- It has been life changing. Turning off the buzzing breaking-news machine I carry in my pocket was like unshackling myself from a monster who had me on speed dial, always ready to break into my day with half-baked bulletins.
" much of what you get online isn’t quite news, and more like a never-ending stream of commentary, one that does more to distort your understanding of the world than illuminate it." And not particularly good commentary either. I started listening to my country's state funded radio for news and entertainment recently. Was surprised by the quality of both the content and commentary. Instead of wading through hundreds of comments, I really only needed three guests who are willing to converse politely, in depth, and with integrity.
Simple facts rarely convey the underlying importance of an event. The 24-hour news cycle is predicated on the idea that getting the facts out fast allows people to make their own decisions about what is important. Which is wrong-headed, both biologically and informationally. That's why I read The Economist. It's incredibly smart people, with deep experience in their areas of expertise, consuming the facts, and positioning them next to the other important considerations and in historical context. A fact alone is useless. Insight, from someone who knows the topic deeply, and can place the fact into the complex matrix of the larger issue(s), is far more valuable and useful in the long run. Plus, the Economist is just the finest news writing available in the English language. They write perfectly.
They're definitely on my list, along with a host of others. But I definitely prefer long-form. I'm not convinced they're even this altruistic. Ultimately it's about what gets the most viewers, which in turn allows the most expensive advertising. Cash is king. The 24-hour news cycle is predicated on the idea that getting the facts out fast allows people to make their own decisions about what is important.
The 24 hour news cycle is awful. Often the majority of what they report in the first 8-24 hours turns out to be flat wrong. Cable news is unwatchable, it's not about news but drawing a demographic. It's ironic that with all the "news" sources available, it's harder to become informed. The only effective online method I have found is to read multiple sources and try to piece together an accurate picture. The other solution is to tune it all out an focus on family, work, etc. Great line from the article: "I know what you’re thinking: Listening to a Times writer extol the virtues of print is like taking breakfast suggestions from Count Chocula."
I subscribe to several print periodicals, but none is a newspaper--all magazines (New Yorker, Nature, Astronomy, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, and I'd probably do a couple more if my wife agreed not to murder me). I still only read the newspaper online, but I have to say that I so much prefer the print editions. There's an irreplicable quality to flipping pages while drinking coffee in the morning. I don't see it as digital vs. print however. I think that they can exist side by side and add to one another. Print works for long articles, and things that aren't super temporal in nature, whereas digital is far better for keeping up on day to day goings on. I like both, but I will say that print never gives me a headache. Edit: It's sort of ironic that this is an article about the virtues of print whose headline is written in accordance with the traditional click bait internet style guide.
I've always said that the best way to keep up with the daily news is with a weekly magazine or newspaper. Important, complex stories require time and perspective to write about. Whatever doesn't make the cut by the end of the week probably wasn't worth reading about in the first place.
Yeah, that's my general approach too sorta. Although I just don't have a place in my life for long-form other than when I'm at work, and print stuff is harder to hide :)