I have a painful admission to make. I’m a FI-blog junkie. It’s better than being a junkie of the more, shall we say, conventional sort. But it’s not without its problems.
For example, since starting to read FI blogs I have since (re-)grown a mustache, which sort of makes me look like a sort-of backwoods recluse. I won’t say that I was inspired by a rather well-known FIRE blog, but the timing does give one pause. I also developed a affinity for dinosaurs that I hitherto did not know lay dormant in me (the curiosity being the thing laying dormant, not dinosaurs). And, for a while, people thought I had taken permanent leave of my senses because of a much-too-literal take on mathing s#!& up. Eeeeeeewwwww! Sorry, Dear Reader. So very . . . very sorry.
I’ve learned a ton over the course of reading countless posts. Everything from how and why to slay various unnecessary expenses, to new income-generating activities that I might consider, to the how-tos of travel hacking. Sure, at this point I have to wade through lotsa posts covering the same things, or ideas that are either too basic or not applicable for me. But that’s OK. The trade-off is worth it to me.
But — no offense to my fellow FI bloggers — I admit to having a trust-but-verify attitude. The information in some blog posts might sound great as I initially take it in. But whether it’s accurate is something I usually try to determine by doing further research. I’m cool with doing that, too.
No news is no news
But there’s one somewhat regular FIRE blog post theme I’m not at all on board with: not reading, listening to, or watching the news. Or even adopting a “low-information” diet. In essence, killing the news from your life.
The argument seems to be that there’s so much information being pushed out daily, by so many (lousy) sources, on so many subjects that have no importance to almost anyone’s actual life, that taking it in is at best a waste of time. And at worst it’s something that can get you unnecessarily worked up about something that doesn’t matter to you at all. And even worse, maybe you’ll waste even more time talking/tweeting/posting about the issue, which could have the perverse effect of adding to the dumpster fire.
I read the news today. Oh, boy!
I’ll come clean here. By any objective standard, I read, listen to, and watch a tremendous amount of news on a daily basis. I’m sure the amount exceeds that of all but a small number of people.
For me, not only do I enjoy taking in the news, but the tangible benefits have been countless and invaluable. And unpredictably so in no small number of instances. Without having consumed any particular bit of news, who knows if I’d ever have realized certain benefits I received.
Let’s talk examples. First, I have a working knowledge or better about what’s going on in the United States, and in many states and localities in it, on any number of subjects. Economics, politics, business trends, etc. Ditto for most countries around the world. I know at least a little (and in some cases a lot) about what’s going on everywhere from Bhutan (ask me about the Happiness Index!) to Malaysia (ask me about the 1MBD scandal!) to Zimbabwe (ask me about the recent history of the country’s crazy inflation rates!). So I can talk to just about anyone from anywhere and have a conversation that the other person can relate to and be interested in. That allows for better relationships and for me to benefit from helpful things they can tell me.
Second, while I don’t pretend that my vote alone will tip any election, I can say that my vote often is very well-informed. As I consider voting a sacred duty, this means a lot to me.
And third, I credit reading the news with allowing me to learn about FIRE in the first place.
This all said, I wholeheartedly agree that most news is garbage and not worth consuming. Wait! What?!
The key word is “most.” That leaves ample space for good news sources covering subjects other than what this or that Kardashian is up to. Or what some yokel in some far-flung suburb found crawling out of his toilet. Or even what this or that celebrity said about this or that person or group of people.
Cut it out!
I am, in a word, ruthless in selecting and vetting the news sources I rely on.
CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the major networks’ nightly news, my local newspaper and radio stations, and just about all entertainment-focused media all are sources I consider mostly worthless (and, in the case of Fox, not even worthy of the term “news”). Except, mostly, as to large, unfolding events. And that’s only because what those sources generally are doing at those times is being a window to what’s going on, not a lens through which it is being filtered. Put another way, they’re showing the news, not mucking it up by offering commentary from just the extremes, or by offering other irrelevant information.
I’m just as ruthless in selecting the topics I’ll read/listen to/watch the news about. Examples of what I care about: the latest as to what’s going on with countries jostling in the South China Sea, and COVID-19’s effects on the housing market. Examples of what I don’t care about: What pattern of china Kim and Kanye just bought, and COVID-19’s effects on the average length of Americans’ hair.
Culling my news sources also is a pastime of mine. Any that I sense are losing quality and at least the goal of objectivity get dropped if things don’t improve.
The origin of specious
Anti-news-consumption blog posts also suggest that if you want to learn about something in the news, go to the original source. Hmmmmm. I think this at best an incomplete good idea.
Sure, original sources can provide good, unfiltered information. And, generally, that’s worth having. But we all filter information through our own lenses, which may have biases and/or are insufficiently clear or wide. That’s where trusted secondary news sources can be invaluable. They can help paint a fuller picture and let you know what you might be missing and/or insufficiently considering. And heck, maybe that original source isn’t accurate anyway. I usually look to at least a few news sources to gain an understanding of a news event or issue and to form my opinion on it.
In short, as with FIRE blog posts I like, I take a trust-but-verify approach with regard to news, whether I learned about it from the original or a secondary source. And while no news source is wholly objective, I rely on those that I’ve found most objective. As for the best among them, I’m consistently amazed by how accurate they have been.
So, Dear Reader, I’d suggest that you definitely not stop consuming the news. Just get smarter about what news you’ll consume and rely on. The rest, I’ll stipulate is probably just nonsense.
Same. There’s so much garbage out there, and even some of the more reputable news sources have been letting me down during COVID, whether with too much clickbait or headlines that imply how they think I should feel about a particular story (“So-and-so ___, despite ____”). I’ve ended up with mostly BBC and Associated Press, with a quick peruse of headlines on others, which usually only reinforces my preferences. I realize you’re probably trying to stay apolitical here, but I’d love any other recommendations you have.
But yeah, reading a healthy dose of the news, books, and blogs, on whatever topic gives me all sorts of ideas and insight into my own life, and, of course, things to write about myself!
To keep up with national/international news of the day, I mostly look at headlines in the Financial Times, NY Times, Washington Post and my Google news feed. I’ll occasionally read a whole article or column or op-ed, but to get the real meat of the story, I watch the PBS News Hour. That’s in part because I don’t have a subscription to, or time to read, the Financial Times, which of the publications I named, is hands down the best. And that’s for the US and world news, tho obviously it’s got the financial/economic side down pretty well, too. But to get a really great macro understanding of things going on, it’s The Economist. I can’t recommend that magazine highly enough. And for the absolute finest investigative reporting on the television side, Frontline has no peer even remotely close to it.
That’s very helpful! Thank you. Subscribing to The Economist has been on my wish list for a while, and I’ve never brought myself to pull the trigger. I need to stop being so cheap. I do subscribe to NY Times (only because it is basically impossible to cancel because when you try, they just offer more cheap promotional prices until you’re like, why not). Hmm, I’ll at least think about trying out The Economist. It’s like I forget it’s not a lifetime commitment 🙂
You may be able to get The Economist for free through your library. It’s worth looking into. I subscribed to the magazine for years but now get it free through an app that my library uses that also gives me access to hundreds of periodicals. The library has another app to access ebooks and audiobooks for free. As I like to say, the price is right.