| It's very hard to see how you reached this conclusion, which seems to show more knee-jerk bias on your part. The article is (in the main) about our relationship to news. The ever increasing saturation of 'news' into our everyday lives with constant demands for our attention and the impact on individuals and society. It actually advocates rising above news and connecting on a human level with each other rather than political in order to push the news cycle out of our lives. Here are some quotes from the article: "The belief that we’re morally obliged to stay plugged in – that this level of time commitment and emotional investment is the only way to stay informed about the state of the world – begins to look more and more like an alibi for our addiction to our devices." "At Thanksgiving with your Trumpist uncle, the point is not to seek agreement or compromise, but to grasp that we are not fully defined by our political allegiances – and that, as Talisse puts it, “in order to treat each other as political equals, we must see each other as something more than citizens”. " And the last paragraph: "But it may be the only practical way for us to begin to foster a change. If the colonisation of everyday life by the news is damaging both to ourselves and to democratic politics, we ought not to collaborate unthinkingly with that process. Far from it being our moral duty to care so much about the news, it may in fact be our duty to start caring somewhat less." |