okay, but could you give some example to back up your judgment? I don't want to read huge long things like this that are bad nor to let "it's bad" comments be enough to sabotage my potential reading of something.
> The more media we consume, the more noise we get (rather than the valuable part, called the signal.) If we consume the news on a yearly basis (in the form of books), we can assume about half of what we consume is signal, and the rest noise (randomness). If we increase our frequency to a daily intake, the composition would increase to about 95% noise, and only 5% signal. If we increase our intake to an hourly frequency (as those who follow the stock market or heavy social media users do) the composition increases to 99.5% noise and 0.5% signal. This is roughly 200% more noise than signal, more toxic noise to both misdirect and distract, and has negative effects on our mood.
It seems it's not just hyperbole, it's plain falacious bullshit. Sorry i did not read it all.
fallacious
A lot of what is said will be redundant because each report needs to repeat the basics to be able to stand on its own. For a returning viewer, that's not new information, ergo noise.
The journalists and experts may spend time speculating about what happens next. This information will be outdated the next day as new developments take place, so it's noise for me unless the speculation provides value for me between the broadcast and the next day.
I stopped watching TV news on a regular basis, and switched to reading a weekly newspaper for precisely this reason. With a few days of distance from the original event, everyone can catch their breath and take a step back to put the story into the bigger picture.
Now after 6 years, I've cancelled my newspaper subscription in order to read more books, so I'm deliberately zooming out even more.
The point was expressed badly, but it's about the way that the average quality of new-stuff is a lot lower than the average quality of a curated set of high-quality stuff from a time period.
It's like how you'll see better movies picking out the best movies from all of movie history versus picking even the best of whatever happens to be the newest.
Anyway, it's like the difference between checking the top voted stuff here at HN versus the newest stuff.
There's also a strange social dilemma here. In order for the curated stuff to have more value and lower SNR, responsible people need to be looking at the newest submissions. So, it wouldn't work if everyone rejected the neophilism, all of us wanting someone else to do the curation while we wait.
A better argument would be that the people who do the curation (the journalists, book authors, voters on submissions etc.) should aim for a higher SNR and stop publishing or promoting low-value stuff. Unfortunately, there's a conflict of interest. It's more profitable to play up whatever random latest story than to cancel or shorten the news report on a slow-news-day…