I recently read a paper by Rolf Dobelli (a Swiss novelist and the author of “The Art of Thinking Clearly“) called “Avoid News: Towards a Healthy News Diet.” Click on the title to read it (PDF format).
Don’t let the title fool you into thinking he’s advocating ignorance. He’s not. On the contrary, the core of his argument is that “news” does not make us better informed, and in fact keeps us from being well-informed citizens. He argues against the short, superficial factoids that get hurled at us through radio, TV, and newspapers, and instead advocates reading books and in-depth magazine or journal articles that provide context and deeper understanding.
Take a little time to read and contemplate his arguments. What do you think of them?
While he makes a point, his argument is certainly self-serving and also flawed. He’s an author and he’s advocating reading books. Maybe his?? Also, just because you read something that is “in-depth” it does not at all mean you’re becoming more well-informed. In fact, you could very well be getting more extensive bias as you read that expanded content. Just something to consider. At the core I get his argument but when you really look at it, it has some serious flaws.
There is more disinformation in the “News” these days than actual news. Everyone has a bias, everyone has an agenda. “Believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear!”
No. No. No.
Read the news. reads LOTS of news sites. Read the blogs, too.
😉
MW — His motive for writing is irrelevant for two reasons: (1) We cannot know his motive because we can’t read his mind (at most, we can only suspect), and (2) Even if we could know his motives, they do not validate or invalidate his argument. To say they do is a logical fallacy known as arumentum ad hominem. His argument stands or falls on its own merits regardless of his motivation.
As for the rest of your comment, I agree that one has to show some discernment in deciding what books to read, and think critically about the content of the books one chooses. But, given a discerning reader, will that person be better informed by short news factoids or books/journals/magazines that provide a greater depth of understanding on a subject?
Given a discerning reader, and on top of that one who is truly capable of not taking people’s opinions as Gospel, yes I would agree that books/journals/magazines are certainly capable of better informing than short news factoids. That being said, those short factoids still serve a purpose. Also requiring someone capable of being discerning and not believing everything they see/read, these short blurbs can spark interest in various topics and often serve as a catalyst for greater learning through longer forms like the ones you mentioned. I understand that the short blurbs are easy targets for criticism and often times they deserve it, but they do serve a purpose.
Frederick is right. Most of the “news” we get is propaganda. Including most magazines and other establishment outlets. If you want the truth you have to go to a lot of different sources, and be critical.
Once you can define news (to some degree) to all those who seek information then maybe we can avoid non-news sources and focus on evaluating what is being broadcast over the air and cable.
Maybe most would accept that news has a time limitation and old information ceases to be “news’
speaking of news, I’m looking for info regarding the pair who “work(ed)to replace concrete Friday at the Caterpillar Visitors Center in Downtown Peoria.” (photo PJS 1-12-13,page B6). Too much wear and tear on the new building?
Day Fourteen Summary