You have probably heard it before. Especially to most of us of the educated, bourgeoisie background, it is not uncommon, and even cliche, to hear, be advised and be even badgered at, that we should always keep abreast of “the news”, updated with all the happenings across our dynamic planet, from economic fluctuations to the latest discoveries in outer space. If not self improvement, at least nothing negative can result from the heightened cognisance from such intellectual pursuits. Rolf Dobelli would beg to differ. So much so that he even wrote an entire book, Stop Reading The News, a diatribe against the modern world’s reverence for news consumption. In his words, news is to the mind what sugar is to the body.
The idea that reading the news is bad, and giving it up totally could be the best decision in life seems unfathomable to anyone reading this, and for good reason. At the beginning of the book, Dobelli introduces the news as this integral aspect of our quotidian routine, in this media-saturated world of ours. What’s more is that for long, consumption of the news has been associated with wisdom and knowledge of the wide world. Indeed, the news is an ineluctable facet of our lives, and for many of us, like the author, we grow up around it. I turn 19 this year, and the chain of global events in the past decade still ring through my head: the Syrian Civil War, Charlie Hebdo attacks, European refugee crisis, the Trump-Kim summit, Sino-Indian border clashes and most recently, the coronavirus.
I have long utilised the news to keep myself informed of global happenings. Even when on holiday, on the plane or the hotel, I would still pick up the newspaper and skim through the headlines, finding a piece that would intrigue me. Over time, I turned from print editions to online, browsing sites and wide from SCMP to Al Jazeera. And I certainly grew up in an environment that encouraged this. Teachers in school certainly did; even if you felt no point of greater awareness, it would at the very least help you write better essays in your exams. And even more so when you have nothing else productive to do. This year, in the midst of the pandemic that took the world by storm, I turned back to news sites to keep track of the ever-changing developments in countries the world over.
But in his highly accessible book, Dobelli makes the case that this lifestyle of routine news consumption actually harms us and society in so many areas. That the news is irrelevant, misleading, uninsightful, and hurts our cognitive abilities and mental health. Is this really the case? First and foremost, Dobelli claims that the news that usually is of no real relevance is an utter waste of time. Questioning us to think of all the news that one has read in recent memory, is there even a single one that helped you make a better decision in life? For most of us, we admit not. But look, seldom is it one single news event, rather the broad picture or general trend that informs us, which can even be said for life itself. Which links to another fundamental problem of the news: that it obscures the big picture of things. Because news stories are very focused on single events or happenings, they do not really show how they link in the wider context, it lacks explanatory power. A meeting between two prime ministers. The plummeting of oil prices into the negative. Wildfires in California and Australia. What informing value is that? To take a case in point, in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the focus of the daily barrage of news is on the numbers and lifeless statistics that often have the effect of downplaying the value of life, any latest policy or announcement by governments, and groundless conspiracies. All these do little to explain the chaos of the situation, something I believe is actually much needed to bring solace to the worried reader. So much reading, is it a waste of time? Dobelli calculates that we spend a month per year on the news. While it is bewitching to ponder what can be done with that time, time is likely to still be wasted anyways in some form of lazy idleness that would not change with taking the news away.
Dobelli goes on to assert that the news is misleading, for what the news places it focus on would not be the important aspect of an event or incident, but rather the most eye-catching area of it. He mentions this memorable example: If a car were to drive over a bridge which results in the bridge collapsing, the media’s attention would quickly and expectedly be on the car and the people inside it. Who was the driver? Did anyone die? No doubt it would be tragic for them, but that isn’t what the world needs to know. It should be more concerned with the bridge and its structural stability - could there be other bridges at risk of such a catastrophe? Now, it is definitely true that certain events do reveal and highlight certain risks, vulnerabilities and weak spots that help the world learn. Take the case of the 2020 Beirut blast or the 2011 Fukushima nuclear spillage, which respectively brought to light Lebanese government mismanagement and the dangers of nuclear energy. Such of course is only if the news coverage is adequate in its explanatory power, providing analysis rather than mere stories. But one cannot entirely attribute it to the news either. In the case of Beirut, not longer after the blast, there was a second blaze that went to show that there were fundamental issues with transparency and accountability in Lebanon, while in the Japanese case the response was far more fastidious and effective.
Dobelli’s most critical point against the mainstream news is that it is outside our “circle of competence”, which is basically our area of expertise that one’s professional life revolves. This circle determines what constitutes relevance. He urges us to seek depth rather than mere breadth. For him, a jack of all trades is a master of none. Reading a ton load of headlines does that fundamentally improve one’s knowledge anywhere, because we just touch the surface. Knowing of the US and China imposing tariffs does not give one insight into economics. Delving deeper into a particular field if one is aware of his “circle” is definitely a good starting point to decide the choice of content one should be looking at for information. Textbooks, library books, magazines and expert editorials are all great options that one can be looking at, whether you are an aspiring architect, doctor or researcher. What if you don’t know? As is definitely the case for myself, and many other students and youths. A good option that is definitely preferable to mainstream news would be content that would deliver valuable insight and analysis, such as opinion pieces and documentaries (rather than mere facts or reports), without the need for it being of a specific domain.
However, Dobelli overlooks the value of breadth in this tirade against general news in favour of specialised expertise. The thing is, as much as we can delve deep into our own respective areas of expertise we wish to grow, we cannot live in these bubbles of isolation, where a PR manager only reads advertising case studies, a scientist only reads academic papers, etcetera. Bubbles of isolation that inhibit the growth of one’s own area. Some extent of breadth is still paramount to make us more connected to happenings around us, and feel part of something greater than ourselves, especially in the 21st century when there are more and more subjects of relevance to everyone, such as climate change and technological disruption. The news, both in the traditional and modern form, play that role. Whether on the print edition of a newspaper or a scroll through your Instagram feed, you will find news that deliver stories that do sometimes provide some insight into broad subjects that could cover anything from place recommendations to interesting case studies. This brings neatly to the point of democracy, a system which by definition requires the participation of well-informed and cognisant citizens, who are concerned not only with their own lives, but with greater society too. Not something achieved by giving up the news for only what you deem relevant personally. Granted, it is true that the gluttony of news has degraded the quality of political discourse in recent times, but a return to a pre-news medieval era would not be the answer. The news needs to be improved in this regard - with more investigative journalism and explanatory reporting that aids citizens in understanding happenings better.
So would it really be a happier, calmer and wiser world if we gave up the news for good? Even if we assume it is possible, not exactly. A lot of the issues that the news inflicts - wastage of time, passiveness, a false sense of awareness, poorer concentration, misinformation, etcetera - are no longer just issues concomitant with “the news” as we know it. Even more than the news, modern day problems would also include excessive phone checking, social media addiction, advertising and workplace stress, among others. But how to actually give up the news even? There is the “hard” path of radical abstinence that Dobelli himself did, but it is unlikely that most of us are willing or able to commit due to how it would inherently conflict with daily work routines and be accompanied by abandonment of social media platforms which is easier said than done. The “soft” option is possible if an active effort is made on both personal and group levels to pick sources and media sites wisely. Look to say, The Economist or Der Spiegel. Or anything else that actually improves depth of understanding, not mere breadth of facts. Acknowledging that the nature of the news is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future, and it would be a Herculean task to avoid, a lot of the onus to mitigate the harms would be on us consumers.
For myself? Definitely it is difficult to swallow the idea of giving up the news and I myself would find it a tad too radical to go that path. But at the very least, I can spend more time reading content like books that provide better insight (and read with better techniques over time too), and when navigating news sites, find the kind of pieces that actually mean more than facts and figures anyone else can easily know. Being in Singapore, our national newspaper is The Straits Times. Yet to achieve this aim, it is a pity that ST’s best articles are almost always under the “Premium” section that non-subscribers cannot access. But as aforementioned, the issues raised here are also present elsewhere too often seen around the modern digital age. It would take even greater effort for abstinence, control and discipline over say, social media.
All things considered, this book is short, to the point and easily readable by anyone. It raises many valid points about the harms of the news but some of its points can come off as a tad vague or ambiguous, and is definitely less specific regarding what can be done as an alternative to it. It also seems to ignore certain more analytical and informing capabilities of certain media and news outlets, but that probably is not the point of the book, but more to hit at the more deleterious side of the news - something we ultimately must remember is not a construction of itself, but of society, culture, conflicts, personalities and regulation.
7/10
Comments