On Not Reading the News
Imagine a scenario where you're driving on vacation. Suddenly, the highway becomes congested, and a traffic jam forms. You position your vehicle to allow first responders to pass by and patiently wait. After some time, the cars start moving again, and you eventually drive past the accident site, resuming your journey. This is typically how most of us respond in such situations. However, there are often bystanders who are unusually captivated by the scene, lingering out of curiosity. This behavior is generally frowned upon and, in some cases, even illegal. It can obstruct first responders or create further dangers by causing additional accidents.
Interestingly, while this kind of on-site bystanding is discouraged, a remote form of it—reading the news—is not only accepted but often encouraged. (Try telling someone you don't follow the news and observe their reaction.) Of course, journalism covers a wide range of topics and varies in quality, so my comparison may not always hold true. In some cases, my comparison is certainly not valid. In other cases, the comparison is so strikingly similar that I don't have to write about this either. After reading newspapers in light of this for a while, I concluded that newspapers are loaded with texts that are too similar to remote bystanding. Just imagine or quickly check for reports on international conflicts, wars, protests, or natural disasters. All those will be perfectly illustrated and confabulated by the writer. There are various organizations for every flavor. Some wrap it into a enjoyable intellectual package, others will emphasize images more. But somehow, I cannot reject the feeling that it's all gawking.
So, I stopped following the news. This frees my time to concentrate on some topics in depth. And if I want to do something in the world, redirecting money from newspaper subscriptions to aid organizations or engaging truly in politics would most likely take effect rather than just checking news.