I came across this infuriating article a week or so ago, and have been meaning to write a response to it, but lost track of priorities and it slipped back. In the article, the Swiss writer Rolf Dobelli makes his case that exposure to the news is harmful for us in a variety of ways. He gives 10 reasons as to why he believes this:
News is misleading.
Dobelli uses a variety of examples to expand on this point, some of which, I agree, may be valid. The first, of how the news would distort a story of a bridge collapse involving a car, is incredibly generalised, and any important issues – like the general structural safety of bridges – would be marginalised. Sure, The Daily Mail would spew forth some headline like “BENEFIT SCROUNGER IN BRIDGE TRAGEDY, 12 CHILDREN ORPHANED” or whatever, but one would hope a more decent source of news, like The BBC or The Independent, would look into the wider issue at hand – in addition to reporting the tragedy itself.
I do agree that news causes us to have the ‘wrong risk map’; that news can make us overemphasise the threat of terrorism, etc. But this isn’t the fault of the news. What should news organisations do? Not report it? Or is it better for individuals, having abandoned the news, to simply not know about terrorist attacks? Is our potential lack of ability to contextualis news stories really a convincing reason to deprive ourselves of information?
“We are not rational enough to be exposed to the press. Watching an airplane crash on television is going to change your attitude toward that risk, regardless of its real probability.”
That’s rather a condescending statement. Some people may base their decisions on stories they see, but I would like to think most people would reason whether there would be an effect on their own lives. Once again, is the solution to “cut yourself off from news consumption entirely” really any better? I’d rather make a flawed judgement based on information than a flawed judgement blind. I’m not keen on following advice which begins by doubting my reasoning abilities, but perhaps that’s just me.
News is irrelevant.
This is a huge bugbear of mine. Oh so often, I’ll be raving something along the lines of, “Hey, guys, France now has a Socialist President!” or “Did you hear about the Curiosity Rover’s latest discovery?!” More often than not, I’ll be received by glazed looks and some comment as to why I care. I’ve even had the “it doesn’t affect you” spiel before. My response is: if we go through life only ever taking notice of things which affect us directly, we would live in a very self-absorbed and greed-filled society indeed. Alright, perhaps the Venezuelan election really doesn’t matter, but I think it is worth knowing how people in the rest of the world live. If we don’t have information, or worse, if we don’t care, how can we be expected to engage in the letter-writing campaigns, petitions and donations which increasingly have a positive impact for millions across the world.
Say an earthquake happens to strike San Francisco, which is predicted to happen one day again in the future. There are many casualties, and there is a desperate appeal for donations to help with aid. If people didn’t read anything irrelevant, they would have no way of knowing what was going on. I can somewhat agree with Dobelli in regard to the majority of crass ‘human interest’ stories – the type you would find in tabloids – but, to be honest, I rarely define these as news anyway.
News has no explanatory power
I am becoming ever more certain than Dobelli has had particularly bad experiences with the news. If you ever watch a good documentary on Al Jazeera, or, say, on the BBC’s Panorama, or even manage to get past the first few pages of most decent newspapers, you’ll find layer upon layer of analysis and discussion. I can see his point when it comes to slow, hidden movements, but even these are often newsworthy; demographic changes, updated opinion polls, changing employment patterns and environmental studies, to name a few, are very often in the news.
News is toxic for your body.
“It constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol). This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation.”
Uh. I’ll take his word for that one. I personally find learning new bits of information quite relaxing, but I appreciate I may be in the majority for that one.
News increases cognitive errors.
Basically, this point says that we look at news from the perspective of our pre-conceived biases, and interpret stories in such a way. This is true, I must admit. Reading news about a study into the failings of wind power won’t dash my enthusiasm for renewable energy; I’d simply brush it off as flawed. But this isn’t true in every occasion. If someone I have a lot of respect for, like Al Gore or Caroline Lucas, were to dismiss a section of renewable energy – or even just particularly damning statistics – I’m sure I would allow my beliefs to be challenged.
News inhibits thinking.
In the age of Twitter and soundbites, there may also be a point to this one. “News is an intentional interruption system.” Does it limit our patience for long, spanning articles? This must vary from person to person, and I can only talk about myself; I’m a big user of Twitter and I tend to read lots of articles in short spans, but this doesn’t stop me being able to read and learn from long, spanning essays.
News works like a drug.
This is true for me; I am addicted to information. I’m proud of this fact. But to claim that “most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books” is a massive, unproven and, frankly, ridiculous generalisation. In today’s globalised world, virtually everyone is a news consumer. Does this mean virtually everyone struggles to read long articles and books? Of course not!
News wastes time.
I have already determined that news is both worthwhile and relevant, so therefore I reject the idea that gaining information is ever a waste of time. Like anything else in life, it’s about balance.
News makes us passive.
Fair enough, news can depress us and make us feel helpless. On the other hand, we can feel spurned into action. This also depends on the type of person you are.
News kills creativity.
As a writer, who is currently experiencing a deficit of creativity, this did make me pause, but I soon realised this is far more likely to be due to current school stresses than my reading of the news; my creativity flourishes during holidays. Thing is, he claims to know nobody who reads the news and is also creative, whereas I know plenty of people who do and are both. We evidently inhabit very different spheres.