Do you keep up with the news?

[jonspectre]

Inspired slightly by the good news thread, I've been thinking lately that mainstream media/news is just so depressing.

A few people in the thread have advocated avoiding the news, and the resultant positivity that can come from deliberate ignorance. Having looked into it a bit more, there seems to be a bit of a movement in developed countries for avoiding the news, or at least restricting/limiting how the news is consumed.

So:

Do you keep up with the news? If so, how? Websites, newspapers, social media, television or radio?

If you don't, what triggered this decision, and what benefits/negatives do you see because of it?

[Integroo]

Yes. Generally I read the Guardian and FT websites each day. I also pick up a City AM on my way to work, and sometimes a copy of the FT - but rarely have the time to actually read it.

[Shakermaker]

I tend to have BBC news open quite a bit, and of course, I find myself spending more time than I should in NP*E as well. But, I don't tend to sit down and watch the news on TV although it is on the TV screens at work in the canteen, so will keep up with that part of it

Don't buy any newspapers though and don't tend to visit their websites either

[LordGrover]

I don't actively follow the news, but most of the time I find it's difficult to avoid.
Either news segments on the radio or general chat/conversation means I still hear much of it, though it's largely of little interest. Annoyingly, even who's won stars in their eyes or big brother, etc. filters through somehow.

[HustleRussell]

I won't watch the news on TV or read newspapers. TV is too depressing. Not interested in the newspaper format- too much waste (time / space / resource). I visit the BBC website at least once a day and generally I find that ok for some reason.

A lot of the big bad news which is broadcast is simply outside of my sphere of influence. For me, the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to being unnecessarily lumbered with bad news.

Sometimes a conversation will start about some disaster or atrocity in a far flung location which I am either vaguely aware of or completely unaware of. Generally I feel a bit guilty about my ignorance for a moment, until I realise that the people who are talking about it are just kind of 'gloating' about it in a way, the conversation fizzles once the participants have understood how many people are dead / missing / injured.

[Teddy Lop]

Not really followed any mainstream news for a while, used to have LBC on but nah not any more. Had the Itv london evening news for a bit just for some local flavour but went too MURDERDEATHKILLMURDERDEATHKILL which is exactly why I don't have headline telly news on. The spectator have some good articles but they're too aggressively anti the rest of the mob in many ways.

[bitchstewie]

I try to, Guardian and BBC mostly.

[Peter911]

The problem is all the channels cover the same story. Shoddy, twitter following lazy journalism.

I am trying to find a reliable source for balanced news. (The BBC isnt)

[powerstroke]

bhstewie said:

I try to, Guardian and BBC mostly.

What a surprise !!!!

[bitchstewie]

powerstroke said:

bhstewie said:

I try to, Guardian and BBC mostly.

What a surprise !!!!

You'll notice I said mostly.

I also read the Mail and the Mirror but if I want decent journalism they're not as good.

[powerstroke]

Peter911 said:

The problem is all the channels cover the same story. Shoddy, twitter following lazy journalism.

I am trying to find a reliable source for balanced news. (The BBC isnt)

Good luck with that !! however I find talk radio quite good as they do allow debate and have folk with apposing viewpoints on as guests and as presenters , the Times is ok as a paper think about things and digest all sources ...IMHO ...

[Randy Winkman]

I look at the BBC news website every day because it's a one stop shop for news, weather, sport, I-player etc. I never watch the news on TV or read a newspaper. Though funnily enough I really like looking at the newsstands to see what the various headlines are. Though that's just because I like seeing what each paper thinks is important.

[grumbledoak]

Yes, but I do my best to avoid all the mainstream media. The idea that you can remove the bias by reading both cheeks is laughable. It just costs double!

[Turbotechnic]

I’m going to give this a go. The ignorance is bliss approach may be a good way to detox the soul.

[V1nce Fox]

I follow it enough to be able to hold a conversation and not get blindsided by others, but mostly so I can try to feel what direction to jump in with my future plans (financial mostly).

It drives Mrs. Vince mad, but I've already promised the day my house is paid off I'll not watch it any more.

[anonymous-user]

I can't keep up with the constant moving of threads on here

[Blue62]

powerstroke said:

Good luck with that !! however I find talk radio quite good as they do allow debate and have folk with apposing viewpoints on as guests and as presenters , the Times is ok as a paper think about things and digest all sources ...IMHO ...

I'm trying to look past the comprehension, spelling and grammar but it's really hard. You sure you're not a Guardian reader?

[Joey Ramone]

Online version of The Times or Sunday Times every morning without fail, and then R5 on for a lot of the day, which obviously features a fair degree of news.

[sas62]

I've started using the Reuters app - it seems slightly less interested in putting a spin on a story. You do occasionally get situations like the below - both screen-shotted same date and time.

[LimaDelta]

I don't watch TV or listen to radio. I buy the Spectator now and then. Most of my 'breaking' news comes from here, or Twitter. I have a reasonable grasp of global politics, but probably know very little about UK affairs (it's all Brexit these days and is mainly conjecture rather than 'news').