Reading the News is a bad habit and can become an addiction like smoking. You read the News because of your deep seated insecurities about your future. Shit happens and you crave to know it so that you can prep for it. The News businesses need to make money and know this, and thus feed you with all the shit that happens and make it even more horrifying. This again feeds into your insecurities, and make you read even more News.
Best to abolish it completely. When REAL shit happens and it will affect you, you'll get to know besides the News.
I just can't see how reading the News could you make "more grounded"or let you feel more "one with the world". It's quite the opposite.
Thanks, Holm, for your straightforward critique. In my opinion, your argument rests on two underlying assumptions that one doesn't have to accept. Firstly, it posits that consuming news invariably results in an 'addiction logic.' I'd like to dispute that. It depends on *how* you read the news. I have a few ideas about that, which I'll share in another post. The second premise is the narrowing of the human horizon to the immediate vicinity. In that case, your point seems fair, but even then, one could still argue that prudence dictates staying informed about events that haven't yet reached this immediate vicinity, such as a storm or an attack, so that one can flee in time. It seems to me, though, that what truly bothers you is the idea of global citizenship implied in my third point. If you don't subscribe to some sort of cosmopolitanism, reading the news won't help you anchor yourself in the world.
Thanks for your long response, Dirk. I agree that it depends on how you consume news. But that is more a narrowing of my critique than a refutation. My point is about the incentive structure of the news business and the common loop it creates: insecurity drives consumption, negative and frightening stories get rewarded, and that feeds back into even more insecurity and consumption.
The early warning example (a storm, an attack) is an exception, not the norm. Most day to day news is NOT action relevant but emotionally and cognitively expensive for most readers. Practical alerts can be handled in a targeted way without adopting a general news diet.
And on “grounded” or “one with the world”: that is exactly what I doubt. In practice, the attention economy often pulls you toward threat, outrage, and spectacle. That is an epistemic and psychological objection to the commercialization of fear, not an argument against cosmopolitanism.
Reading the News is a bad habit and can become an addiction like smoking. You read the News because of your deep seated insecurities about your future. Shit happens and you crave to know it so that you can prep for it. The News businesses need to make money and know this, and thus feed you with all the shit that happens and make it even more horrifying. This again feeds into your insecurities, and make you read even more News.
Best to abolish it completely. When REAL shit happens and it will affect you, you'll get to know besides the News.
I just can't see how reading the News could you make "more grounded"or let you feel more "one with the world". It's quite the opposite.
Thanks, Holm, for your straightforward critique. In my opinion, your argument rests on two underlying assumptions that one doesn't have to accept. Firstly, it posits that consuming news invariably results in an 'addiction logic.' I'd like to dispute that. It depends on *how* you read the news. I have a few ideas about that, which I'll share in another post. The second premise is the narrowing of the human horizon to the immediate vicinity. In that case, your point seems fair, but even then, one could still argue that prudence dictates staying informed about events that haven't yet reached this immediate vicinity, such as a storm or an attack, so that one can flee in time. It seems to me, though, that what truly bothers you is the idea of global citizenship implied in my third point. If you don't subscribe to some sort of cosmopolitanism, reading the news won't help you anchor yourself in the world.
Thanks for your long response, Dirk. I agree that it depends on how you consume news. But that is more a narrowing of my critique than a refutation. My point is about the incentive structure of the news business and the common loop it creates: insecurity drives consumption, negative and frightening stories get rewarded, and that feeds back into even more insecurity and consumption.
The early warning example (a storm, an attack) is an exception, not the norm. Most day to day news is NOT action relevant but emotionally and cognitively expensive for most readers. Practical alerts can be handled in a targeted way without adopting a general news diet.
And on “grounded” or “one with the world”: that is exactly what I doubt. In practice, the attention economy often pulls you toward threat, outrage, and spectacle. That is an epistemic and psychological objection to the commercialization of fear, not an argument against cosmopolitanism.