There's a quick answer: It is just plain important to follow the news. We have a responsibility to pay attention to the world we live in, just as we have a responsibility to vote and to contribute to society. It is part of being an adult, and a citizen.

This is not a satisfying answer. Why is it important? What is it that makes a news item important? Its popularity, the fact that everybody else knows about it too? That's shaky ground to build importance on.

Or is it the objective truth and relevance of a news item that makes it important? But most news are inaccurate and irrelevant. Really paying attention to the world we live in is not a normal part of being an adult, but something rare, something most of us do without. How can we say that it is "important" that everybody follows the news, when the world clearly does fine without?*

There's also an honest answer to why we follow the news: We want to be entertained. The news tell us a good story, and we want to know what happens next. The belief that this story is real has the same emotional effect as when we're told that a movie is based on a true story. It gives the story emotional resonance. "Wow, this really happened."

A news story is fairly real, but it is still a story, and it is appreciated as a story. What we want from the news media is good stories based on real life, this is more important than their being perfectly accurate or relevant.

This answer explains why the news take the form that they do. The news we want to hear about are like the stories we enjoy: Fun, titillating, frightening, infuriating. It may seem odd to say that news about war, death and crime is a form of entertainment, but think about it: our favourite stories are also about war, death and crime. Think of the movies you've seen the last year. It seems natural to me that there is a connection here.

Yes, war, death and crime is relevant, but if relevancy is what matters most to us, why do we pay attention only to certain of these events, and not to others? Because they're good, familiar stories. We talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and devour all news about it because it is a good story*, a continuing saga we follow from day to day like a favourite soap. We ignore African wars where the suffering is orders of magnitudes higher because they're bad stories: Confusing and unfamiliar, like a soap from a different culture in a language you can't understand.

But this too is an incomplete answer. Our desire to be entertained explains the choices we make as news consumers, which again explains why the news media behave the way they do: They want to make money, so they obey our attention. But it is not fair to say that what we want to achieve by following the news is to be entertained.

Just as you can want to lose weight and still eat too much, it is possible to want something useful from the news, and still reward the superficial with your attention.

I think most of us do want to learn about the world, learn how things really are. We don't go about reaching this goal very well, but we're curious and we want to know.

Our level of curiosity varies: I want to know everything, it is my Great Plan. Others are less curious, but I believe that most of us want something more than entertainment from the news, something useful and relevant, even when our behavior says otherwise.

And this is where I get to a counterintuitive point: If you're one of these people, if you want to learn about the world, and this is why you follow the news, you're wasting your time. If all you care about is reality-based entertainment, then the news is a good investment of your time. But if you want to learn about the world you live in, following daily news is probably misspent time.

Not because the news media do a bad job. They do, but not all of them. Let's say you read only the best news sources in the world. It is still a waste of your time.

How so? Think of the world as a painting. Every day that painting grows by one millimeter in length. You like this painting and you want to appreciate it, but you go about this in an odd way: Every day you go up to the painting, and for a whole hour you scrutinize only the most recent addition to it. Once in a while you cast a glance at the rest of the painting, but you spend most of your time looking only at that last millimeter.

To learn about the world primarily through the news is like studying a painting one millimeter at a time. To understand an event you need to understand its background and context, and the news give you little of that. News stories are time-biased: Nearly all their attention is given to today and yesterday, some to the last week and month, and anything beyond that gets a paragraph at the end.

You may think you already know the background of the news you read about, that the background is simple and obvious, and not worth your time. But it is the other way around. The background of an event is always complex and full of important details. Knowing a summary is not enough. Compared to their background, today's events are simple and - often - obvious.

The bright side of this is that understanding does not come at a fixed price: There are some real bargains to be had if you look in the right place. Background information is such a bargain, it's like one of those movie classics you can buy at a third the price of last year's crap blockbuster.

Let's say a big event has been unfolding over the last week. You have spent ten minutes every day for six days reading about its latest developments. That's a total of sixty minutes spent understanding an event.

Imagine that we plot the growth of your understanding on a Y axis, and time on an X axis. The first minute you spent reading about this event, you gained a lot of knowledge, and also the second minute, and the third. But as you move up to fourty minutes and fifty and sixty, the graph begins to slope, until your understanding hardly increases at all. Your first five or ten minutes were a good investment of your time, the last five or ten were not.

Imagine instead that you spend ten minutes on the first day reading about this event, and then you spend ten minutes on each following day reading about the background of the event. Who are the people involved? What have they done before? What kind of place did this happen in? Have similar things happened before? What is the background of the background, and the context of the context?

This time, the graph goes straight up. It doesn't slope, in fact the fiftieth minute you spend reading may teach you as much as the first. It doesn't slope, and it doesn't end. There is no upper limit to knowledge, there is no point at which more background knowledge does not give you a better understanding of the subject, does not change your perception of it.

"But history is boring." Then we're back to news as a form of entertainment. I don't judge, I don't say "you should want to learn about the world you live in". I only say that if you do want to learn, following the news is usually a bad investment. Stay up to date, certainly, but spend most of your time learning about the background and context of current events.

You don't need daily snapshots of the world, weekly is just as fine, and makes it easier to filter out the noise. See the news not as your primary source of information, but as suggestions for further reading.

"Umm, learning isn't that important to me." Fine by me. Like I said, I'm not judging anyone. Think of this as time investment advice. Your goals are your own, but there are bad ways and there are good ways to reach those goals. And if your goals are like mine, those 10, 60 or 120 minutes you spend every day on news are a rotten investment.

One of your best pieces of writing, Bjørn!

It is surprising to see how much time it takes for people to realize just this. Some spend their whole lives "keeping updated" when the time could have been spent much better reading on the background that they actually think is interesting.

Myself I spent years progressing from mediocre Norwegian TV and print media to the best and mose thorough articles in international media. But it is still no replacement for reading history and facts, which I discovered in the infancy of Wikipedia. Since I've added other sources to my repertoire, but when I come across something that sounds interesting or familiar, I make sure to look it up as soon as I can. And the feeling of learning is very noticable, and it feels great on top of it all.

Thanks for sharing.

I find that it is often more fruitful to read newspapers that are a week or month old. By then you already have a broad perspective against which to place the random facts deemed newsworthy. Also you can get these papers for free and spend the money saved on ice cream or world peace or whatever.

Good article, but you need to buff up your Cartesian geometry skills. The graph of information vs. time would never be a line pointing straight up, Tha would indicate an instantaneous learning of an infinite amount of information.

What you mean is not that the line would not slope, but that it would no longer bend toward a plateau. The information gained per unit of time would be constant for all intervals on the graph. This would be the slope.

Dan Querry: The information gained per unit of time would be constant for all intervals on the graph. This would be the slope.

You're probably right - thanks!

Add to this the fact that most of the news reported by mainstream media is not about the things that are really important in this world.

All the stories about crime, violence and various accidents should be reported once a year as a simple statistic showing trends.

Any conflict that has lasted 20, 50, 2000 years are not worth following on a daily or even monthly basis. Wait to read about it in the history books. A simple test of he news: if it makes it into the history books it may be newsworthy.

In the meantime, all developments in our society will be rendered irrelevant if we do not deal with the multitude of environmental problems we are causing, our crimes against other species, and their ability to persist on earth, which is not covered in any systematic way in mainstream media.

Add to this the fact that most of the news reported by mainstream media is not about the things that are really important in this world.

All the stories about crime, violence and various accidents should be reported once a year as a simple statistic showing trends.

Any conflict that has lasted 20, 50, 2000 years are not worth following on a daily or even monthly basis. Wait to read about it in the history books. A simple test of he news: if it makes it into the history books it may be newsworthy.

In the meantime, all developments in our society will be rendered irrelevant if we do not deal with the multitude of environmental problems we are causing, our crimes against other species, and their ability to persist on earth, which is not covered in any systematic way in mainstream media.

Interesting. I heard you are a programmer by trade (as am I). How about considering the news as the rendering of "real-time" data? Realtime system must meet hard, timely schedules. Getting the right answer too late is the wrong answer. Sure, we can batch analyze the data offline for better accuracy (historical context) but for many applications this just not suitable (C3 systems, patient bedside monitors, etc). Also, many realtime systems attempt to "converge" on a timely accurate representation of reality by fitting earlier signal context with newly acquired real-time data. Isn't this what readers of the daily news do also? I take your point that the "sampling rate" need not be daily.

Great post. Very good point. Mark has a point too, though. I follow the news for several reasons: entertainment (I admit), learning about the world we live in (indeed a bad investment), but also to make practical daily decisions. Example: I'm about to buy a new car. I'm not sure if it's gonna be one that runs on diesel or one that runs on gasoline. If I hear tonight that the USA attacked Iran, I'm pretty sure it will be a diesel. Or maybe I would end up buying a new bike.

Mark: How about considering the news as the rendering of "real-time" data? Realtime system must meet hard, timely schedules. Getting the right answer too late is the wrong answer.

Good point. That is a reason to follow the news, to keep track of important changes. But we have to define "news" more narrowly for that to work. Any news won't do. Using TV news or a tabloid to do real-time monitoring of reality is like using the Windows task manager to monitor your web server.

And as you say, the sample rate doesn't have to be daily, or at least not for all news. If something really really big happens you'll want to know about it right away, but you can ensure that by just scanning the top headlines of a single news source. And even when something big happens, there's a limit to how much you can learn from the news about that event, as opposed to the background.

If the US attacks Iran, as Taco suggests, you'll want to know that right away, but beyond knowing that it has happened what you want is background information, not hours of live news coverage.

Bjorn,

Great observation. People follow the news for a variety of reasons, and habit it probably the biggest reason, while giving us talking points is probably the next reason. Depending on the what media is providing the new, I’m generally only interested in an overview, and make a quick evaluation of its accuracy based on spin, content, motivation as a new items, if its trying to mislead me, etc. Generally any news, accurate or note, is going to impact something of interest totally unrelated, and I believe that’s another reason why many of us follow the news. So, is it a waste of time? Usually! The most reliable part of the news today seems to be the weather forecast.

Man.. you made my start thinking of what I use my time on. Blogging for instance. That can be quite time consuming.

Mysjkin

Bjørn,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't follow the 'USA invades Iran'-example. There's lots of stuff one would like to know beyond the fact that the US invaded. How is the invasion going? How many casualties have there been? How is the morale? What are experts saying on the subject? How will this affect my way of life? What's the reaction from other countries?

These are all typical questions that are answered by the news, and in ongoing important current events like this example I would read more news as it is often the only source of facts.

Its different with news like 'the Pope died, replacement to be announced'. Then that exact headline is all you need to know.

Tormod: These are all typical questions that are answered by the news, and in ongoing important current events like this example I would read more news as it is often the only source of facts.

The news is not the only source of facts. For anything but recent events it's the worst source of facts there is. Encyclopedias, books, almost anything is better than news.

Even if there's something really big going on, is it worth it to sit in front of your TV and watch journalists repeat what little they know for hours at end, media-appointed experts make speculative predictions about the future, anchors look grave, and pundits be predictable? Because that's what most of the live coverage of such an event would consist of. Much better to dip into the news at regular intervals, grab hold of something interesting, and then examine it on your own.

I arued with my dad about this on a random holiday afternoon after he wanted to watch tv news for the 3th time during cooking. I yelled a last time its bullshit! and then turned reluctant the television on. First thing on the screen was an airplane hitting a tower... I won't argue with him over it anymore.

Know how to get updated quickly, it gets simpler with the day, for what it essential to get bread on the table. For the rest if you live dynamically you have no time to either become unpopular since you have enough to tell and at same time people inform you of the really news-worthy news. Both problems solved I guess.

Steven: First thing on the screen was an airplane hitting a tower... I won't argue with him over it anymore.

That's like saying it's smart to play the lottery because one time you did play it you won a lot of money.

I know, it's too nice to not share.

This is my first visit to your blog, and for the first time in my life, I am subscribing to a blog after reading only one post.
I can't think of any original way to comment, except: this was good!
And I guess that's why I've never been interested in reading about random accidents or crimes in the daily news: not because they are depressing, but because they have no context. Why should I know that something happened simply because it happened? If I can't draw conclusions and ultimately learn something, what's the point?
So I applaud Tormod's attitude:
"All the stories about crime, violence and various accidents should be reported once a year as a simple statistic showing trends. (...) if it makes it into the history books it may be newsworthy."

Well, reading was the television for previous centuries. It's overated and often a waste of time so I like to read at work. So many things are printed only once. With no follow up. If you don't read the paper each day something is going to slip by. News is just history on the second day.

You might want to see if you can find a book by Neil Postman called "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

http://tinyurl.com/hqcdx

The reason I enjoy reading certain blogs more than newspapers or newsmagazines is because the hyperlinks that are embedded with the story. This allows me to gain near instantaneous context and history on a story/topic by simply navigating to the linked material and in many cases validates the accuracy of the story. A lot of the research effort is done for me which saves me time and money! So, I think the better news/commentary blogs support your idea that spending more time on the context and history increases your total knowledge about an issue.

Now onto geometry.

"Imagine that we plot the growth of your understanding on a Y axis, and time on an X axis. The first minute you spent reading about this event, you gained a lot of knowledge, and also the second minute, and the third. But as you move up to fourty minutes and fifty and sixty, the graph begins to slope, until your understanding hardly increases at all. Your first five or ten minutes were a good investment of your time, the last five or ten were not."

Here you are describing a non-linear equation (mostly likely a logarithmic function) with a positive slope (y increases faster than x for a period of time). As the rate of knowledge gain decreases over time, the rate of slope decreases until the slope becomes constant at zero (i.e. a line parallel to the X axis)

Next we have this:

"This time, the graph goes straight up. It doesn't slope, in fact the fiftieth minute you spend reading may teach you as much as the first. It doesn't slope, and it doesn't end. There is no upper limit to knowledge, there is no point at which more background knowledge does not give you a better understanding of the subject, does not change your perception of it."

I believe what you meant to say here is that the line has a constant positive slope (i.e. the slope does not change over time) which means it is based on a linear equation. (i.e. "The information gained per unit of time would be constant for all intervals on the graph." This would be the slope.)

To complete our lesson, a linear equation that produces a vertical line (i.e. straght up) has a slope that is undefined.

The news is reported by people who do not know the background. I don't think they even know there is a background.

A guy named Fred Reed used to write a newspaper column about the military. He went to the Pentagon library and asked if reporters were allowed to check out books. No one knew. They researched the question. Finally, the library director told him that there was no rule, because no reporter had ever tried to check out a book.

homer: So, I think the better news/commentary blogs support your idea that spending more time on the context and history increases your total knowledge about an issue.

Perhaps, if the outgoing links are good, but they usually aren't. Most bloggers will just give you something they found by 30 seconds of googling, and besides the best sources of information may well be non-free. Amateur media are an improvement over the professional media in some ways, but they tend to have the same unenthusiastic relationship with quality.

Thanks for the geometry lesson, btw. I was writing without thinking, a common hazard in blogging.

Thanks for the comments.

I've often felt that reading the paper was a waste of time. I think magazines are better for background and context.
The real difficulty is finding information that will make a difference in your life.

I have piles of newspapers and magazines and I don't think they have made any difference in my life.

I find organization of information such that it is useful to be very challenging.

It's funny how we may learn about something in an article and find it to be compelling and thoughtful and then it just becomes more trash.

We need some means of organization that puts it into the big picture (as Bjorn suggested) so it has meaning.

For example, we find an article that tells us of the increasing deforestation of the world at large. We read it. It is compelling. It is filed away. We may even go tree planting to help out. But without a real grasp of the situation, it does not become compelling enough to really do something about it.
We may know some of the history of deforestation. For example, Great Britain was supposed to have been covered by forests at one time, but they have been deforested so intensely, that any existing trees are greatly prized and protected. But so what? What impact does it have on Great Britain? They seem to be coping OK. What impact does it have on me or on future generations. So everything is made of particle board (and are exposed to formeldehyde off gassing). We don't burn wood anymore, and don't create great amounts of carbon dioxide.
We don't build with dimensional lumber. We use manufactured structural I beams at reduced weight.

I guess one of the real issues with deforestation is habitat destruction. This contributes to species extinction and the decrease of biodiversity on the planet.

The whole problem with information is that there are so many questions to deal with any issue.

We all have lives to live and I barely have time to compose a thoughtful response to this blog.

If I really wanted to take it to the next level, I would organize the articles, paint a huge picture on the wall and begin summarizing cause and effect. Then I would get involved in discussion forums etc. etc.

But a newspaper is much like life. We read something thoughtful and compelling and then move on to the next article.

We need to begin to do more than just read.

Using Steves post on 9/11 as a starting point, I daresay that the crashes into WTC - as horrific they were - are made more important than they really were.

That day, reading for my final master exam three days later, I just turned on the news on radio for a quick update and heard a plane had crashed into WTC. OK, some stupid hobby-flyer made a mistake...but then they said that there was another crash and that the planes were big Boeings. My first thought: - This is an Al Quaeda terror attac. Because if we had followed the international development during the last

Sure, 9/11 was important, it was the catalyst to the invasions of Afghanistand and Iraq, with all their consequences. But if that had not happened, something else would have happened, and it had a backgound. My point is that the conflict between the west and militant islam would have been there, the strange axis USA-Saudi, the dicatorial regimes in the middle East, American imperialism - it would all have been there. In this view, 9/11 is just the top of the iceberg. And because Bush&co do not realise this - or do not want to - they screw up in Iraq, because they do not realise the complex backgrounds for terror (may be they realise now...).

What does this have to do with Bjørn's post? Media tend to focus only on events, not background. In Norway, I think only Aftenposten and Klassekampen are the two media that really ask not WHAT but also WHY. I think the reason is quite simple: People want entertainment, simple answers, action - and advertisers want people to read ads. Therfore, we read bout the "action" on the stock exchange, instead of the fact that Norwegian women give birth to 1,7 kids each instead of 2,1 as necessary to keep population stable - the last fact is much more important than some fuzzy dancing of an index, but it is a long-term series of very small non-events, not action.

The conspirative part of me also suspect that advertisers would not like the audience to understand backgrounds and important connections. Because that would lead to understanding of power relations in this world, critical questions to those with power, lioke CEOs - and possible less sales.

By the way...

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1300901.ece

No further comments, you honor!

Hi Karsten Eig.

Strange blog-entry from me this one .. but do you recognize my name? :)

Did you by any chance play in Bjørneblæs at UiO ? :-)

Hey, I like the way you writing. I self read the news a lot. I am interesting for newspaper like VG, and the same newspaper on the net. I like write things on others blogs too. I thinks is great to share my brain-cells (if I have any.) with others and I like to learning about the community and the rest of the world.
From tse tse fly.

Jepp, Rune Kristian, det er meg :-)

mer her:

www.ig.uit.no/~kei001

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1748