I use an RSS reader and subscribe to a number of traditional news feeds like the BBC, Reuters, and CBC. I also have a collection of blogs and gaming related sites whose feeds I follow- but I’m focusing on the traditional news for the moment.
Lately I’ve been carefully curating which stories in my news feed I actually read, and I occasionally feel rather guilty for my choices.
Avoiding ‘disagreeable’ news
I’ve realized recently that I’m not reading as many “Dumb-ass U.S. President did another dumb-ass thing” articles lately. I know the guy and his entire administration are horrible. I also know that many people are going to suffer from his policies. But every article I read just makes me that much more frustrated and angry.
Today I read that Wayne Gretzky, an icon of Canadian values, attended Trump’s inauguration ball and wore a MAGA hat. It broke my heart, especially when I read dozens of comments from so-called ‘Canadians’ celebrating Gretzky’s affiliation with the insane bastard who thinks it is okay to talk about the U.S. annexing Canada.
I really don’t need to read dozens of such articles every day… do I?
Is this fair?
I try to keep a clear view of reality, and sometimes that means reading a lot of unpleasant news. But it seems to me that ‘bad’ news is all that sells. This is not a new observation, not by any means: good news is boring, and it has always been so.
Recently, however, I find it increasingly hard absorb the non-stop deluge of disgusting announcements and proclamations of impending horrors that flood my news feeds. By skipping over most of this stuff I am obviously not getting the full story any more… and I become more ignorant of the damage being done.
The news pushes my anger and outrage levels to the point where they feel overwhelming. But shouldn’t that be the case? If what is happening in the U.S. today is the 21st century version of Nazi Germany forming, then how could starting to ignore it be any better than what most Germans and nearby nations did in the 1930s?
I would speculate that I still read the worst of the toxic patterns being fed into my consciousness even through my somewhat random mental filters. I can’t turn away completely- but is it fair of me to ignore things that I really feel no power to fix?
I stopped reading, watching or listening to any broadcast or narrowcast news channels or sources completely about five years ago, when I read a little about the damage the 24-hour news cycle is doing to all our mental health. Even so, I’m made aware of far more supposedly newsworthy incidents or developments than I would have been in, say, the 1970s or ’80s, when I would have only watched one newscast a day on TV and maybe leafed through a newspaper at college or at work. The idea that anyone needs the volume of “news” the news outlets are obligated to supply in the age of 24/7 broadcasting, let alone the always-on, infinite capacity internet, is ludicrous.
I don’t think that limiting and controlling your news input is a bad thing at all. You’ll still get more than you can handle on bleed-through but you can at least make a conscious decision which stories or events to follow up and learn more about instead of allowing a news editor, with their own, primarily commercial, criteria, to set the agenda for you.
Thanks, Bhagpuss. You are absolutely right that the modern news cycle is sanity-bursting.
As I note in the post, I have felt a bit guilty to be mentally ‘blocking’ most of the flood. But it is good to know that I’m not alone in this and, as you say, I’ll still get the gist of what is going on just by skimming headlines.