So the counterpoint to this is that we are collectively getting more news and more updates than ever before and we’re still in the situation of today.

I can’t argue with your premise because I agree, but the empirical data shows that if anything there is a positive correlation between accessibility of information and further descent into… whatever it is you’d describe is our modern situation.

It may not be causative but it’s also not really a sufficient counteracting force.

▲

mattnewton 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the US, I think we are being intentionally DDOS-ed.

This strategy was laid out by Steve Bannon in the old frontline PBS interview where he called the media “the opposition party.”

“They’re dumb and they’re lazy, they can only focus on one thing at a time,” he said. “All we have to do is flood the zone. … Bang, bang, bang. These guys will never – will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity.”

Also see Vance’s recent comments about how nobody would hold Nixon accountable for watergate if it happened today, it would be lost in the next news cycle.

	▲	9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	greatgib 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It is well known that nowadays politics and companies are often waiting for other terrible news to release their own that they would like to be buried but are forced to publish.

▲

dghlsakjg 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not all information is equal.

If you read a wide spectrum of news sources with high standards (established non-tabloid newspapers and reputable long form publishers), I would be willing to bet that you are far better off (pick any metric) than someone spending the same amount of time with OAN/Fox/Daily Mail, etc.

This goes for someone anywhere on the political spectrum; I'm not just picking on the right. I would much rather live in a society of people that I don't necessarily agree with but that get their information from sources that value truth, than live with people of the same ideological bent, but only get their news from propaganda.

I can have a conversation with someone who thinks we're on the wrong side of the peak on the Laffer curve and wants to lower government spending. I can't have a conversation with someone that heard that immigrant run daycares are feeding pets to children and that we should cut daycare programs from the government budget.

	▲	iamnothere 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Mainstream news is as bad as the social media rumor mill, just in different ways. The MSM has problems with groupthink and huge blind spots which can lead people astray, but it’s wrapped in a presentable package, so average people are more likely to trust it blindly. Alt media tends to either be BS propaganda, or highly competent in one very specific domain (occasionally venturing out of that area, to its own detriment), but it’s very difficult to discern which it is based on appearances or even quality of writing. The only solution for a thinking person is to read widely and synthesize all your knowledge into a slightly more accurate picture of the whole. Social media and fringe alt media can be bad for people with cognitive issues, but that’s not a reason to get rid of them. (Note, there are many times when both the MSM and most of the alt media present a distorted picture! I would argue the ongoing Iran crisis is one of those times.)
	▲	jimt1234 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This goes for someone anywhere on the political spectrum; I'm not just picking on the right. I respectfully object to this. I’m thinking of research that was done a few years ago, measuring American’s knowledge of current events. The folks in the research that leaned right were generally more informed - meaning, they knew about a lot more currents events. But they were also overwhelmingly wrong about what they ‘knew’. Further, folks on the right tended to rate themselves higher than left-leaning folks wrt their knowledge, even though they were wrong a lot more.

▲

afavour 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t think we can examine these things in isolation. We do have more and more news available to us than ever before but:

a) there are more other things than ever before too. Used to be folks would watch the nightly news because there were only four channels or so to even watch. Now you have endless options.

b) the competition between all the news options means that more of them are leaning into opinionated content that you’ll either identify with on a tribal basis or get outraged by, because that gets more views. Informing the public is a secondary goal.

▲

kanbankaren 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> we’re still in the situation of today.

What situation are you talking about?

The world is less violent, more affluent than 30 years ago, but appears to be the opposite due to 24/7 news cycle.

▲

afavour 9 hours ago | parent [-]

For those of us living in the US there is a clear backslide in corruption, attempts at voter suppression and increased economic inequality compared to just a few years ago.

Expanding out to the entire world and choosing the arbitrary point of thirty years ago doesn’t change that fact.

▲

kanbankaren 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You drank the kool aid.

Even for USA,

1. The 90s were the most violent period in terms of crime.

2. Corruption has neither increased or decreased in the last decade.

3. Other than the 2020 election during the pandemic, the number of votes cast has increased in every election contrary to your claim.

	▲	afavour 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Good grief. Really? > The 90s were the most violent period in terms of crime. So any increase in violence from, say, five years ago to today doesn’t matter because it isn’t as bad as the 90s? ICE agents killing people and detaining others without recourse is just a big whatever? > Corruption has neither increased or decreased in the last decade. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Because the corruption of the current administration is widely known and goes beyond even the conspiracy theories of what the previous administration did. > Other than the 2020 election during the pandemic, the number of votes cast has increased in every election contrary to your claim Voter suppression does not mean “reduce the overall number of votes cast nationwide”. It is a deliberate attempt to prevent certain voters (i.e. the ones who are going to vote against you) from successfully casting a vote. And the simple act of trying to do that is notable even if it isn’t a success. If someone repeatedly tried and failed to break into your house you wouldn’t shrug your shoulders and ignore it. If you’re ignorant of all of this then you’re proving yourself a great example of why paying attention to the news actually does matter.

▲

EA-3167 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nonetheless the comparison to smoking is downright silly. Smoking is notable for being one of the most lethal habits held by a large number of people, which offers few if any concrete benefits, persisting almost entirely because of the powerful addiction it engenders.

Paying attention to the news can be almost anything from pointlessly harmful, to entirely necessary. "The News" isn't just reading outrage coverage and politics, world events beyond the muttering of politicians and business leaders exists. There's also such a thing as curating and moderating your intake, as well as dealing with underlying issues. A lot of people who feel overwhelmed or made helpless by the problems in their lives take that energy and apply it to global problems instead, especially young people.

That's not the news being "toxic" like nicotine and smoke though, that the collision of emotional instability and reality.