[aneeqdhk]

I switched to a weekly subscription of Economist (print) and it has been great. I haven't seen then news in a year (on phone, or TV). If there's something really important happening, then people around me generally tell me. At that point I check what's happening online, but that doesn't last more than a day or 2.

It has allowed me to escape the news cycle. I am yet to find an equivalent of the Economist for India (where I'm residing right now). As a result, I'm currently quite oblivious to the day-to-day in India, but honestly that hasn't been of much consequence.

[dangus]

Isn’t The Economist a super “rich guy” perspective though?

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve heard very good things about the publication’s quality and it’s admirable that it’s a weekly print.

I’d almost rather just read nothing over filtering down to a single perspective that is that specialized. Feels a little like getting all your news through Planet Money. Sure you’ll know what’s going on but through a single lens.

[nephihaha]

The Economist and the Spectator etc are all part of the same club.

I'd rather read a magazine which didn't have the same stories in it.

[sixothree]

The only problem I have with escaping the news cycle is relying on other people for important information. "Today is shorts and t-shirt, tomorrow is freezing rain" has caught me by surprise. So I find myself following the weather more than I would if I were watching local news. But it's not just weather.

Regardless. It's good to feel disconnected from these things. But at the same time I recognize I have a responsibility to take care of the things within my reach.

Is this what people were doing in 1939 though? I really hope not.

[nephihaha]

You can check the weather by looking at the sky. I'm amazed at how many people can't do this. You can get an idea of what will happen for the next day or so. (Although if you are out on open water, always be prepared for bursts of bad weather).