| Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that mass media news consumption can (or should) be an entirely rational process, in which a person should be able to exert enough willpower to ignore the emotional content of news stories. It doesn't work that way. Our cognitive threat detection systems create very real biological responses to the information we receive from the news, prompting shifts in cortisol, adrenaline, and other stress hormones. That automatic threat response has very real effects on your short and long-term health and mental/emotional well-being. [1] The potential for sudden, dramatic, unexpected loss of life or property (called Loss Aversion) is one of the most attention-pulling things in the world. Once you start paying attention, it's extremely difficult to stop, even if you can't do anything with the information. It's easy to be sucked in by modern news media, and spend way too much time and energy ruminating on situations you can't influence or control. You're burning the limited amount of attention, focus, and energy you have each day on something that ultimately provides zero value. I'm all for being informed about what's happening in the world at a baseline level, provided you focus on information you're in a position to act upon - by avoiding a local threat (weather/earthquake/wildfire/etc), donating to a non-profit in the event of a disaster/tragedy, educating yourself before an impending election, etc. Otherwise, the best way to handle most news media is not to pay attention to it at all. Treat it as a tabloid: best to be avoided if you want to preserve your focus for more important matters. [1] See "The Science of Fear" by Dan Gardner, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0452295467/ |
I don't think it's healthy for anyone to have a full on "let's not ignore news" or "let's totally ignore news" attitude. A lot of what you're saying is true and they're valid points but they're not compelling enough of a reason for anyone to stop consuming news. It's impossible to live a life where you avoid anything that would negatively affect you. You mention loss aversion. That could be considered a bad thing. But it can also be quite helpful. After the bombings in Boston yesterday we had a noticeable increase in security in Chicago where I am. Because I paid attention to the news I knew something had happened and was a little more aware of my surroundings on public transportation than I would normally be. Now, did anything happen? No, but having that awareness didn't hurt me either.
Ignoring the news means being ignorant of the world around you. I understand that no one is immune from the emotional impact of what they see on the news but it doesn't mean they also cannot pull themselves away from it or that it will necessarily lead to some kind of depression or other negative.
People like us don't need to be told to ignore the news. It's the people who watch Fox all day long and can't discern opinion from fact and are looking for someone to validate their world view that need to be told this. The rest of us I think can take it in, learn a thing or two, and see the rest for what it is. If a few of us get emotionally invested in a story for an hour or two then so be it, is there really any serious harm done?
This entire "ignore the news" idea is way too black or white to be realistic. The vast majority of things in this world, including this idea, are far more complex than a simple "do or don't do this or that" answer can provide. There are things you shouldn't do - don't eat Uranium, don't jump off tall buildings, don't stick your tongue in a light socket... this isn't one of those thing.