How to Read the Daily Newspapers
April 13, 2007

Do you read a newspaper in the morning? Be careful if you do.

Newspapers are designed to be engaging. And the best ones are successful at pulling you in and getting you emotionally involved. By making you care about the news, newspaper publishers gain your loyalty. In getting your loyalty, they boost their circulation levels. That raises their ad sales, which ups their profits.

You may feel that you are in charge of deciding what you care about and, therefore, what you read about. But behind every story, there are several smart and skilled people working to get you interested in it and make you care. Good newspaper writers and editors are like good advertising copywriters. They know their customers and how to push their emotional buttons.

If you read the newspaper naively - that is, with the notion that you are reading "news" - you are putting your emotional intelligence to work for somebody else. But if you are careful about your reading - if you read selectively and purposefully - then you can earn dividends on the time you invest in the newspaper every morning.

(Note: If you watch the news rather than read the news, all of this applies.)

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Reading today's New York Times passively (i.e., naively) creates the following experience:

I am upset by a photo of Arab men in Baghdad tearing an American flag to shreds. The mix of hate and glee in their faces scares me a little. I start thinking about my next trip to Paris, about how many Arabs I'll encounter there. I wonder if they will harbor this hate for me. I'm left with a swirling, emotional brew of fear and anger and despair - not a good way to fuel a day.

Reading an account of a family of Latino Americans on Long Island that were roused from their beds early in the morning by pack of shouting, gun-wielding federal agents looking for illegal immigrants, I am upset again. I imagine how those guys broke into the house, waving around their machine guns, breaking open doors, screaming at the little children, threatening to shoot. And for what? To arrest some illegal immigrant who came to America to work 60 hours a week doing work that other Americans on welfare find beneath their dignity? I think about how America is turning into a police state. And then I think about all the people who think this kind of tactic is good, who know so little about economics that they think these raids make any sense. Recognizing how ignorant most people are about how money works, I am exasperated.

Then, noticing a small story about a trial that continues for two cops who put 42 bullets into the body of an unarmed black man outside a Queens nightclub last November, I am upset again. I know lots of cops, and most of them are leery of using their guns. But each one of them knows someone - a stupid young buck, usually - who is dangerous. How can they not weed out guys like this from the force? Maybe because history has proven that, most of the time, bad cops can get away with murder. In this particular case, the defense is hoping to move the court venue away from Queens to get more whites on the jury. In 2000, four NYC police officers accused of shooting 42 bullets into another unarmed citizen, Amadou Diallo, were successful in moving the trial and were all acquitted of wrongdoing. I'm not happy reading this. I'm thinking about getting involved. But how?

Then I turn to a story on the Don Imus controversy. I never liked Imus, but I can't help feeling that he's not the bigot he's being portrayed as. He lost his television gig because he made a bad joke. It was degrading, yes. But it wasn't any more degrading - as he himself stupidly pointed out in his defense - than the lyrics that many rap stars use to praise both the black community and the liberal white community that supports politically correct speech. There is no question that black women in America don't get the respect they deserve, but going after Imus is an ineffective way of getting it.

I catch myself and think: "Why am I even wasting my energy worrying about Imus?" I don't listen to his show. And I don't care if he is executed by the political-correctness police.

All of these stories in my morning newspaper are upsetting. I haven't yet finished my coffee, and I am already in an emotional boil. None of the feelings I have is conducive to having a good day. I can't channel them into anything productive. As an American citizen, I am very much affected by the war in Iraq and the cultural shift away from personal freedom. But on a daily basis, there is no benefit in getting myself riled up about it.

"Screw it," I decide. "I'm not going to invest myself into these sorts of stories any more."

What should I do then? Cancel my subscription to The New York Times and subscribe to USA Today?

I could do that. USA Today is certainly more upbeat. But I don't want to give up the good stuff in the NYT. Instead, I will continue reading the NYT and The Wall Street Journal every day. But I'll read them actively and purposefully, not passively and naively.

For me, that means ignoring most of the news about war and crime and politics, and focusing on stories that are - or could be - useful to me.

When I say "useful," I mean useful in giving me information and ideas that can help me make better decisions and also give me stories that can energize and inspire me.

I see an article in the business section of the Times about American Home Mortgage, a Melville, NY-based lender of Alternative A mortgages (i.e., made to people whose credit ratings are good but not great) whose earnings are going down because they have to buy back and write down some of their loans. This is the first signal that the problem banks and investment firms are having with sub-prime loans is just the tip of the iceberg. I congratulate myself for getting out of the real estate market when I did - about a year ago - and remind myself that there will be big opportunities for me (and for you, if you have some cash ready) to invest in real estate when the second wave of the crash takes place in the next 6 to 18 months.

I spend two minutes reading a story in The Wall Street Journal about the emergence of a luxury car market in China and remember how awed I was by the wealth and immensity of Shanghai. The growth of China is not a temporary fad, I tell myself. In fact, the globalization of the world's economy is an inevitable trend. I'm glad that AGP is part of it. With the Internet linking us all together, the opportunity for international marketing will continue to grow. I spend a few moments thinking about other ways I can get involved in this trend.

I glance at the "Money & Investing" section of the Journal and am thankful that I am an entrepreneur and real estate investor. As such, I can put most of my risk capital into businesses and properties that I both understand and control. "Leave the fancy investing to those who have eight hours a day to get above-market returns," I tell myself.

I see that Bush is going to lengthen the tours of duty for soldiers in combat zones. But I'm not going to read the article, because I am sure there is nothing in it that I need to know - and there is certainly nothing I can do about it today. Every four years, I get to vote. That's enough for me.

In the NYT, there's a story about a man from Ghana that I probably shouldn't read but can't help myself. It seems he came to America to work and send money back to his family with the intention of bringing them over when he was financially able. Everything was going according to plan when his wife died in Africa. He redoubled his efforts to bring his children over and was making good progress when he discovered, through a new requirement - a DNA test of his children - that three of the four were sired by another man.

I review, very briefly, the physical characteristics of my own boys. I am quite sure each of them has at least one body part that resembles that of his father. "Enough is enough," I decide. Another half-hour spent, and nothing much from it except the conviction that I should continue looking for real estate and international business opportunities. The rest is turmoil. The papers go into the trash basket - except for the Arts section of the Times, which I will savor, as cultural entertainment, later on. I've invested 30 minutes in this roller-coaster ride. That is plenty. On to work!

posted by M. Masterson @ 2:55 PM,

6 Comments:

At 4:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael ~

I've always been an avid reader and fan, but I've got to say, this post left me feeling more than a little stunned...

To advocate ignoring all the "bad" things that happen in the world -- from war to genocide to racism -- in order to have a pleasant day, is nothing short of shocking and irresponsible!!

If enough people actually STARTED caring about these issues, then politicians would be forced to make meaningful attempts to resolve them.

Sorry if the world's pain is inconvenient, or spoils your otherwise blissful millionaire's existance, Michael, but your determination to live a life of privilege while ignoring what goes on beyond your own borders is exactly why the US is so widely resented.

Wake up, everyone! People around the world are suffering and dying daily because we choose to wrap ourselves in cocoons of ignorance (with the exception of issues that affect our personal cash flow, of course). I would suggest that it's time we started paying MORE attention.

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ditto. Nothing else needs to be said.

 
At 10:45 AM, Anonymous Steven Chambers said...

Michael is right on target, there is a correct way and an incorrect way to read a newspaper. I applaud his emphasis on not getting drawn into every story but disagree on his premise that we should only focus on the positive.

Years ago, when I was a student at the U.S. Naval Academy we were taught to read the paper by skimming the headlines to get a general sense of what was going on in the world and delving deeply into 1 -2 articles, including the sports section, so we could carry on an erudite conversation on current and world events.

For the past 25 years I have used this method with newspapers to great success. I usually have completed two newspapers...the San Diego Union and WSJ, along with several news and business websites in 30 minutes prior to starting my workday. In general, I find that I have a much greater sense of what is going on in the world than most people I deal with.

My problem with Michaels' post is his emphasis on avoiding the bad news and focusing solely on the things that will make you feel good or that can be used to your financial advantage. This is so wrong.

Focusing on ourselves and avoiding the difficult subjects is why we can't solve the problems facing our country, much less the world.

People as a rule are ignorant of the world, and either don't know or don't care. My recommendation, pick a cause, something you're upset about, and do something. Read these stories, get pissed of and then do something about it.

 
At 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I get Michael's point and would like to add that firstly, what we read in newspapers should never be confused with actual news. Anybody who's talked with any soldier coming home from Iraq can tell you that we have not a real clue what is happening on the ground over there, and it's not a surprise that you sometimes get more news about what's going on in the world by reading a foreign newspaper than an American. Talk to a NYC Public School teacher if you really want to know what's going in the school system. You don't need to read a paper to understand what is happening in Darfur. It's not like the NY Times really broke the story. There are plenty of sources to get real news from.
I read the newspapers or even watch the TV news, and I come away depressed, angry and feeling quite impotent about being able to affect change in the world.
That time might have been better spent writing a letter to my congressman, getting my news from alternate sources, they are everywhere, or donating my time to a worthy cause.
If you really want to know what is going on, research, listen to alternative news, read. Then you can make your own judgements.
And I totally see the point behind reading or engaging in activities that will enrich you. Enrich yourself and you enrich the community around you. Spend time with family and friends or loved ones instead of being glued to the TV set watching clowns like O'Rielly. Make a contribution by acting instead of passively soaking up news that is tailored to entertain, shock and keep you watching until the next commercial.
I know an awful lot of people who know a lot about the news and talk you senseless with their awareness, because it was in the "Times". But I don't know too many who are willing to get off their butts and actually do anything.
I'm not knocking it completely, just that to rely on commercial news venues (which is what it is, commercial) so that you you can understand the world around you is a bit naive and passive.

 
At 11:36 PM, Anonymous Eric Farewell said...

Michael I have a HUGE amount of respect for you, and for this post...

Thank you for writing it, I couldn't agree with you more.

It's refreshing to hear someone with this perspective.

 
At 11:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this post was well thought out. The newspapers and cable news exist to sell commercials. Emotional stories resonate, which is why they get so much coverage. I don't think that Michael's process is flawed or that he is attempting to dodge reality. He is simply not a passive consumer of media manipulation. This is analogous to eating a healthy diet instead of a little bit of everything on the buffet.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home