Good stuff. The amount of crap makes it hard to find reliable info. To some degree, I think that was true with newspapers and television news as well. The key was to pick suppliers who you had reason to trust. So, I'm not sure that the trust issue has really changed, but as you point out, what has changed is the amount of information we are bombarded with. And the amount of AI slop makes it even harder. Keep fighting the good fight, I will keep reading.
The really wonderful thing about newspapers is that they were static. Maybe you had to wade through some crap to get to the real news, but at least you only had to do it once per day. The need to constantly be swimming upstream in a current of bullshit all day, every day is exhausting. Those who don't do it are happier, I think.
Here are my suggestions for retaining sanity despite the chaos and manipulation Justin describes so eloquently:
1. Stop scrolling. Abstain from social media altogether, except to keep in touch with distant family members or friends.
2. Say goodbye to Google Search and use Kagi instead (https://kagi.com/). Try it out for 100 searches and then gladly pay US$6/month to search without ads, tracking, or noise — and with AI results totally optional.
3. Limit news intake to a few trusted sources. Avoid speculative opinion.
1. Couldn't agree more. Or, at the very least, if you're scrolling — treat it like parking yourself in front of the TV. Don't pretend like it's civic engagement or a route to being better informed. Treat it for what it is: Mindless entertainment. (And that's ok, in moderation!)
2. Absolutely.
3. I'm going to build on this in a later post, but I'd add: And find a way to engage with that news in one, longer, session. Like reading the newspaper or watching the evening news. The constant pressure to check the news frequently is draining and unpleasant, and it certainly isn't making us better news consumers.
How do you see this happening? Asking for a friend.
"We need media outlets, politicians, organizations, and institutions who are more and more willing to engage with people offline — or, at least, far away from the toxic information systems on which they remain."
If I had to sketch an ideal future, it would be one where we simple reduce our time spent online, replacing that part of our days by engaging with serious, curated, good-faith physical(ish) media. Whether that's newspapers (in whatever form), TV news, books, podcasts, whatever. Things that are designed to be consumed once, and which don't have the same expectation of constant engagement. In this less-online world, I imagine more politicians holding more town halls, more in-person events, more of our economy shifting from the world wide web back to local communities.
It's hard to sketch how we get from here to there, but it's going to require a lot of people making a lot of different choices at the same time. Luckily, boomers and GenX seem to pine for those days, and GenZ seem nostalgic for a time they didn't get to live through. (The other day, I saw a 20-something wearing a pair of Sony Walkmen headphones with an AM/FM receiver. The kids want to go back!)
Living in hope. As a boomer, I do long for IRL stuff and getting ink on my hands. I deliver our community newspaper. Many neighbours are avid readers and love getting it. Also, we are selling more advertising now that the bigger papers are shrinking. Odd world. I see people having "silent reading" meet ups, which seems a bit weird, but tells me people want to hang out and they want to read paper stuff:)
I have started to self regulate by reducing my on-line media content (i.e. doom scrolling) to about an hour a day. I do subscribe to a few mainstream news outlets although I am afraid their digital versions now send constant notifications all day with breathless updates.
I agree that reducing on-line consumption is important and focussing on news outlet content at the beginning of the day is enough to let me know what is happening. I also spend a reasonable time trying to identify source material for some of the stories that do pique my curiosity. I unfortunately find that the journalist has quite frequently succumbed to what is either misdirection or misinformation.
I constantly remind myself that for many a news report about something I knew about well, because of my work, it was wrong in that it either missed detail or the context. Now that is mostly the fault of the organization who could not have its representatives work with the journalist to ensure they had all the information they needed including the questions that the journalist might have not known to ask. Unfortunately because of thinning newsrooms I am afraid that the situation is more prevalent and so "misinformation" grows.
All to say that I appreciate your long form reports because it seems to me that you spend the time to sort out the facts and the context and identify the misdirection or the misinformation.
Lately I’ve returned to my favourite hard cover books for an firehose overdue detox. I was initially quite startled when I found myself ( eyes in particular) struggling to truly focus and comprehend text in an actual book.
It honestly took some time to pivot. This was truly a moment for me and how much my vision, reading and comprehension had been somewhat hijacked by the firehose, screen light, the whole “ on line experience.”
Remember reading “ The Shallows” many years ago, and the prediction then (2014?) that the online world
would ironically create reading and non- reading groups of people. Ironically it would resemble a return to the time before the printing press and mass production of books. Parallel to this would be a
sorting of reflective and non-reflective people. In no way did the author propose this in a condescending
or elitist way, simply a product o a reading vs non- reading brain.
I’m beginning to see this passive self-sorting taking place, among family, friends and colleagues.
Good stuff. The amount of crap makes it hard to find reliable info. To some degree, I think that was true with newspapers and television news as well. The key was to pick suppliers who you had reason to trust. So, I'm not sure that the trust issue has really changed, but as you point out, what has changed is the amount of information we are bombarded with. And the amount of AI slop makes it even harder. Keep fighting the good fight, I will keep reading.
The really wonderful thing about newspapers is that they were static. Maybe you had to wade through some crap to get to the real news, but at least you only had to do it once per day. The need to constantly be swimming upstream in a current of bullshit all day, every day is exhausting. Those who don't do it are happier, I think.
Here are my suggestions for retaining sanity despite the chaos and manipulation Justin describes so eloquently:
1. Stop scrolling. Abstain from social media altogether, except to keep in touch with distant family members or friends.
2. Say goodbye to Google Search and use Kagi instead (https://kagi.com/). Try it out for 100 searches and then gladly pay US$6/month to search without ads, tracking, or noise — and with AI results totally optional.
3. Limit news intake to a few trusted sources. Avoid speculative opinion.
1. Couldn't agree more. Or, at the very least, if you're scrolling — treat it like parking yourself in front of the TV. Don't pretend like it's civic engagement or a route to being better informed. Treat it for what it is: Mindless entertainment. (And that's ok, in moderation!)
2. Absolutely.
3. I'm going to build on this in a later post, but I'd add: And find a way to engage with that news in one, longer, session. Like reading the newspaper or watching the evening news. The constant pressure to check the news frequently is draining and unpleasant, and it certainly isn't making us better news consumers.
How do you see this happening? Asking for a friend.
"We need media outlets, politicians, organizations, and institutions who are more and more willing to engage with people offline — or, at least, far away from the toxic information systems on which they remain."
Great question. Bad answer: I don't know.
If I had to sketch an ideal future, it would be one where we simple reduce our time spent online, replacing that part of our days by engaging with serious, curated, good-faith physical(ish) media. Whether that's newspapers (in whatever form), TV news, books, podcasts, whatever. Things that are designed to be consumed once, and which don't have the same expectation of constant engagement. In this less-online world, I imagine more politicians holding more town halls, more in-person events, more of our economy shifting from the world wide web back to local communities.
It's hard to sketch how we get from here to there, but it's going to require a lot of people making a lot of different choices at the same time. Luckily, boomers and GenX seem to pine for those days, and GenZ seem nostalgic for a time they didn't get to live through. (The other day, I saw a 20-something wearing a pair of Sony Walkmen headphones with an AM/FM receiver. The kids want to go back!)
Living in hope. As a boomer, I do long for IRL stuff and getting ink on my hands. I deliver our community newspaper. Many neighbours are avid readers and love getting it. Also, we are selling more advertising now that the bigger papers are shrinking. Odd world. I see people having "silent reading" meet ups, which seems a bit weird, but tells me people want to hang out and they want to read paper stuff:)
Thank you! Now I know what’s wrong with me!
Excellent read and thoughtful reflections.
I have started to self regulate by reducing my on-line media content (i.e. doom scrolling) to about an hour a day. I do subscribe to a few mainstream news outlets although I am afraid their digital versions now send constant notifications all day with breathless updates.
I agree that reducing on-line consumption is important and focussing on news outlet content at the beginning of the day is enough to let me know what is happening. I also spend a reasonable time trying to identify source material for some of the stories that do pique my curiosity. I unfortunately find that the journalist has quite frequently succumbed to what is either misdirection or misinformation.
I constantly remind myself that for many a news report about something I knew about well, because of my work, it was wrong in that it either missed detail or the context. Now that is mostly the fault of the organization who could not have its representatives work with the journalist to ensure they had all the information they needed including the questions that the journalist might have not known to ask. Unfortunately because of thinning newsrooms I am afraid that the situation is more prevalent and so "misinformation" grows.
All to say that I appreciate your long form reports because it seems to me that you spend the time to sort out the facts and the context and identify the misdirection or the misinformation.
Keep up with your writing!
Lately I’ve returned to my favourite hard cover books for an firehose overdue detox. I was initially quite startled when I found myself ( eyes in particular) struggling to truly focus and comprehend text in an actual book.
It honestly took some time to pivot. This was truly a moment for me and how much my vision, reading and comprehension had been somewhat hijacked by the firehose, screen light, the whole “ on line experience.”
Remember reading “ The Shallows” many years ago, and the prediction then (2014?) that the online world
would ironically create reading and non- reading groups of people. Ironically it would resemble a return to the time before the printing press and mass production of books. Parallel to this would be a
sorting of reflective and non-reflective people. In no way did the author propose this in a condescending
or elitist way, simply a product o a reading vs non- reading brain.
I’m beginning to see this passive self-sorting taking place, among family, friends and colleagues.