The Greatest Source of 'News You Can Use'

As a reader of this blog, you may have already gathered that I enjoy finding timeless observations of human behavior, especially by historical figures (some well-known, some not), that strike me as profoundly evident today.

The following passage, written more than 150 years ago, from Thoreau's Walden, struck me as a wonderful piece of inspiration and a potential aid in remaining conscious of one's personal information consumption and external influences, which tend to combine as a powerful source of distraction (and subtraction) from one's self-acquaintance:

We rarely meet a man who can tell us any news which he has not read in a newspaper, or been told by his neighbor; and, for the most part, the only difference between us and our fellow is that he has seen the newspaper, or been out to tea, and we have not.  In proportion as our inward life fails, we go more constantly and desperately to the post-office.  You may depend on it, that the poor fellow who walks away with the greatest number of letters, proud of his extensive correspondence, has not heard from himself this long while.

The Thoreau passage points to evidence of an inverse relationship between social media interaction and self-acquaintance:

• A high relative level of "news" consumption may make one more aware of current and external events but it has equal potential to make one less aware of current and internal events -- media noise, especially in the absence of self-awareness, drowns out the sound of one's own internal dialogue.
• More knowledge of financial information does not, by default, translate into more financial success.  For most, financial media increases financial anxiety, not financial prowess.  Knowledge is not wisdom.
• The addition of more "friends" on MySpace might translate into the subtraction of one friend you really need -- you.

What's really "new" about the news?  Try watching a newscast (especially local news) and try to find something different from the night before or even a decade prior.  Since "good news" does not sell, the news is filled with tragedy, crime, despair and petty political arguments -- all of which have occurred, in some shape or form, thousands of times over the course of thousands of years.  All that changes from day to day, month to month and year to year is the names and locations.

If we read of one man robbed , or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter -- we never need read of another.  One is enough.  If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?  To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea. ~ Henry David Thoreau

Does one really need to see and read of the same happenings occurring again and again and again? 

To be fair, all news sources are not totally sensational and useless; however, the effort and time required to find something factual, unbiased and useful is generally too great and too much of a distraction and a drain on mental health to be worthwhile.

As with anything and everything, there is a balance to be found for optimal exposure to information -- the law of diminishing returns applies:  At a certain point -- the point of a healthy balance -- each increment of increased exposure decreases the given item's utility.  This balance differs for each person and self-knowledge is the means of discovering this balance.

The greatest source of "news you can use" is you.  Have you heard from yourself lately?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Related Post: What Would Thoreau Think of Twitter?

Thoreau Image by Shannon

Comments

[Peter]

Another really great article Kent.

I have made sure not to read or watch any news at all. I don't get anything from it and find it a complete waste of time. Gossip has never interested me.

What I particularly hate about media is the way it is portrayed as an "unbiased" point of view. Of course it may not sound like it to some, but whoever is writing that piece most certainly has a point of view and will push it in anyway possible.

I have seen a situation first hand were the media took to the side of what would make a great story instead of truth. Since that day I have had no trust for them.

As my father has always said, "They never let fact get in the way of a good story."

[Kent @ The Financial Philosopher]

Thanks, Peter, I agree of course! When considering sources of information, assuming one is looking for useful and factual information, one must consider the particular information source's primary motivation.

News media (and most other sources) are in the business of selling advertising. Useful and factual is boring and does not sell much advertising; therefore, "news" comes in the form of sensationalism.

I prefer to read books.

Thanks for the comment!

Kent

[Thanks]

quite true. I arrived to the same conclusion than Thoreau.

Is more, in my rare opinion, different Tv news channels "links" with different kind of people.

In Spain we have channel 5, they like to talk about tragedies. There are people, like my mom, who likes to consider the world as an unsafe place. So she confirm her view with this channel.

Other channel (3) is the opposite, just nonsense happy and sympathic news. This is for the people who wants to feel that all is ok in the world.

Other channel.......

I prefer to not watch the TV. Argument, quite simple: we live in an universe that was created from nothing o from God (as you prefer), and a miracle called "life". Don´t waste your time sitting in front a box.