zlacker

>>mertbi+(OP)
I completely understand why, but on the other hand democracy relies on citizens being informed about what's happening. The risk is that one day, you wake up and there is no democracy any more.

>>danmaz+k6
The fact that this is downvoted really says it all. "I don't read the news" is pretty much dependent on one's profession being insulated from changing events. Which is not surprising why it's a popular opinion amongst technocrats that would rather not have democracy in the first place.

>>keifer+x7
Excerpt from link:

  For the rest of the news, I am considering subscribing to a magazine that covers important events in Germany, the EU, or the world every few months. This kind of format filters out short-term noise and fear-driven stories.

Elections happen even less frequently than this. If your democracy disintegrates with less than a few months of warning, you were probably invaded and noticed even without the news; At this point, that would probably lead to a civil emergency notification on your phone, and by design that happens even without any apps installed.

As we said in the UK in my childhood, "Today’s news is tomorrow’s chip* paper".

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_chips

>>ben_w+A9
Just because news orgs are incentivized to be controversial and attention-seeking doesn’t mean that the world isn’t changing rapidly.

Personally I think once a week magazines / reviews are a good compromise. I’m not sure how useful reading 3 month old news will be.