Respectfully disagree - you don't "put effort into evaluating" food from a restaurant that has continually served you dodgy food. You either go elsewhere that doesn't serve you poisoned items (alternatives), or boycott eating out all together if such alternatives don't exist.

The belief is that the general media teaches you useful information from current events that impact your life. It doesn't. I'd rather read a "year in review", or something on a longer time frame, than follow things too closely.

For specialised knowledge, there are professional journals for that sort of thing. But mass media "news" is not useful at all, so I've taken the policy of cutting it out. Mental health and general life perspectives have been vastly improved.

> Respectfully disagree - you don't "put effort into evaluating" food from a restaurant that has continually served you dodgy food.

I think this is perhaps a poor analogy, but is illustrative of the real disagreement. There’s no informational equivalent to a restaurant that is so trustworthy that you no longer need give a moment’s thought to the safety of the food prepared there. That’s not to say there aren’t great newspapers or magazines or individual writers, but if you think you’ve found one whose entire output should be trusted unconditionally, I’d really want to discuss some of their lesser works with you as counterexamples.

> I'd rather read a "year in review", or something on a longer time frame, than follow things too closely.

This seems like a mentally healthy way to learn about world events, and I don’t disapprove. What you read will be produced by the same journalists, though, right?

I avoid television news almost entirely when I can and I suspect our point of view on this might not be very far apart. I do think the ability to parse corrupt - or hopefully, merely imperfect - media is an important skill for people to have.