Caution: This is a highly opinionated piece.
"If you dont read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed" - Mark Twain
If my memory serves me right, I started reading the newspaper when I was about 10-12 years old. I would religiously read the entire front page of the Times of India, and a decent chunk of the rest of it. Before the 9 pm Hindi Serial, I watched the 8:40 news on Doordarshan. By the time I was a teen, I knew of all the regional political parties, the major cabinet ministers and the complicated alliances. I could rattle off the names of the prominent Heads of State across the world. My friends' mothers would exhort them to be more like me.
After a few years, while still in school, I had an epiphany that it was the same old story everyday, and I stopped reading. As my work demands "to stay on top of the news", I tried hard to re-cultivate the habit in my 20s. I subscribed, and quickly unsubscribed, to the Wall Street Journal when living in New York. I received the Times of India everyday when in Mumbai, but never read anything more than the Bombay Times or the sports pages (specifically, the cricket pages). I work in the financial markets business, but sometimes have to scratch my head to remember who India's Finance Minister is. I am not kidding, but in the last five years, I haven't seen a total of more than five hours of news-channel programming: four and a half hours of that was probably the coverage of the 29/11 attacks in Mumbai.
I am a curious person, and love to learn, understand and travel. I love reading, including a lot of non-fiction. So why is it that I cannot get myself to pick up the paper or tune in to NDTV, an act which is as normal for 30 somethings as brushing teeth or watching football.
A technical reason is the quality of writing in print. I am not referring to the sensationalist approach, which is a well known and justified gripe, but to the shoddy penmanship: this is not a fault of the journalist, but a repercussion of working under tight deadlines. Lack of unity, absence of "flow", and the odd typo kill the reading experience: unless the news is of the utmost importance, I'd rather strain my eyes on a well-written book.
I take strong umbrage in the manner crime is reported. The present approach of news reporting skews our viewpoint of how likely we are to die or be injured by crime. Only the exceptional i.e. "newsworthy" event gets focus. For instance, the more gruesome the crime the better. We are shaken to the core thinking about what happened in Delhi recently. But if a girl is raped in a village in the middle of the night, does it make it "less" newsworthy?
Hanging of Qasab is a national issue since he is a first-order criminal, but who will report about the hundreds (yes hundreds, you can check the statistics) who die everyday in road accidents since, a) it happens everyday, b) ultimately all of us are responsible for our road culture, and to that extent, guilty. The news would have us believe that all our dangers stem from the outside and these problems would get solved if we had a better Government. I'd rather not follow what the media has to say.
The most important reason to follow the news would be politics. My friends point out that it is my moral duty to vote and I need to exercise care while casting ballot (I dont have a voter card, but more on that some other time), thereby I need to know whats happening on the political front. I take the point. But here is my argument: every morning when I wake up, I don't have to spend half an hour thinking whether I should be married to the same woman or if I should go to work that day. Why do I then need to follow who said what, what has someone promised, who changed parties, which brother will succeed the father, for one decision that I have to make every five years?
I enjoy the Presidential political debate, but no more than a saas-bahu standoff. Moreover, there is a moral hazard: I dont know whether demand comes first or supply, but thanks to all the televised speeches and debates and all the articles to go with that, a President spends two years at work and the next two years preparing for the next election. That certainly isn't sound leadership on his part or responsible citizenship on the viewers' part. I feel lost when swing states are discussed, but whats worse: my ignorance or the out-dated electoral system?
Given that I trade financial products, you might be guessing I follow whats happening in Europe, or what the economic indicators are saying about the India growth story. Not a chance. It would drive me crazy. One day Germany would say we wont support so and so, then the ECB will do something positive, then the Greek PM (or do they have a President, I am not quite sure) will make an adverse comment, and it keeps swinging like a pendulum - on and on, for months and for years. Its like dating an unstable woman: one moment its "Hum Aapke Dil Mein Rehte Hai" and then "Hum Aapke Hai Kaun". What worthy knowledge or insight could I gain by following these random sequence of events on a granular level! Some astute investors have mentioned the need to step back from the daily noise of non-stop news in order to be a better forecaster. They have also mentioned that real insights are obtained in the real world, and in looking at sources of information no one cares about.
"To bankrupt a fool, give him information" - Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms
Assuming that there is no "utility" in following the news, what about the ignominy of looking like an idiot at parties? That does happen once in a while: the worst instance was not a social gathering, but my IIM Bangalore interview. A few questions had made it evident that I didnt know much about what was in the papers (There is a difference between whats in the "news" and whats REALLY going on around you). So the interviewer remarked "Your GK is a little suspect". I said "Yeah sure! But I can apply whatever I know better than others. Knowledge without application is useless!" I'll never know if I came across as a confident MBA-wannabe or a giant prick, but I did get the admission offer.
So how do I try to bridge the knowledge gap created by taking the newspaper (or news channel) out of the equation?
By reading books, watching well-made documentaries and traveling. I get the news late, but usually its more accurate. A lot of nonsense which becomes irrelevant gets flushed out. Over time, many genuises who were ignored in their time, get their due. I got to understand more about Kashmir during a four day trip than I would manage through decades of following the events in the news. I can spend half an hour everyday reading about the European debt crisis, but proper understanding will be possible, if at all, when a master storyteller, looking at all sides of the equation, will quite a comprehensive history.
This is not to say that I simply disregard real time news. Online social media and offline social interactions typically ensure that even if you try, you cant keep the relevant news from reaching you. If there a dengue outbreak, you'll know. If Sachin Tendulkar retires, you'll certainly know.
Its a tough life. To be more accurate, its a busy life. There is work (for the unlucky few who dont need the money, dont worry, you can still be a socialite). For the ones lucky to live in Mumbai, there is a 3 hour commute on the smoothest roads or the most princely trains to ease the pain. Evenings are for kids, parents, friends, guests. You probably have a half hour in the morning for yourself, which the newspaper takes away or 45 minutes before going to bed, which is devoted to NDTV.
What does spending 20 hours of reading about the 2G scam provide? Joy? Sense of achievement? Pleasure to the senses? Peace?
Maybe it provides knowledge. You realize that politicians are corrupt and some people made millions. But I am sure you already knew that.
Does it really matter who it was and how they did it?
