My home schooled son and I I spent time with an older relative while on his “Senior Trip with Mom.” My uncle has Fox News on morning to night with the requisite rage that results. He asked me if I was keeping my children up-to-date with current events. When I replied that I rarely did, he got very upset, until I explained why. I told him how I had very few hours and years with them. Besides the usual subject necessary to be educated, I taught them the Scripture and how to live well in light of the Truth. As nations rise and fall, learning to live well was our primary calling. “
He paused a moment and said,” That is a better way. I wonder if I shouldn’t watch less news as I am always angry. “
I agree with you. I haven't gone quite as far as you have in staying clear of media but I've reduced my intake over the same period of time and for the same reasons. I notice that when I visit my mother who listens to MSNBC somewhat obsessively, I feel my blood pressure rise, not because of their opinions as much as the loud insistent tone coupled with the blaring drug ads. I guess the one thing I hold onto though, and I am writing this just to get a chance to say it here, is print journalism. I subscribe (and it ain't cheap) to my local newspaper, and though many of the stories are a day late, I can read and digest the news in a way that doesn't give me heartburn, or brain-burn, and I can avoid the sort of psychotic ruminations that full-bore media evokes in me. I find that reading a newspaper made of paper, with or without a cup of coffee, can be an edifying and even relaxing experience.
One of the best analyses of how news became toxic I've read. Thank you.
However, I may not care about the news, but the news cares about me. For years, I've been concerned about how politics-free spaces are disappearing. Where I shop, what music I listen to, what movies I watch - practically everything comes with a "message" these days. Remember those bumper stickers that read, "If you're not completely appalled, you're not paying attention!"? Those people are on a mission to make sure everyone is as anxious and angry as they are.
I started thinking about this deliberately in college. There was a fellow student taking a survey for a psych class on new consumption, and I answered that I had recently stopped reading the NYT. The student went off script and asked me why I didn't feel a responsibility to keep up with the news. This made me think -- I couldn't really say that I thought I did not have that responsibility (I did feel guilty) but I also knew that it couldn't be right to have to keep in constant connection with international events.
I think the main thing, looking back on it today, is that individuals have little international (or even national) power, and the place where most of us can do the most good is locally -- and first and foremost, in our families, workplaces, churches, and wider social circles. When we use up our emotional energies fretting over things we cannot directly affect, we are enabled in ignoring local social and political situations that are really much more directly part of our responsibility.
A couple of years ago my husband and I decided to subscribe to our local newspaper and *try*, at least, to make that our primary source of news.
I used to read several newspapers every day and a few weekly magazines. I now spend thirty minutes with the WSJ every morning over breakfast and that’s it. I got rid of my television over a decade ago. I read a handful of blogs and substacks that consistently add value. On Sundays I do not turn on any of my devices. I cannot imagine how horrible life would be if I consumed as much “news” as most people are subjected to.
I didn't really pay attention to the news until 9/11. The shock and horror of that day sparked an unhealthy desire in me to stay updated on US and world events. A few years later, and two kids later, I stopped immersing myself in the news because it affected how I viewed the world. Today, I do skim headlines and will read a story here and there, but I'm not as obsessive about it as I was over 20 years ago.
Continually watching and listening to the doom and gloom news and "expert opinion" pieces that at times are meant to stir up controversy and provoke anger can be overwhelming and stressful. I truly believe we were not created to carry the weight of the world.
A timely post for me, Joel, having spent the last few days unproductively, and obsessively, looking at social media posts on the destruction in WNC. Note to self: Get busy helping and turn it off.
Since about 2012, I have gradually stepped back from detailed coverage of news and politics. I currently have a major social media platform account deactivated because, as another commentator here describes, there's barely anywhere you can go that isn't infected with deeply polarized _opinions_ on every single news event, even things that should be unifying in our concern for victims.
Nicely done, Joel. I agree with your periodization, fwiw. I spend a lot of time figuring out -- well, trying to figure out -- how connected to be, and to what. For a certain kind of mind, and for a cultural critic/writer, it is a real problem. Something to managed rather than solved, I fear. Anyway, keep up the good work, as always.
I spent 30 years at the Department of State, including assignments as a Watch Officer and as an analyst on a range of topics. One of the things I noticed over the years was that the news rarely changes as fast as the 24/7 cyclers wanted us to believe. Sure, they could fill air time by relentlessly pressing their source for new details that totally failed to change the essentials of the story. For lack of new details, they turned their air time over to a 'debate society' in the form of 'experts' willing to talk on the air and ideally presenting opposing viewpoints and analysis of the less than a handful of available hard facts. (I gave up on debates in High School when I realized that they had no interest whatsoever in establishing truth but simply wanted to score points off of each other). Another effect of the 24/7 news cycle was to achieve Edward R Murrow's nightmare of having 'news departments' placed under the management of green eye shade types interested only in viewership and click thrus. History and experience have also taught me that first reports are always wrong in some way - the first reports tell you that something happened like a fire, an explosion, a shooting, an arrest, and escape, etc. - but the essentials of who, what, when, where, how and why will be more slowly discovered and shared long after 'the first reports'. My wife who worked at the AP years ago confirmed something that we at State had also noted - most of the first reports of anything were credited to Agence France Presse who almost invariably were the first to report a new event, and almost always got it wrong though they got it first. So, we at State and apparently in the other news organizations, closely monitored AFP for that first indication of an event but then went to work to find who else was in position to report on it and give us a more accurate report. Now in retirement, I no longer watch network, cable, or streaming news services. I can usually get an early report via one of my on line news consolidation services and then I can decide which news source is most likely to be following the new story on the basis of geography, political or cultural connections, etc. but then I only rarely sit down and just watch - because rarely if ever does anything really new and important get reported and I can just keep an overwatch out for that ignoring the rest of the noise.
Joel, liked this one. I've been thinking about this as well. (But I still have not gotten completely off the sauce.) Yes, there has been a steadily increasing outpouring of 'nooze,' creating artificial demand. But... on the other side, seems like things are happening at an ever-increasing speed. (Or is that just this 76-year old guy's perception?) Maybe both. I did enjoy the Buckley, Kinsley, Pat Buchanan, and later, the Dick Cavett shows. Especially Cavett. Not just a yuck-yuck show, but some serious conversations there. I really miss that sort of thing. I was in the SF Bay Area, close to you up in SAC, so I likely read/listened/watched a lot of the same stuff. I used to like the morning crew on KSFO during my commute down the Peninsula to Sunnyvale for my job. I was/am a big fan of Michael Savage. Yes, he and I have mellowed quite a bit. I would have loved to meet that guy. I sent him my first published book, Calling Crow, and he read it and commented on it on his show. I missed that one, but my wife's friend told me about it.
Really liked Ken Hamblin. He autographed his book for me. Have it right here in my hand, Ken Hamblin... Pick a Better Country... An unassuming colored guy speaks his mind about America. Oh, and I loved Larry Elder, the Sage from South LA. I read his memoir and was struck by his family situation, finding so many similarities with my own, especially his stoic, loving father.
Like you, I'm reading more books and watching less 'nooze.' The internet and social media is a blessing and a curse. If it all went away tomorrow I would survive. Yes, ol flip-phone Paul would not jones. I would just read more, pick up my guitar more, watch old John Wayne or Bogey movies.
So so happy to see my thoughts on the page in your words. Our reactions to the news are such knee jerk responses---hearing of a conflict or skirmish somewhere just minutes or hours ago certainly prompts a different response than hearing about it months or years later when the dust has settled. In an over newsed environment too many people accept opinions rather than facts as the news and too many broadcasters are deep down entertainers goading listeners on just like the trained bear presenters used to poke and prod the animals to get a response that would then engender more reactions from others. Thanks for such a well thought out and well written article.
My home schooled son and I I spent time with an older relative while on his “Senior Trip with Mom.” My uncle has Fox News on morning to night with the requisite rage that results. He asked me if I was keeping my children up-to-date with current events. When I replied that I rarely did, he got very upset, until I explained why. I told him how I had very few hours and years with them. Besides the usual subject necessary to be educated, I taught them the Scripture and how to live well in light of the Truth. As nations rise and fall, learning to live well was our primary calling. “
He paused a moment and said,” That is a better way. I wonder if I shouldn’t watch less news as I am always angry. “
I agree with you. I haven't gone quite as far as you have in staying clear of media but I've reduced my intake over the same period of time and for the same reasons. I notice that when I visit my mother who listens to MSNBC somewhat obsessively, I feel my blood pressure rise, not because of their opinions as much as the loud insistent tone coupled with the blaring drug ads. I guess the one thing I hold onto though, and I am writing this just to get a chance to say it here, is print journalism. I subscribe (and it ain't cheap) to my local newspaper, and though many of the stories are a day late, I can read and digest the news in a way that doesn't give me heartburn, or brain-burn, and I can avoid the sort of psychotic ruminations that full-bore media evokes in me. I find that reading a newspaper made of paper, with or without a cup of coffee, can be an edifying and even relaxing experience.
One of the best analyses of how news became toxic I've read. Thank you.
However, I may not care about the news, but the news cares about me. For years, I've been concerned about how politics-free spaces are disappearing. Where I shop, what music I listen to, what movies I watch - practically everything comes with a "message" these days. Remember those bumper stickers that read, "If you're not completely appalled, you're not paying attention!"? Those people are on a mission to make sure everyone is as anxious and angry as they are.
A frustration of mine as well. One place left: civic and church bands and choirs. One can't discuss politics with a trumpet in ones face.
I started thinking about this deliberately in college. There was a fellow student taking a survey for a psych class on new consumption, and I answered that I had recently stopped reading the NYT. The student went off script and asked me why I didn't feel a responsibility to keep up with the news. This made me think -- I couldn't really say that I thought I did not have that responsibility (I did feel guilty) but I also knew that it couldn't be right to have to keep in constant connection with international events.
I think the main thing, looking back on it today, is that individuals have little international (or even national) power, and the place where most of us can do the most good is locally -- and first and foremost, in our families, workplaces, churches, and wider social circles. When we use up our emotional energies fretting over things we cannot directly affect, we are enabled in ignoring local social and political situations that are really much more directly part of our responsibility.
A couple of years ago my husband and I decided to subscribe to our local newspaper and *try*, at least, to make that our primary source of news.
Your post is a good reminder.
I used to read several newspapers every day and a few weekly magazines. I now spend thirty minutes with the WSJ every morning over breakfast and that’s it. I got rid of my television over a decade ago. I read a handful of blogs and substacks that consistently add value. On Sundays I do not turn on any of my devices. I cannot imagine how horrible life would be if I consumed as much “news” as most people are subjected to.
I didn't really pay attention to the news until 9/11. The shock and horror of that day sparked an unhealthy desire in me to stay updated on US and world events. A few years later, and two kids later, I stopped immersing myself in the news because it affected how I viewed the world. Today, I do skim headlines and will read a story here and there, but I'm not as obsessive about it as I was over 20 years ago.
Continually watching and listening to the doom and gloom news and "expert opinion" pieces that at times are meant to stir up controversy and provoke anger can be overwhelming and stressful. I truly believe we were not created to carry the weight of the world.
A timely post for me, Joel, having spent the last few days unproductively, and obsessively, looking at social media posts on the destruction in WNC. Note to self: Get busy helping and turn it off.
I am with you. The wider context can also be explored through philosophical trends such as the renaissance of sophistry and the decline of literacy.
I've noticed that same trajectory.
Since about 2012, I have gradually stepped back from detailed coverage of news and politics. I currently have a major social media platform account deactivated because, as another commentator here describes, there's barely anywhere you can go that isn't infected with deeply polarized _opinions_ on every single news event, even things that should be unifying in our concern for victims.
Wisdom.
Been cutting back myself. Gradually disconnecting. The poisonous sector is politics and the dopamine sector is anything involving “breaking news.”
Your post and the comments make me think that my next step should be to limit news sources to the weekend edition of the WSJ.
Excellent post, Joel! Thank you!
Nicely done, Joel. I agree with your periodization, fwiw. I spend a lot of time figuring out -- well, trying to figure out -- how connected to be, and to what. For a certain kind of mind, and for a cultural critic/writer, it is a real problem. Something to managed rather than solved, I fear. Anyway, keep up the good work, as always.
I spent 30 years at the Department of State, including assignments as a Watch Officer and as an analyst on a range of topics. One of the things I noticed over the years was that the news rarely changes as fast as the 24/7 cyclers wanted us to believe. Sure, they could fill air time by relentlessly pressing their source for new details that totally failed to change the essentials of the story. For lack of new details, they turned their air time over to a 'debate society' in the form of 'experts' willing to talk on the air and ideally presenting opposing viewpoints and analysis of the less than a handful of available hard facts. (I gave up on debates in High School when I realized that they had no interest whatsoever in establishing truth but simply wanted to score points off of each other). Another effect of the 24/7 news cycle was to achieve Edward R Murrow's nightmare of having 'news departments' placed under the management of green eye shade types interested only in viewership and click thrus. History and experience have also taught me that first reports are always wrong in some way - the first reports tell you that something happened like a fire, an explosion, a shooting, an arrest, and escape, etc. - but the essentials of who, what, when, where, how and why will be more slowly discovered and shared long after 'the first reports'. My wife who worked at the AP years ago confirmed something that we at State had also noted - most of the first reports of anything were credited to Agence France Presse who almost invariably were the first to report a new event, and almost always got it wrong though they got it first. So, we at State and apparently in the other news organizations, closely monitored AFP for that first indication of an event but then went to work to find who else was in position to report on it and give us a more accurate report. Now in retirement, I no longer watch network, cable, or streaming news services. I can usually get an early report via one of my on line news consolidation services and then I can decide which news source is most likely to be following the new story on the basis of geography, political or cultural connections, etc. but then I only rarely sit down and just watch - because rarely if ever does anything really new and important get reported and I can just keep an overwatch out for that ignoring the rest of the noise.
Joel, liked this one. I've been thinking about this as well. (But I still have not gotten completely off the sauce.) Yes, there has been a steadily increasing outpouring of 'nooze,' creating artificial demand. But... on the other side, seems like things are happening at an ever-increasing speed. (Or is that just this 76-year old guy's perception?) Maybe both. I did enjoy the Buckley, Kinsley, Pat Buchanan, and later, the Dick Cavett shows. Especially Cavett. Not just a yuck-yuck show, but some serious conversations there. I really miss that sort of thing. I was in the SF Bay Area, close to you up in SAC, so I likely read/listened/watched a lot of the same stuff. I used to like the morning crew on KSFO during my commute down the Peninsula to Sunnyvale for my job. I was/am a big fan of Michael Savage. Yes, he and I have mellowed quite a bit. I would have loved to meet that guy. I sent him my first published book, Calling Crow, and he read it and commented on it on his show. I missed that one, but my wife's friend told me about it.
Really liked Ken Hamblin. He autographed his book for me. Have it right here in my hand, Ken Hamblin... Pick a Better Country... An unassuming colored guy speaks his mind about America. Oh, and I loved Larry Elder, the Sage from South LA. I read his memoir and was struck by his family situation, finding so many similarities with my own, especially his stoic, loving father.
Like you, I'm reading more books and watching less 'nooze.' The internet and social media is a blessing and a curse. If it all went away tomorrow I would survive. Yes, ol flip-phone Paul would not jones. I would just read more, pick up my guitar more, watch old John Wayne or Bogey movies.
Good post! Keep 'em coming.
So so happy to see my thoughts on the page in your words. Our reactions to the news are such knee jerk responses---hearing of a conflict or skirmish somewhere just minutes or hours ago certainly prompts a different response than hearing about it months or years later when the dust has settled. In an over newsed environment too many people accept opinions rather than facts as the news and too many broadcasters are deep down entertainers goading listeners on just like the trained bear presenters used to poke and prod the animals to get a response that would then engender more reactions from others. Thanks for such a well thought out and well written article.