To not know what's going on in the world. No news!

[OdinFlower]

I began to stop watching the news in 2020. It was an awful time. My elderly mum had a mental breakdown because of the lockdown loneliness. I so regret sticking to the guidance and not seeing her more. She died recently. She never recovered from the mental torment.

I was so sick of the news...COVID, Brexit, Trump, Putin etc. It was affecting my wellbeing. Endless political crap, useless celebrity rubbish. So I've not watched or read about the news for several years. Of course, I can't fully escape it. Other people discuss it but I can honestly say I feel so much better not knowing about world politics, the latest celebrity nonsense etc.

Now I know a lot of people will find my attitude rather uncaring. But this is how our ancestors would have lived. I know what's going on in my local neighbourhood but that's it. If there is a nuclear war or comet about to hit, I don't need to know about it. I'm living my life and the peace is lovely. Selfish? Maybe....but I don't care.

The Guardian does not have a paywall so it's free. This does matter when you're poor so I don't think berating anyone for getting their news from the Guardian is fair.

She didn't start a discussion though. She told us she hadn't watched the news since 2010 after Covid and said its all Trump, Zelensky etc (obviously does watch or listen though, since the war in Ukraine started since the time she stated she doesn't watch) and pronounced she doesn't care what goes on. Fine, up to her.

A discussion piece yep, would be a much better idea. A 'I don't watch it and I don't care what goes on'. Ok, fine, so what. Ignorance is bliss they say. Hence the 'so what', 'why announce it', 'you do you' responses. Did she want a medal or something for not being aware of what's going on. There's a major difference to not watching everything and staying up to date for budgeting, tax, who to vote for, change to policy that affects us all etc. Everyone to their own.

If you think that pointing out that the Guardian is left leaning is “berating” anybody then you’ve got bigger problems than paywalls.

I just don't see any other reason for saying it. Everybody knows already. Like saying Fox News is right wing or Daily Mail is not news at all - just clickbait crap.

I stopped following UK political news after the pandemic. Of course I stay broadly aware of major happenings but I don't get dragged into being outraged about whatever bad or stupid thing a politician has said or done that day/week. My sense of mental peace has improved a lot. I do care a lot about society and justice but at some point you realise these news stories have been happening since the beginning of time and are never going to end.

Edited to say that I would never not vote!

Because a poster suggested that the Guardian was balanced reporting.
If something is self-admittedly "left" then it isn't balanced.

If you read, properly, this was an agreed point so I really have no idea why you're trying to pick a squabble about it.

I sometimes watch political commentators on YouTube, especially Phil Moorhouse. Of course, doing so is one person’s view, and Phil unashamedly describes himself as left-wing, but he says a lot about what he thinks politicians are really up to, instead of the version that they want us to hear, on national news.

“What he thinks” with evidence to back it up, or just speculation based on nothing?

Lots of evidence. He does his research carefully.

The problem with YouTube commentators is they are not bound by Ofcom rules about truthfulness and balance. I’d tread carefully

Indeed, I'm careful to be sceptical of what Youtube commentators say, but I'm not sure that I trust the Ofcom-bound BBC to be a paragon of truthfulness and balance. There certainly wasn't any "balance" in 2020. Everything then was very, very one-sided.

Because this is a chat forum? Shall we keep everything of concern to ourselves and just close down Mumsnet?

I went through a stage of this when my kids were little and I was working full time. I was stretched super thin and didn't need the added layer of bad world news on top. I think I went a good 5yrs not in the know.

Now I have a news app that delivers stories throughout the day but I mostly swipe them away. I glance at the headline so I am aware of the overall story but rarely click in for more info. It's a grim world and most media outlets want us frightened as we're easier to control.

This place is pathetic, honestly. Just a bunch of miserable with life people ready to pile on.
OP, I wouldn’t worry; as you’ve said, it is a forum for all sorts of discussions. I actually enjoyed the topic.

I’m honestly not trying to be goady when I ask (out of genuine curiosity) why you think an Ofcom regulated news source is untruthful? Would you agree that suspicion of legacy news sources has contributed to the proliferation of untruths that tend to extremes (on both ends of the political spectrum) ?

I'm replying because you tagged me. I really don't care whether she watches or doesn't, I mean, what does it matter to anyone but her.

However.....

I didn't realise that OP was concerned that she hadn't watched the news since 2020. Poor person. I hope she's no longer concerned. Glad she felt able to share her concern. That's why she decided to announce it then. Thank you so much for helping 🙄.

Yes, this ^^
The 'argument' that some YouTube commentator who may be funded by some obscure think tank (or god knows who god knows where) is less biased than broadcasters who must adhere to a set of established rules - as imperfect as they might come across- boggles the mind! Reminds me of that Reform MP on LBC the other day talking about budget waste in councils and saying his stats are more reliable because they were put together by (quote) 'a think tank' (which he did not even bother naming) but that official data will always be 'biased'. With that Orwellian reasoning which purposefully and completely undermines trust in public institutions, you can make the populace swallow just about any lie.

I think you're reading/watching gossip, not news!

I'm sorry to hear that you've been through a tough time with your Mum.
You don't have to watch the news or read a paper, it's your choice.
I like to be informed about what's going on in the world. I enjoy the Laura Kuenssberg programme, and the BBC do a good summary from their foreign correspondents on a Saturday morning, which is very informative. So it's good information and discussion, rather than 2 minute bites of the most alarming/controversial events.
I find that a lot better!
(typo - sorry Laura!)

Good points, @StandFirm . That's why I like BBC Verify, it's genuinely interesting how stories are checked in a world of TikTok and YouTubers.

With the BBC, and other mainstream outlets, it's more about what they DON'T tell you. I remember noticing the BBC's methods as a teenager: a Panorama programme about "working parents" was totally one-sided, and had nothing to say at all about the possible benefits of two working parents. It just argued very eloquently that having two working parents was bad - end of discussion. This was in about 1995.

I don't think the BBC tells outright lies that could easily be disproved, but I think they are very, very selective in what they say, which side of a story they tell, and are probably tightly controlled by the government. In a "debate", it's as if they know what conclusion they want in advance. In 2020, the harms of lockdown were not voiced at all, as far as I saw; nothing mattered apart from the virus. Any interviewee who tried to argue against lockdown was swiftly interrupted. There were massive protest marches against lockdowns and compulsory vaccinations (I know they never were compulsory, but they might easily have become so), easily hundreds of thousands of people there (I know because I went on them, and the marches were literally miles long), and they were either not reported at all, or the only mention of them was "a couple of hundred conspiracy theorists on Speaker's Corner"; but the Black Lives Matter marches were certainly reported.

And then of course there's the BBC aiding and abetting prolific child abusers: one of them in particular.

I avoid glancing at newspapers in shops, or even looking at shops because of the news board outside, which often has the same over-used word: MISERY.

More strike misery.
More rain misery on way.
More drought misery.
More heat misery on way.
More tax rise misery.
More cuts misery.

And even marginally positive news might be presented with negative words: “petrol price war”, for when they go down 1p a litre (having gone up by 5p the previous month). The word “war” is there to grab your attention.

Bad news sells, and they know it.

The first example is reportage, not news: an examination of a particular hypothesis which has been subject of much sociological study.

Its always the case that not everything that happens ends up on the news: there is always a judgment call by the editor as to content and the order in which items are shown. Many sociologists would argue that that choice is a reflection of individuals’ prejudices but the regulation aspect largely means across the piece there will be something close to balance - and at least there is a complaints process if anyone feels that the balance is completely off.

And as for 2020 and given we’d never had a lockdown before I think it’s a little premature to argue we should have known the harms in that time (and I agree it was harmful in many ways but all governments were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t lockdown).