"Most news consumers – even if they used to be avid book readers – have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. It's not because they got older or their schedules became more onerous. It's because the physical structure of their brains has changed."
This claim stops just short of saying watching the news causes ADHD, from a self-styled "self-help guru" with no expertise in neurology or psychology, without any sort of citation.
There's also specious logic like this:
"I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie – not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter"
I also find the question "Out of the 10,000 news stories you may have read in the last 12 months, did even one allow you to make a better decision about a serious matter in your life" to be poorly founded. Knowledge is a good unto itself, and simply raising awareness of issues can lead to action, even if the majority do nothing concrete to help. Simply seeing the change in polling data can cause politicians to enact legislation (though, obviously, donating to a lobbying group or contacting your representative are more effective).
Moreover, I think the fundamental idea asserted here is dangerous. Limiting your news intake is one thing, but forgoing it entirely?. The cornerstone of democracy is an informed public. Keeping people aware of the actions being taken at and highest and lowest levels of government is the only way to keep it accountable. And on a personal note I think it is immoral for people who are relatively well off to ignore the problems plaguing others.