[Closed] Percentage of the population insulated from 'the news'

May be it’s depressing Instead constantly being fed all the carp that is in the news, so avoiding it totally is best for mental health

"cold hard facts" I think this is part of the problem.
There is no news outlet that I know of that doesn't put their own spin on facts.

I'm increasingly in that category these days to be honest. Most of the news seems a constant stream of doom and gloom. Sensationalist nonsense, written in such a way to trigger their desired audience.

I'm increasingly in the "**** it" category. I'll worry about issues within my sphere of influence and do what I can to ensure my family are well set to ride out whatever tomorrow may bring.

“cold hard facts” I think this is part of the problem.
There is no news outlet that I know of that doesn’t put their own spin on facts.

Whilst there will always be argument about the bias of the BBC and other mainstream I'd say the main spin something like the BBC website will put is what to report and the priority the story is given. The death the Qasem Soleimani for example - BBC headline and content are relatively non sensational with background info on who he was. Now compare to the headline in the DM and Express or some of the facebook stuff floating around. Or some of the Guardian opinion pieces I have read since. The BBC's effort is close enough to cold hard facts for me for it to be compulsory reading before moving to the rest. Or indeed nothing else.

One of my resolutions this year is to expose myself to less in the way of news for the same reasons as I left Facebook; the posts are curated, as is the news, to obtain and retain your attention by eliciting an emotional response.

I don’t think this type of manipulation is useful or without consequence, so I’ll be on a low information diet and informing myself using alternative sources as required - maybe your wife is doing similar?

im the same as your wife really, dont watch or read any for the reasons given above. its doom and gloom, and everyone spins it to suit their own agenda.

youll laugh, but my main source of news is this forum 😀

I’m trying to limit mine, mainly for my sanity and mental health. I look at BBC news once every morning and try to avoid news beyond that. I’ve made sure my twitter feed is curated to be not news stuff, you get the odd retweet but that’s OK. My view is that for the vast majority of stuff there’s sod all I can do about it so why worry?

youll laugh, but my main source of news is this forum 😀

This place definitely plays a large part for me too.

does it actually matter? I do read the news a lot, but I'd suggest that less than 1% of stuff in the news affects me in any way. If I didn't read it at all, it would not impact me in any meaningful way.

Reuters Institute does lots of research into these sorts of topics.

Interesting so far.

So for those that actively (or are electively in the future) minimising their exposure beyond what they think effects them or their 'sphere of influence' - would there be grounds do you think that you should also refrain from voting given you are electively naive/ignorant?

I can't imagine wanting to be informed as much as possible about the world around me but can see it is choice that can be made although I feel it should come at a price.

Apparently, my new year's resolution is to be your wife. :oD

Up until the election result last month, I spent a huge (and I mean HUGE) chunk of my day reading news online (both domestic and US based) listening to R4, with either CNN or BBC News 24 on in the background while I worked. It was the first thing I did in the morning, and the last thing I did before I went to sleep.

There was so much shit happening around the world that I thought I needed to stay on top of, that I was becoming obsessive about it. A lot of it was making me angry too, and there was seemingly very little that I could personally do to change it.

So, mid-December, I decided I needed to change all that for my own mental health. So, I just stopped doing reading/watching/listening. Cold turkey style.

Since then I've not followed any news at all. I rarely watched any live TV, and still don't. I did listen to Spotify a lot, but I've now supplemented that with 6 Music as a replacement for CNN/BBC24, and this is probably now where I get all my 'news', albeit a pretty watered-down bulletin every 30 mins or so.

For the record, I got rid of my Facebook account a couple of years ago (as in actually, fully deleted it and everything it contained), and I don't really use any other social media - so I'm not exposed to anything manipulative in that respect.

In just under a month of doing this, I've found that I'm thinking about bikes and surfing and travel a hell of a lot more (three things I used to do a lot before I had kids)... and the other part of my plan is to find more time to get out and do more of all three in earnest this year - starting this week, in fact.

I feel like a proper weight has been lifted. I'm just generally more relaxed. I'm happier. And I'm probably waaay nicer to be around, too.

I recommend it.

so I’ll be on a low information diet and informing myself using alternative sources as required – maybe your wife is doing similar?

It's nothing that deliberate. I think she was previously an accidental news consumer. Traditions and culture have changed and her exposure has dwindled. We used to buy a paper at the weekends. From her perspective it was for a tv guide but the news was physically sitting in print on the table but we don't now. Music was partly consumed by radio so she heard to bulletins. The best TV shows were often just before or after the news. It's those changes that has made her more isolated and she does not care enough to make an effort to replace the old sources.

I feel like a proper weight has been lifted. I’m just generally more relaxed.

same. i also did the same with football. up until 15 years or so ago it was a big part of my life, pissed off when my team lost, an accumulator each week, "ooooh only 1 off a few hundred quid", watching games that i had no interest in the winner and being pissed off at all the cheating and swearing at the ref, so i drew a line in the sand and said 'thats it, no more, i dont care if any team wins or loses, im not watching it any more, footballs gone.
and like the news, i feel better for it and that theres more 'room in my head'.

would there be grounds do you think that you should also refrain from voting given you are electively naive/ignorant?

in my case no, im happy that i can make informed decisions from reading the 'big threads' on here 😀
and what about all those that just believe everything that they read/hear/watch on bbc or in the daily mail/sun/mirror etc, or from facebook feeds, theyre probably more ignorant than us that dont read/hear/watch anything at all 😀

So for those that actively (or are electively in the future) minimising their exposure beyond what they think effects them or their ‘sphere of influence’ – would there be grounds do you think that you should also refrain from voting given you are electively naive/ignorant?

Well a general election isn't something that sneaks up on you - you generally have a bit of notice. :o)

I'd like to think that I'm intelligent enough to make a voting decision based on whatever information is available to me at the time (or throughout an election campaign period), and right now I don't feel that I need to spend the next 5 years before the next general election closely following politics so that I can make an informed choice at the voting booth.

I also believe that there's a fair bit of ideology involved in voting too, as in there's at least one party I'll never vote for, regardless of how much news I've watched/not watched!

But that's another discussion for another day. Or maybe not, in my case.

May be it’s depressing Instead constantly being fed all the carp that is in the news, so avoiding it totally is best for mental health

I did read a mental well-being article that did suggest that the constant barrage of negativity and conflict in a very sensational way can be detrimental to mental health. I turned off 5-Live, don't read on-line newspapers with the very occasional glance at the Guardian. Avoid all tabloid newspapers like the plague and I do feel "better".

Commuting by train and working in an office environment, I am alarmed by the number of people who seem to get their daily news fix from the Daily Hate or the Heil-on-line.

My wife finds the news depressing, so avoids it. Personally it doesn't bother me, although I mainly stick to economics/business/finance stuff as I'm more interested in that.

I've stopped watching the news after the election, mostly, do still look at BBC website news sometimes but, frankly I cant change it, my opinions on politics are pretty fixed in that I hate tory policies and so whats the point me knowing what Trump, Boris, Putin and all the other facktards are up to, it just stresses me out.

Count me as another one who avoids it. It’s just utterly depressing and as others have stated it is pretty much always presented with a bias. I don’t watch normal TV, don’t listen to the radio and don’t actively read newspapers / news on-line.

It’s the best way in my opinion. If something major happens it’s basically impossible not to hear about it from somewhere. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to vote though? I can make an informed opinion on a political party and their manifesto without having to be guided by a broadsheet, tabloid or presenter.

May be it’s depressing Instead constantly being fed all the carp that is in the news, so avoiding it totally is best for mental health

This for me

MIL reads the Daily Wail and believes everything in it, then spends her days repeating it to all who will listen.

I too am now reducing my news intake, as I don't believe much of the reporting and find it all 'too much, too often, too narrow a view'.

A question for those who do consume lots of noise, what benefit do you feel you have from being very informed in it?

I’ve been on a total news detox since Dec 12th, feel better for it 👍

A question for those who do consume lots of noise, what benefit do you feel you have from being very informed in it?

I think you have put your finger on it already. I don't see it as noise.

I think it gives a sense of perspective. For example chuntering about your bin being collected only every two weeks feels a bit small fry when 12 million hectares of Australia is burning (this was a piece of news my wife was entirely ignorant of).

Also a lot of global and nation events are played out over a long time. The nuance is lost if you just heard a 10 second summary at the end of a 6 month process.

The word noise was actually a typo, should have been news!

Also a lot of global and nation events are played out over a long time. The nuance is lost if you just heard a 10 second summary at the end of a 6 month process.

Understand, but how does that knowledge benefit you? I get the concept that people like to feel informed, but I struggle as to the benefit to them of having that knowledge.

What ops’ 1st reply was

WORD!

Plus a little bonus as I don’t vote as do not deal well with disappointment as feel the need to spit dummy out on a bicycle forum

🤪

A question for those who do consume lots of noise, what benefit do you feel you have from being very informed in it?

I think reading the news helps me to recognise the noise and filter it out.
Despite the genuine concerns about bias and misinformation, there is still a lot of good, reliable information out there, and it is not difficult to find. I'm curious about the world I live in, I want to know what is going on, and I want to be able to make informed decisions.
It's not an academic discussion, and trying to understand what is going on has real practical consequences. You can see that over the last 3 years and the recent General Election. An awful lot of people seemed quite comfortable admitting that they made no attempt to read up on the issues that were being debated (and had no interest in doing so). That is pretty shocking, because it means that facts are devalued, and people without scruples can gain the upper hand by just telling the lies that people want to hear.

I don't tend to actively read the news.

Yet key events do make their way to me via tea shack chat and I'll go research on those that interest /affect me.

I don't actively read it as there's so much that is reported and so little can be controlled or influenced in anyway by me.

It just strikes me as a way to keep you living in fear of what "could" happen to you.

You have to have nothing to lose to be willfully ignorant, whether it's due to being at rock bottom or in a position of privilege. I'm selective with what I consume, the local news tends to be filled with assaults, robberies and a token feel good story about a charity that's doing the job our taxes should pay for. It let's me know what's happening in my community and if I should carry a rape alarm. I do like to know what's going on in the world though, that information forms what food choices I make, how much my fuel is going to cost, where to buy my clothes...

I've stopped bothering with many of my sources of news since the election and feel better for it, more chilled out.

Spending 5 years tying yourself up in knots so you can spot a turd on polling day is a poor strategy. Be the good and the change you want to see in the world, volunteer for something, write some letters, emails to influential people on issues that matter to you. Disabuse yourself of the notion that liking or retweeting will achieve anything. Talk to people.

Also the news has been rubbish since they stopped having tits in it.

The news is depressing, so I don’t bother. Same with voting.

I read the big threads on here and another forum that gives me a broad base of arguments for me to digest.

Everything else, **** it - don't trust most of them. Gotten very cynical over the last 5 years. Might help that I've emigrated and the news has another different slant again.

I think the way news is reported is inherently bad for our mental health. It focuses exclusively on the negative and reinforces the almost unconscious notion that terrible things are always happening and that these things will affect you directly, which, of course, is untrue.

I think that it's possible to remain informed without overdosing on news programmes - just drastically limit your exposure to them.

JP

I think I'm probably not alone in more-or-less completely avoiding the news. The closest I get is a quick browse through the BBC website on a Friday lunchtime to see how well/badly I can do at the quiz of the week's news when I haven't read any of the articles. I got 7/7 right one well, that was a surprise.

Especially in recent years though, with 90% of everything being related to Brexit or the elections, I've found myself more and more disengaged from the news. I still vote, as I believe you should, so I voted for the local candidate whose values seemed to match my own - not for Boris/Jeremy/Nigel etc, none of them were standing in my constituency, and it's an election not a popularity contest. I won't say seeing the news was 'depressing', but it became abundantly clear that nothing will ever be straight facts, every outlet has their bias and flaws, and therefore none can ever be 100% trustworthy. That's a shame.

I would particularly say I've lost any faith in the BBC, unfortunately. The biggest issue seems to be them slavishly following an incorrect dictionary definition of 'impartiality': supposedly giving equal airtime to all parties (or at least the two main ones) is one of the things causing the most issues. I wholeheartedly agree with whoever created the meme thingy that said "if one politician says it's sunny and another says it's raining, it's not your job to report on both, it's your job to look out the window and work out which one of them is telling the truth..." but that hasn't happened, no major outlet was calling politicians, of any party, out when they lied. I would see that as the BBC's remit, but they won't do it. That's a shame as well.

Is it also a shame that that frustration means I'm out of touch with world events? Yes, I suppose it is. I hear about things through other sources - here, other social media, office chat etc - and I'll research things via multiple sources if I find them interesting or important. But I think it's less frustrating and yes, maybe a little bit better for my mental health, not to get to caught up in the news and the frustration that comes with it. I can still be a half-decent human being without it, so that will have to do.

I watch Channel 4 news a couple times a week and thats it. There too much propaganda creeping in and frankly, a load of balls being reported as well.

As we continue to lean towards American standards in almost every part of UK culture, it's no shocker that the news has deminished to such a level that most people don't believe a lot of whats reported.

It's not so much being insulated from the news, but realising that traditional news does not exist any more, just the spin on the world/UK/local events that suits the proprietor of whatever the outlet is.

Once upon a time I used to buy The Times regularly because it was a paper that reported the news reasonably accurately and confined its editorial spin to the editorial section. That was a long time ago now.

The advantage of social media is very often links will be provided, and it's easy to chase up a matter of interest.

I'm pretty much like the op's wife (different hairstyle mind) although I listen to Six Music so get stuff from there, plus unfortunately also hear Jeremy Vine when my colleague gets radio rights. I also get my news from here where I can be selective and follow the links I want to find out more about.

Essentially, humans are dicks. I don't see any need to have this confirmed to me at regular intervals throughout the day.

My mum is absolutely obsessed by news, glued to Twitter for hours on end about Brexit and politicians, and the rest of the time has Radio 4 on. To me it's like watching Eastenders. Horrible and depressing content but content that you're invested in and want to know where it'll go next, so have to keep watching.

Horrible.

For example chuntering about your bin being collected only every two weeks feels a bit small fry when 12 million hectares of Australia is burning (this was a piece of news my wife was entirely ignorant of).

How would her life be enriched if she had known about this two weeks earlier? It’s clearly bad for those involved, it’s obviously devastating, at least in the short term, for wildlife, and is probably a bad sign for the planet. BUT how does knowing this make one woman on the other side of the world in any better/worse situation than not knowing?

Why do you presume that the story you do know about, which happens to be from a commonwealth country, where white English speaking people predominate, and that is well connected digitally is THE news story she should know about? As world affairs go, was it really the only thing happening between BJ getting elected and Trump assisinating Iranian Generals? Or had much of the media decided they deserved two weeks off?

that is what i love about riding bikes. For one, two maybe 4 hours i can disconnected from the world, if people need me urgently, they'll need to ring me till i answer it..

the crap i get alerted on my phone from sky news or footy apps, i really dont care if a random bloke playing for a mid table spanish club is injured or rumoured to be signing for a mediocre london club.

and yes the news has its agenda and is depressing..
prime example the recent election all biased one way or the other, when 80% of the general population is in the middle ground. certain channels banged on about corbyn, he was a no hope'r from the start far too radical..

I haven't read most of the replies..but I would be part of that percentage..
I'm out too early on a morning ..back too late on an evening to listen to any dedicated news channel ..dont listen to radio programmes during the day..and the only snippets of news I get are online via this phone ..
On my days off..I'm much too busy relaxing to be arsed about what might be going on in the world outside of my own..and happier for it ..
Dont vote ..dont get involved in any political debates..have my own views on religion..but having taken a load of abuse on one religious thread on here..have avoided all others..
Generally ..I cant understand why people get so wound up about things that they have little to no chance of changing ..

I think that being well informed is the responsibility of all humans. Despite what you might think, you do have the power to influence policy - by writing to your elected representatives, or donating to a cause or whatever.

To pick up on an earlier post - just because climate change is hitting the Aussies first, doesn't mean it won't be here shortly.

I recommend "The Week" magazine if you want a precis rather than being swamped by it everyday...

I'm not sure if that reply was in response to my own ..however ..
I'm as informed as I want to be ..lead my life on my terms ..but what raised a laugh was that you actually believe that " my appointed representative " has the power to change anything..he is just a very small cog in a much larger mechanism ..as previously said ..I'm happy in my own little world without being affected by outside influences ..thanks.

It’s clearly bad for those involved, it’s obviously devastating, at least in the short term, for wildlife, and is probably a bad sign for the planet.
BUT how does knowing this make one woman on the other side of the world in any better/worse situation than not knowing?

If you avoid consuming news, how do you know if you are missing something important that does materially affect you?

As world affairs go, was it really the only thing happening between BJ getting elected and Trump assisinating Iranian Generals?

Of course not, the poster used the words "For example...". There was lots of other news reported over Christmas and the New Year.

I've lost patience with the BBC thanks to their un-representative employment of minorities. I've no objection to the staff (except that that Ade Adepitan bloke irritates me) but I really do think the BBC goes too far with its virtue-signalling. Used to watch the BBC1 morning news but that's been dumbed right down to a silly chat and giggles show. So my only source of news is R4 in the car and as soon as Brexit is mentioned I usually switch left to R3.

There does seem to be a perfect storm now.

The digital age has spawned loads of channels, all shouting for our attention as this is how they are funded. So News has to grab our attention and sell ad space.

We are mostly viewing it on a tiny screen. News has to also compete with everything else trying to grab our attention via the tiny screen.

Attention spans are measured in seconds, screen size only works for headlines, no one reads anything with more than a few sentances.

Soon you realise you are powerless and overwhelmed by stuff you have no impact on. Unless of course you own Google or FB etc.

Why do you presume that the story you do know about, which happens to be from a commonwealth country, where white English speaking people predominate, and that is well connected digitally is THE news story she should know about? As world affairs go, was it really the only thing happening between BJ getting elected and Trump assisinating Iranian Generals? Or had much of the media decided they deserved two weeks off?

As has already been said, the words 'for example' that you quoted seem to have passed you by.

Regardless, as someone who spent a year working there in her early adulthood (mostly in the areas most burnt) and who has 5 or 6 friends that have emigrated there more recently (one of whom it now emerges was sheltering on a beach before getting evacuated off by boat leaving their home to its fate) it might have been of some interest.

I do find the attitude expressed by many that if it does not immediately make a difference to their day to day life they don't need to know somewhat surprising. I have a desire to consume too much information to operate like that. I don't watch QI (or more frequently list to No such thing as a fish or similar) because I NEED to know all that interesting drivel but because I want to. Same with the news I guess; I want to be informed regardless of if I need to or not. Apart from being up to speed with the news I believe makes me a better member of the community too.

I also don't think I am challenged by the mental health concerns others feel they have with hearing the news. Maybe I'm just a cold hearted bastard and can more easily decentre what is happening to me and what is just happening that I am keen to know about but not emotionally involved with. I do get that for the last few years the politically based news has been on repeat and could be a massive turn off.

Don't watch telly, don't listen to chat radio, don't buy newspapers. Too sick of bias and inaccuracy, even from the "respected" BBC.

I get an occasional update from my chrome browser whenever I open a new tab and might follow up if something piques my interest. Strangely enough, most other "news" comes through this forum. I appreciate the effort some folk go to in order to present their argument, whether or not I agree with it. (e.g. Mefty in the EU thread}.

I'm still better informed than most of the folk I meet - unless you count what's happening in specific sports, TV shows and general celebrity gossip,none of which interest me and I regard as misdiection technique so that those in power are not held to account.

I'd imagine that the news consumption would be via the stuff you don't realise, like walking past a newspaper display in a shop, the conversations in work, the newsfeed on a browser homepage, the car radio, the free paper on the bus/train, advertising all over the internet that has a political angle, as well as all the social media. We've just been through a GE so the in-work discussion is a big player.

I was talking about this with a friend recently. When I was a kid I used to watch the 6 o’clock news on BBC with my parents. They didn’t buy a paper so that was the only source of news we had in those pre-internet times. It was ok, it kept you abreast of the big things going on and the local news at the end was useful too for your region.
I don’t do twitter or Facebook and just look at the BBC website once a day just like my parents did watching that 6 o’clock bulletin. If something is interesting I might google it and find out a bit more but not very often. So I think that’s a good balance.
Before the election I engaged a bit more and went on a hunt for info about the people I could vote for in my constituency as I don’t have any particular allegiance. Found the guy that was in had been in for 3 decades and was actually pretty despised in the local area but it was a XXXXXX stronghold so he was guaranteed to keep his seat. I voted for the other chap as he had always lived in the area and had a good reputation as a businessman and supporter of local initiatives. Unfortunately he didn’t get in but the majority was reduced!

So I think I’ve got a good balance overall. The good thing is that if I want any more info I can easily get it which want the case when I was a teenager.

I was talking about this with a friend recently. When I was a kid I used to watch the 6 o’clock news on BBC with my parents. They didn’t buy a paper so that was the only source of news we had in those pre-internet times. It was ok, it kept you abreast of the big things going on and the local news at the end was useful too for your region.
I don’t do twitter or Facebook and just look at the BBC website once a day just like my parents did watching that 6 o’clock bulletin. If something is interesting I might google it and find out a bit more but not very often. So I think that’s a good balance.

was with the parents in law over Xmas, they insisted on watching the news (as they do every night) to "know whats going on in the world".

Every item I had already heard that day, via car radio, phone news app, Facebook and this place. The ones I cared about I knew more information than a five minute TV article could display. Something I didn't care for, (may have been football) I'd taken in the headline and swiped past in less than a second.

Does not buy or read a newspaper
Does not watch the news on TV (very very rarely watches live tv so would rarely accidentally watch it either because it happens to be on)
Does not listen to radio 4 (I listen avidly though mainly with headphone when she is in)
Consumes all her music via Spotify so does not even hear what passes for the news on a music channel
Never goes to a news based website like the BBC

This forum is my only 'news'

I go to the BBC but only 'football' never anywhere else.

I don't think I know anyone who avoids/misses the news like that. "Did you see QT last night" has almost replaced "did you see hollyoaks", although that might just be my own demographic shift.

OTOH, if you went to live in a cave for the next 3 years. And emerged to find that brexit and WW3 had happened, Putin succumbed to old age and a heart attack, Bernie was president but Boris was still PM. All things that individually you might have thought were massive news if you'd been aware when they happened. But then you go to the supermarket and a bottle of milk and loaf of bread is still £2.50.

It's nice to think "you have to be aware of current events, and vote etc because it really does matter", when in reality stuff happens, and neither impacts you, nor do you have any ability to have an impact on it. The news is a one way conversation.

...when in reality stuff happens, and neither impacts you, nor do you have any ability to have an impact on it

You really have to have avoided all news for the past 3 or 4 years if you believe that.

I don’t think I know anyone who avoids/misses the news like that. “Did you see QT last night” has almost replaced “did you see hollyoaks”

QT became Hollyoaks several years ago when they started inviting guests and audiences designed to cause gossip and controversy. That's why I stopped watching it. It's all Lowest Common Denominator stuff now.

It’s virtually impossible not to hear about large events. I don’t read, listen to or watch the news yet I know about the fires in Australia and the drone assassination of an Iranian General. Unless you live in a cave you’ll hear about it whether you want to or not.

Actively going out of my way to find out the above would’ve had no effect on my day to day life if I’m being honest. Reading about it wouldn’t somehow make it have an impact. Of course I care about these things, but I doubt writing a stern letter to my local MP will do anything. Maybe I’m apathetic it cynical.

kcr

Member
…when in reality stuff happens, and neither impacts you, nor do you have any ability to have an impact on it

You really have to have avoided all news for the past 3 or 4 years if you believe that.

Enlighten me.

Actually I'll save you the bother, I did actually get made redundant in the tail end of the financial crash, about 10 days after the referendum result. So yes it did affect me. But I was working in quite a niche and the company was taken over (and getting ready to be sold again as it turned out) so not unexpected. But crucially, there was nothing I could do about it. No amount of news watching or voting would have impacted it, the oil price was simply too low, and we weren't going to be in Europe.

To most of the population Brexit is probably the biggest thing that will happen in the news and the coming decade will probably mean a few percent worse off spread over a decade. Based on a 1 hour new bulletin, and 4 years of news so far (including the preceding campaign) that's 1460 hours of watching the news. If you ignored the news and worked overtime instead that's about 75% of a working year, or a 20% pay rise. The number of people who will be 20% worse off after Brexit is going to be a very small number (albeit I suspect it'll be a similar number that's 100% worse off).

Watch the news and stress, or just get on with life?

I still watch the news (and QT, and this week, and Andrew Marr, and listen to R4 in the car), but I no longer stress over it. Which ironically probably means I'm less likely to be part of a heart attack statistic on the news at some point.

Enlighten me

We're leaving the EU because 52% of the people who voted in the referendum chose Leave.
We have a Conservative government with a big majority because voters swung decisively away from Labour in previously Labour-held constituencies.

I think those outcomes are clear examples of how individuals have the ability to "impact stuff that happens", and I think it is important that people inform themselves about the news if they are making decisions of such significance.
From the various news sources that I've read and listened to, I don't think Brexit will just mean "...a few percent worse off spread over a decade". Not by a long shot.

We’re leaving the EU because 52% of the people who voted in the referendum chose Leave.
We have a Conservative government with a big majority because voters swung decisively away from Labour in previously Labour-held constituencies.

I think those outcomes are clear examples of how individuals have the ability to “impact stuff that happens”, and I think it is important that people inform themselves about the news if they are making decisions of such significance.

I think that all probably happened from people reading biased news and believing it. How many people do you think will read a few different papers or watch news from several sources? I honestly don’t think many people will. What you’re ideal would need is for people to be well educated in the first place in order for them to go and research what they’re being told. I don’t partake of the news, yet voted to stay in the EU. If I’d read the news would we magically be staying a part of Europe?

We’re leaving the EU because 52% of the people who voted in the referendum chose Leave.
We have a Conservative government with a big majority because voters swung decisively away from Labour in previously Labour-held constituencies.

I think those outcomes are clear examples of how individuals have the ability to “impact stuff that happens”

You might disagree if you were one of the 48% or the 58% that didn’t vote for those outcomes (or the 62% / 75% in Scotland that didn’t vote for that). I can write to my MP but on many points she would agree but be powerless to change it.

Now of course TINAS’s point is barring a nuclear war, it’s quite likely that in a generation the only things that actually change noticeable to the populous are things like how often the bins get emptied, or which size of wheel we should all be riding.

I don’t read newspapers, I occasionally catch the early evening news, mainly I like to try to watch the local BBC news just because it’s local, and I’ve given up on Fb, never bothered much with Twitter and have no involvement with other social media, apart from here.
However, I do read a lot of news from a whole bunch of sources, from all over the world, via the feeds I get through Flipboard, which I spend quite some time going through. That way I see what the rest of the world is talking about, I get feeds from Al Jazeera, Washington Post, LA Times, The Guardian, (US, UK and Australia), news from India and plenty of other places, which is far more than one would get from just UK tv news or newspapers.
I also get lots of science and technology news as well, which keeps me informed about lots of fascinating developments globally, particularly in energy and environment - for example, there’s some rather exciting developments in battery tech, with Lithium/Sodium as the main components. Early days, but the system is cheaper and safer than Li-ion, and hints at 650+ mile range from an EV, for an example.
To isolate oneself from what is going on in the world one lives in strikes me as being rather narrow-minded and parochial - if all humans adopted that way of looking at things, we’d still be living in the Dark Ages.
And no, what’s going on globally doesn’t depress me as such, it just makes me angry and frustrated that there are so many startlingly stupid people in positions of power, who do and say such stupid things, but there’s still so much to find out about that gives hope for the future, and anyway, I was brought up by my folks, my dad in particular, to have an enquiring mind. Just a shame he died when I was thirteen, there’s so much more I could have learned from him - he survived being a Japanese PoW, but never said anything to me that would have poisoned my opinion of the Japanese as a people as I got older, for which I’m very grateful.

You might disagree if you were one of the 48% or the 58% that didn’t vote for those outcomes

I didn't vote for either of those outcomes.
Whether I agree or disagree with the results doesn't matter, but they prove that individual actions do make a difference, and if people are making those decisions without informing themselves, that also matters.

Being able to vote does make you feel special, a bit like being the active ingrediant in a hmeopathy remedy.

Lithium/Sodium as the main components. Early days, but the system is cheaper and safer than Li-ion, and hints at 650+ mile range from an EV, for an example.

Link please, because everything vaguely serious (non DM) I've read says that those claims are fantasy. The major problem to be overcome being a very low number of charge cycles.

This is the problem with news sources in 2020, sifting real news from fake news and utter bollocks.

QT became Hollyoaks several years ago when they started inviting guests and audiences designed to cause gossip and controversy. That’s why I stopped watching it. It’s all Lowest Common Denominator stuff now.

I couldn't agree more! It's become entertainment rather informative. Bit like a Victorian Saturday morning down the asylum. Plus which, how much air time can they give to Farage? Question Time became an irrelevance a long, long time ago.

QT: four racists, a nut job and someone vaguely sensible answer questions on something controversial; it's just become the 'Daily Mail' of TV shows.

We’re leaving the EU because 52% of the people who voted in the referendum chose Leave.
We have a Conservative government with a big majority because voters swung decisively away from Labour in previously Labour-held constituencies.

I think those outcomes are clear examples of how individuals have the ability to “impact stuff that happens”, and I think it is important that people inform themselves about the news if they are making decisions of such significance.

I didn’t vote for either of those outcomes.
Whether I agree or disagree with the results doesn’t matter, but they prove that individual actions do make a difference, and if people are making those decisions without informing themselves, that also matters.

Your preposition is that if only people had watched the correct news they might have reached the correct decision in your view.

I voted remain and supourt center/left politics. But even Id get irked by that insult, mostly because the 52% would say exactly the same, if only the news/politics reflected them more then they wouldnt feel the need to stick 2 fingers up at it and vote for change.

From the various news sources that I’ve read and listened to, I don’t think Brexit will just mean “…a few percent worse off spread over a decade”. Not by a long shot.

Some stuff will change, some stuff will be the same. Some sheep farmers will go out of business. More people might go into fishing. Realistically big ticket things like the car factories will probably remain (those parts are coming form all over europe then the cars go back, playing silly bugers would hurt everyone).

The net result will be bit lower spending power, your XT crankset will cost a bit more relatively, your holliday will cost a bit more, but it wont look like Mad Max.

Your preposition is that if only people had watched the correct news they might have reached the correct decision in your view.

No. I'm saying that a lot of people made a decision without making any attempt to consume credible news (and they were quite happy to admit that).

If people choose to insulate themselves from a range of real, difficult news that you have to think about, then we start opening the door to manipulation by crude propaganda. If you read the news, you'll know that's already happening:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44966969

I’m saying that a lot of people made a decision without making any attempt to consume uncomfortable news (and they were quite happy to admit that).

If people choose to insulate themselves from a range of real, difficult news that you have to think about, then we start opening the door to manipulation by crude propaganda. If you read the news, you’ll know that’s already happening:

I've tweaked that slightly, read it back in the context of if being written by an imaginary leave voter in Stoke, who feels similarly clued up about how the media and politics works aimed at a perceived "London elite" remainer. Note that they doesn't believe that everyone in London is the elite, or that everyone who's better off than them is listened to by those in power. But one way or another, there's been a disparity that means that their demographic equal in London get a shed load more investment in infrastructure and probably made more money on their house price (which is really a function of that infrastructure investment creating economic growth and jobs) than their pension is worth.

They see it as a fact that the news and politics benefits London. Kine crime in London is being dealt with, HS2 is going to London, London's flood defenses are being discussed, London tube drivers are on strike for more pay. Meanwhile the murder rate in Stoke hasn't been a political topic in forever, HS2 is bypassing them, the town center is underwater again, they've not seen wage inflation in a decade and can only dream of actually having functional public transport to go on strike.

Ok, so they poked the wrong thing in the eye, but they were given a stick and they damn well had to poke something.

Or to put it another way, in the most cataclysmic Brexit imaginable, London will still be doing better than Stoke was before Brexit.

Thats a good point.

Knowing the news and not knowing it pretty much wont change your crapy life other than being depressed by the bad news.