News is bad for you
 

Are you addicted to current events? How much news is good for you?

Dr. Andrew Weil recommends a "news fast" as part of optimum health. Too much news causes stress and is bad for you, he argues.

My boss chides me constantly because I don't read the newspaper daily. "How can you be a responsible citizen if you don't read the news?"

I pretty much take a daily glance at headlines to make sure war hasn't broken out . . . I mean ended. Why? this is why:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/08/tod....ap/index.html

i wonder what kitsune will say about this.

I say this:

He's right, especially with all the post 9-11 hyper that the media outlets love to hype up. The nature of people to pay attention to any bit of information leads to overload, especially when damn near everything is "breaking", "developing", and treated like the world is ending.

Of course, in nearly every bar, restaurant, waiting room, airport, lounge, and office break area you don't have much of a choice. I highly suggested picking up one of these to help alleviate the epidemic of 24 hour, constant breaking emergency news (complete with scrolling "oh noes!" text at the bottom that never goes away) in public areas.

My solution? I get my news from Fark. If it is really, truly important, it'll be posted and usually have a "news" tag. Otherwise, its a story I get a laugh out of and it improves my day.

Unless it has a Florida tag. :rolleyes:

Yes, I think it's important to be an educated voter and citizen, but--there's just so much sadness and evil in the world. Do we really need to be informed of every piece of it?

I want to be well educated, I want to help make the world a better place, and it's important not to be naive but--I just don't know how to get the right mix.

apathy is my shield
sympathy when i yield
antipathy towards zeal
homeopathy when i feel
sick

Sometimes the news is good for you.

Like when you hear about a treatment on the news that your doctor doesn't believe in...

The constant stream being masqueraded as "news" is like the last chance calorie counter as you checkout at the grocery store. You can grab some chocolate, some gum, some mints, some more chocolate, some chips, a slimjim, a powerbar, some more candy and gum, one of those ridiculous candy toys like a ring pop or pacifier, breath freshener inviso-strips, a bag of peanuts, etc, etc. It's all there, all the time, but you don't have to take it in. The occasional treat is ok, but there is much more nutritious, more substantial fare elsewhere.

Above all, all things in moderation. Even good food. Even real news.

We should know about the news that effects us, not the stuff that gets our attention but we have no control over.

For example, if we decide to raise the minimum wage, that is news.

Even though it is tragic, if a school bus crashes in Idaho it won't effect me, except emotionally, so I don't need a front page article on it.

OMFG. All I can think of now is Anna Nichole Smith!

and it's all your fault. somehow.

That's it- you all have shown me the error of my ways... I'm going on a news diet. No more Access Hollywood, perezhilton.com, or the gossip section at MSNBC. Just good, wholesome CNN. Wait! Don't they have Anna Nicole and the 3 (or is it 4) possible daddies right on the front page? Aaaargghh!

Twenty-million.

Newspaper Runs Out Of Anti-Bush Headlines
By Red Square
7/15/2005, 2:58 pm




It was only a matter of time before the mainstream media ran out of catchy anti-Bush headlines. Starting with the 2000 elections the US editors appeared to be engaged in a prestigious contest: who would cast the President in the worst possible light. The opportunities seemed unlimited. The headline-writers spent countless nights awash in the pale glow of their monitors, coming up with one brilliant hook after another. But four years of consistent Bush-bashing have eventually exhausted everyone's vocabulary and imagination. So when George W. Bush was reelected in November of 2004, several pundits sensed that a crisis of creativity would soon plague the media. By the end of the second quarter of this year, the national media hit rock bottom.

"There are only so many words one can string together while remaining impartial and objective - even if it's such a fertile topic as our dumb and evil dictator President who is bent on bombing caribou herds back into the Stone Age in Alaska," says Susan Stein, editor of The Village Voice, a mainstream New York newspaper. "Our paper is getting thinner with every issue. We are now considering running blank pages; we call it a "fill in the blanks" approach. Our readers are extremely educated and knowledgeable; they'll get the point anyway."~

Some journalists admit to having been a bit too wasteful and overzealous with their anti-Bush headlines in the past. "I guess we should've saved some for later," says Lenora Calhoun, a New York Times reporter. "The well is dry," she continues, "but who knew the idiot would get reelected? We had a lot of fun with headlines during his first term, though. Lots of good memories."

As a result, the once elaborate and artistic headlines in the papers are being commonly replaced today by such bland and meaningless titles as "Bush is Bush" and the rather implausible "Bush Eats Condors For Breakfast." Such weak efforts will fool only the most gullible part of the Democratic constituency. No wonder subscriptions are dropping rapidly across the country.

"It was a time bomb," agrees Fatima Shah, who works in the same room with Lenora. "I think Karl Rove planned it all from the very beginning. Now who is the real terrorist here? Hey! Didn't I just come up with a good headline! Gotta get back to my desk. There's a Pulitzer Prize with my name on it."


http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images...Voice_Bush.gif