I question a lot more "24/7 news". At some point beyond "twice daily digests" it does seem like too much news. It certainly doesn't help that 24/7 news to keep "engagement numbers" such as viewer counts or retweet counts deeply blurs the lines between entertainment and unsubstantiated rumors with "news", but even if you could somehow crack down on "news-like entertainment" there's probably still way too much diminishing return on it all beyond once or twice a day.
I don't know how we solve that though and a lot of people would complain if you tried to ban cable news networks and news Twitter, but sometimes I do envy the people that lived in "at most twice a day" news cycles.
I don't do any social media. Well, okay...there is my occasional jaunt (like weeks or more between logins) into the fediverse via Mastodon. But it's not really "social" the way I use it.
And HN is about the only news I ever seek out. And even that is a low-priority task -- like right now I'm here for like 10-20mins because I have some time to kill before kicking off the release of a product update.
Perhaps it is my advancing age that makes me wonder how such an important function can be thought of in parallel with social media.
The issues appear with Democrat admins - as you can see with the last week’s revelations from Bari Weiss.
In theory, that's true, but in practice, I see them as the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
If you treat literally everything as the world's biggest scandal, you're going to be ignored or drowned out if you actually do find a dangerous scandal because there's literally zero shift in tone.
And consequently political figures will respond to the muted effect of this stimulus by up-regulating their performative, attention-seeking discourse.
Aaron Swartz's blog post "I hate the news" ( http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews ) expanded on that pretty well. "... But if that’s true on a scale of minutes, why longer? Instead of watching hourly updates, why not read a daily paper? Instead of reading the back and forth of a daily, why not read a weekly review? Instead of a weekly review, why not read a monthly magazine? Instead of a monthly magazine, why not read an annual book?"
There are other purposes though. The news is often the center of important conversations. You’re going to be out of the loop a lot if you don’t at least see daily headlines.
Anything more than that? For the vast majority of news items it’s just not that important. For example, I got a push notification at 3:44 am that Kyrsten Sinema is leaving the Democratic Party. Did I need to know that in that moment? No. Did I need to know it at all? Questionable.
The same thing is true of social media in general, popular TV shows, and all that. I think something more is needed. I would say it's important to know about things like Simema doing independent (hearing about it through say a weekly digest rather than omg a push notification), but mostly to stay cognizant of the kind of world that we currently live in. Being unaware leads to too much trust in institutions, that sort of thing.
"This thing happened" is often not all that interesting or insightful.
Why and how "this thing" happened with all the appropriate context is much more interesting, but that kind of analysis often taken times, so ... the best news is at least a week old.
Lots of water under the bridge since Morrow.
(It's just so weird to see Climate Action Now! billboards outside cafes patronised entirely by those who drive petrol cars... does that irony get reported in the news?)