Reading the Newspapers Selectively: Put Up or Shut Up
May 4, 2007

Five people responded to a recent blog entry I wrote about reading the newspaper. Three of them objected to my frustration with bad news.

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

I am not surprised that I got this violent reaction to what I wrote. But it's how I feel. And not just now that I have a "blissful millionaire's" life. I have always felt this way.

It has always seemed to me that reading stories about "bad things that happen in the world" was akin to rubbernecking at highway accidents. All those people who slow down to look may feel like they are being responsible in doing so, but all they are doing is tying up traffic by indulging their morbid curiosity.

There are only two responses that make sense if you pass an accident. Pull over and help - if, that is, if you have the skills and the tools to do something. Or accept the fact that your gawking is doing nothing but harm and get on with your life.

Sometimes, I admit, I do find myself reading bad news. I can't help it. But reading about problems I can't solve doesn't make it a productive use of my time. I don't delude myself into thinking that I need to read about the war in Iraq every day to be aware of it. And how many articles do you need to read about starving people to know that starvation is a major concern in our world?

Peggy Noonan, writing about the pervasive media coverage of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, had a similar reaction to being drowned by so much of it: "I thought of Thoreau. He said he didn't have to read newspapers because if you're familiar with a principle you don't have to be familiar with its numerous applications. If you know lightning hits trees, you don't have to know every time a tree is struck by lightning."

Thinking that a person who didn't read all the newspaper stories cares less is complete rubbish. As is thinking that a person who did read all of them cares more. And it's typical, I'll bet, of people who do nothing but read and talk, read and talk.

I read a study recently that said, in effect, that "socially oriented" activists - people who are very active in talking about and promoting social causes - actually contribute much less to charity than cold-hearted conservatives. That doesn't surprise me. But it's better to talk less and do more. I may not spend a lot of time reading about and talking about what's wrong with the world, but I'm sure that what I give to charity exceeds what my critics contribute, both in absolute and in relative terms.

And they didn't hear what I said. I never said that you shouldn't read troubling news. What I said was that you should recognize that it has a potentially damaging effect on your psyche - that it will numb you. But you can - and should - control what you read and what you don't read so you are not victimized by that numbness.

In other words, use your reading of the news to fuel the work you want to do in life. And that work includes all the work you do - what you do to make a living and what you do to leave the world a better place. Sometimes, you can do both.

Like my critics, I vote, but I don't think that voting is fulfilling my obligation as a person who cares about the suffering of others. Nor do I think I can relieve my conscience by contributing money. For me, the test of your charity is what specific actions you take that directly and evidently result in relieving the suffering that concerns you.

Reading about it is does nothing. Put up or shut up.

I haven't seen a study on this yet, but I will bet you that if we compared people who like to read the bad stories to people who don't, 'we'd find that the people who don't take more positive action - probably much more - than their "socially aware" counterparts.

Another one of my readers, also troubled because he misunderstood what I said, had the right idea about reading news:

"My problem with Michael's 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 off and then do something about it."

I agree completely with this, with these qualifications:

posted by M. Masterson @ 10:39 AM,

3 Comments:

At 9:44 AM, Anonymous Karen Freeman-Smith said...

I have to agree about all the bad news. Don't they say you get more of what you focus on?

I was reading a book about China and how their news is controlled by the government to include only or mainly success stories about Chinese people.

WOW.

Call it propaganda if you want. But if China beats the US in the next decade or two, I think it will be that positive focus that causes their success!!

 
At 6:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fantastic summary to keep things as it is!!! Business is business is business... Charity is Charity is Charity

v

 
At 12:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed this article. And, I too, believe that knowing all the bad things that goes on in the world desensitizes you. I remember watching the news one day, and because their motto was that they always had live coverage, I was able to witness a man "protest" his cause by blowing is head off with a 12 gauge shotgun. Now who needs to be bombarded with that type of media day after day? I steer clear of news when i can, and focus on doing my part through volunteer work, and helping others realize their own role in contributing to peace in their own communities. Because peace will never come under the close and watchful eye of a greedy, vindictive, selfish, imperfect government thats headed by equally imperfect men. After all, when has imperfection ever bred perfection?

rgrds

 

Post a Comment

<< Home