I read the news then I think, "How awful and depressing." Then I go back to my normal day only slightly more down.

I find it terrifying that people are responding to the world by just turning off the news. I get why they want to do it but it's not a pathway to a healthy society if we all bury our heads in the ground.

Spot on. Activism changes the world. Watching "awful and depressing" news kills your motivation and makes you cynical.

If you want to learn about a political topic read big books. The ones written by experts, well known writers, academics, not journalists.

Local elections are a different matter, but closely following state and national policy and politics is a fairly useless hobby (so it's fine to do so if you enjoy it!) for most people, unless they plan to get much more seriously involved in the process than voting and maybe stuffing envelopes for someone. Or if they have some kind of need for deep knowledge of that stuff for business reasons, I guess, but few have such a need.

When people randomly talk about random news that they don't even remember the next day or some celebrity news that have no impact on him/her whatsoever, I'd feel that the person isn't really focused on his/her life.

I've ditched TV for 10 years but do read headlines on national news site daily at least to catch what's going on generally but otherwise spending time for myself that's supposed to matter more than "following" the world which is very unproductive.

I find that some of the alternative sites where everyone beats themselves over the topic with opposing views far better method to dissect the truth (middle-ground) than from a MSM news source.

Also helps that I don't constraint my thinking and views by boxing myself into one political ideology over another. I also don't do social media news and couldn't be happier.

Same in other respects, of course. You can make a meaningful difference to things like the Syrian conflict or what-have-you, the issue is that these issues are just so huge that a meaningful difference isn't likely going to be visible. The question is, do you want to make a difference in the world to see yourself being powerful and nice, or for an objective desire to have good effects in the world?

As charities get larger, they get more effective at receiving donations. There is no market pressure to make them more effective at utilising donations for their presumed purpose, only the extent to which they can leverage those donations to receive even more donations.

But you know, "the show must go on", we can focus on interesting things for us (ourselves), "keep calm and carry on" in sustainable-happiness we create (ourselves). Switching off news is probably one of the first steps. There are more, but let's just ignore them for now...

1) Having moved US -> UK, I wish the US had something like the NHS.

2) I've heard multiple veterans decry the quality and responsiveness of the VA healthcare is some pretty drastic terms.

3) I know from Rep. Capuano's mailing list the GOP has been trying for years to reform Ye VA in some way.

I suspect that until people stop being unhappy with the VA, that a large chunk of Americans will associate government-run healthcare with incompetence and inefficiency. This stands in stark contrast to the British perception of the NHS, so I want to know what's up.

More seriously, the American people just don't trust their government to be competent or efficient. Only about 20% describe government programs as "well-run."[0] Although more than 50% seem to think that it's doing an okay job on health care at the moment.

It would be an incredible undertaking to establish something like the NHS in the US, and the political will just isn't there.

[0] http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/beyond-distrust-how-a...

My knowledge of the US is limited but I imagine that a US version of the NHS would be organised by state and then by district hospitals. Plenty of moving parts at the back end but at least the patient just sees the single payer front end.

I also want to look into how the NHS works in more detail.

Might do some googling once I've rested up today (we saw the New Year in last night)

But maybe I'm wrong and the issue has complexities I'm not yet aware of.

On the other hand I've also noticed that I seem to be able to approach topics more objectively and less "inflamed" with presupposed positions than before.

This all has lowered my stress levels immeasurably and given me much more of a "we'll be fine" attitude about major events.

The real problem is that most of the major media sources are terrible, absolute amateur hour bottom of the barrel lowest common denominator garbage. The quality of what passes for journalism these days would get a person fired from almost any other profession.

When you find good journalism, it's almost like coming out a coal mine into the fresh air, but it's so hard to find it almost isn't even worth it.

More importantly: the news didn't consume me like it swallowed some of my friends

The problem is that most news business models compete for attention via:

  1. alarmist content  
  2. clickbait headlines  
  3. polarizing viewpoints

I don't have data to prove it, but it seems intuitive that this results in them taking less real action?

The OP is absolutely correct on all the observations.

I have been doing the same for a while: only monitor local news; don't bother sharing. And since most people on social media do not follow the same, I have stopped following social media.

The difficult part initially is when you stop sharing (because you're fighting your ego) but eventually you'll see how it makes you even more productive than you are.

http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...

http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...

Some say the 'only constant is change'. It's actually the opposite: things seldom change, with the exception of a few blips here and there(such as 911 and the 2008 financial crisis).

As further evidence of how things tend to remain constant more often than not, the post-2009 bull market and economic expansion is the longest ever despite the endless predictions of recession and crisis. Same for failed predictions of hyperinflation and dollar collapse. Web 2.0 valuations still keep rising long after pundits in 2012 said it was a bubble.

There's still war and terror in the Middle East despite trillion of dollars thrown at the problem

Self-improvement is more important than worrying about things outside of your control or that have little impact on your life. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to throw you a lifeline. That you have to do on your own, such as by investing your income in stocks or real estate and being frugal.

Can't be said better.

For a while Fox was the best for that. Really good entertainment with all the stupidity and ridiculousness so it was kind of interesting. Then during the election cycle CNN, NYT, and other major ones joined the ranks. I will always remember the "Reading these document is illegal, it is different for us, the media, so come to use for interpretation". That for me exemplified the new low the mass media has sunk to recently.

It is of course useful to re-read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky and keep that in mind then news makes a lot more sense.

Take ABC World News for instance, they throw the big headlines in the beginning, which you already know if you've checked any other news site/app. Then, they have these stories on a major car accident or one house somewhere catching on fire and somehow that merits it being on the national news. I obviously have some amount of sympathy for what these people go through, but the name of the program is ABC World News, and yet, there are never any stories about anything outside the US. And don't even get me started about the amount of commercials they throw in.

For sometime I was contemplating about not keeping up with the news for similar reasons that the author stated; certain stories may not interest me and the inevitable realization that there isn't anything I can do about it and making you feel depressed. I found, however, that I like staying informed on what is going on, not only in my local area and the US, but also international affairs. I try to limit my intake of mainstream news through my local paper, BBC World news, and their app; that's it. It doesn't take a lot of my time (maybe 45 minutes in total), I get to be informed on important topics, and see it as a productive way to take a break from school/work.

I do still scan the headlines from news.google.com once or twice a day and only read a story if the topic is truly compelling/news worthy. This allows me to still have some clue about whats going on without the agita and time sink.

I do have to give them props for taking a good spin on real world events (like major natural disasters) and talking about them about the impact they have on the world after they occur vs just non-stop clips of people suffering. This might seem harsh but a few people being killed by a terrorist makes no difference in the grand scheme of things - 4 days on non-stop talk about it on the News just increases paranoia and concern.

Always had the idea that the 24 hour news cycle would be a lot better if they just balanced it out with puppy videos to restore our faith in humanity.

Funny story - Opened the CNN app the other day to read about the Christmas incident in Germany - 17 links that basically ruin all faith in humanity - The last one (18th) was extremely clickbaity but the only one that was positive. The headline: "Bill Gates was her Secret Santa" - It's like you can't get good news without Tech being involved somehow.

Don't rely on social media for your news. Pick your news sources carefully, read more than one source too. Consider listening to radio if you want to avoid emotive images or screaming headlines. But don't stop reading (or listening to) the news. The Internet makes it possible to read or listen to English language news from sources from around the world. If you are dissatisfied with news in your region or country, go and explore those other sources.

And I disagree that you can't do anything about events in the news. Millions of people donate or give money to charity or fundraising campaigns as a result of events in the news. Life isn't comfortable for millions of people around the world, but why insulate yourself from what's happening around you? I can't even begin to imagine what the world would be like if we all stopped reading the news. Knowing what's happening around the world (and your own back yard) has spurred so many people to take action big and small.

And even if you think "I'm never going to take action, there's nothing I can do", you can still form an opinion - that might be an important thing when it comes to election day and you have to decide who you vote for. Not being interested in the news is exactly how politicians slip legislation under the nose of the electorate.

If you find reading the news depressing, read this for an inspiring story of how a Design & Technology student was spurred into action after watching a harrowing news report on Syria:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29900968

FWIW, I generally know about everything a day before it hits the major news outlets. After being freed from the slow, commercial-filled news cycle of tv and radio, who would ever want to go back to such a slow delivery system?

Using the web you can narrow that down to 5 minutes without occupying your mind memory too much to something uninteresting which I think is important to keep some room to fill in or use for your creativity.

Also for other reasons that TVs are not productive, I ditched that thing 10 years ago after getting out of college. Never missed it.

On the one hand I have also decided to become as ignorant as possible about the news because (at the risk of overusing the phrase), I think we have firmly moved into a post-truth American society. If election outcomes aren't based on facts, what's the point of knowing them?

On the other hand, many other people in this thread are saying that there's never been a more important time to know the news. I understand the sentiment, but I would phrase it differently: there's never been a more important time for good journalists to be doing good journalism. Except for the tricky issue of how to keep good journalists employed without people reading them, I don't feel any particular obligation to be informed. I decided to donate money to ProPublica in the hope that they'll keep the government as honest as possible without me having to deal with it.

My primary news outlets were G News and Twitter. I had to quit using twitter as well, which has been somewhat of a bummer as I've had tweet ideas. But I just let them pass now because it is more valuable to not have the distraction of reading others.

I also have been keeping up on tech news, primarily Apple rumors and here on hacker news. Also, Reddit and various subreddits offer largely 'news free' content for when I just want to consume.

If anything, these new filters have helped me see that most 'news' is really just content. And at least for now, I'm not interested in content that makes me feel bad or steals attention from my life.

While I highly recommend not being too connected to the concretes and noise of the day, i.e. news, I think sticking your head in the sand is not such a great idea either. Nobody planned on or set out to design and build tanks, cars, plane, guns, bombs, ciphers or databases for the Nazis but people actually did.

I haven't watched the news in over a decade (except for when I'm over at someone's house being polite) and my life has been better because of it.

Instead, I pay for NYTimes, Wall St Journal and read Hacker news which I find keeps me more informed than the average joe watching news stories on "what's trending on social media" type journalism.

Many people participate, and push back, but we can see which way the wind is blowing. Dictatorship? Well, maybe not outright dictatorship, but certainly heavy authoritarianism along the lines of Putin and Erdogan.

The term "card-carrying" refers to me. I have a literal membership card from said activist organization. I am fighting back.

EDIT: Actually, no, I have two membership cards. One is from my normal activist org, the other from the ACLU.

UK News: Getting worse each year, though usually high quality, they go so into murder details these days it makes you sick if you aren't already desensitized.

US News: these channels are all a joke, honestly Fox and CNN? I turn to these channels when I want to have a laugh.

Reddit/HN: Aggregated news, actually pretty good. Though of course very western focused, Russia is the 'bad guy' etc.

I think the solution should be something like being able to filter the negativity and keep the zen while watching the news, not close the eyes.

I'm going to pick a news outlet I trust to give daily facts. I might even subscribe to a physical newspaper. I think a happy medium exists where you can stay informed, but avoid being consumed by bullshit.

So what I think I really want is better news. The PBS news is more suited to my tastes, but the form is too long for my available time. Some news is visual, most can be auditory. And it needs to be portable and always available.

There are better ways of keeping up to date, especially with news feeds that you can get just the topics you want news on.

But people still think I'm nuts for not watching the news.

Then I come to HN comments for non-clickbait sources and insights into topics I do care about.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-informatio...

Much happier.

i hope there's a third way between corporate news and government news.

Apart from that, I can only agree. I started on the same path several years ago.

...ranging from slightly to hugely.

> Subscribe to at least one whose bias you agree with, and one you don't.

Yet you'll have zero guarantee that any number of outlets you pick will cover the whole spectrum. They might very well span a very small spectrum.