Scan barcode
amyamac's review against another edition
3.0
Dobelli has some valid points. Constantly checking the news is probably not good for your state of mind or a valuable use of your time.
However, there is one thing that he does not seem to consider (perhaps).
He advocates reading established articles: long form essays and books. In his definition of news he implies that social media is included: anything short, anything that grabs the attention.
On social media and, to a certain extent, the media there are more opportunities for marginalized voices to make their experiences known. If we all limited ourselves to the mainstream, the reputable and the long-form, such voices would, potentially, not have so much of an opportunity to make others aware of their lives.
However, there is one thing that he does not seem to consider (perhaps).
He advocates reading established articles: long form essays and books. In his definition of news he implies that social media is included: anything short, anything that grabs the attention.
On social media and, to a certain extent, the media there are more opportunities for marginalized voices to make their experiences known. If we all limited ourselves to the mainstream, the reputable and the long-form, such voices would, potentially, not have so much of an opportunity to make others aware of their lives.
kano1q84's review against another edition
3.0
3.5. Solid arguments made in favour of quitting the news, but could have been presented or formatted better.
edwide's review against another edition
4.0
Was gifted this book by the founder of the firm I interned at a couple summers ago - a thorough yet simple look into the institution of news and media and why it does not benefit the reader at all to engage with it. Would recommend to anyone who wants to help lose this unhealthy habit
themorsecode's review against another edition
reflective
fast-paced
3.0
I found this a useful book to challenge my approach to news (total addict) and think about it in different ways, it's very similar to those "quit social media" books but I'd never really considered news in the same way. It's a breezy, quick read but the author is clearly stretching much of this out from the original article and has zero self-awareness, especially when it comes to their own status and privilege (why not speak to your scientist friends about current affairs?) and their idea about "news lunches" is laughably naive. Despite not agreeing with everything, I enjoyed the short book and at the time of writing, have gone 24 hours news free and you know what? Feels good man.
ectoplasms's review against another edition
1.0
I picked this up in a Waterstones cafe to skim with my coffee. Ended up reading the thing as it's under 200 pages and it feels like most of the pages are half blank.
What an embarrassing read. Constant repetition of ideas, style of prose verging on hysterical, and unbearably preachy to boot. The chapter on news lunches was not only preachy, but condescending. I don't need to maximise my friendships by asking my friends to give me a speech on an intellectual topic when we have lunch, thank you very much. I'm content not having pseudo-intellectual business lunches with my mates.
What an embarrassing read. Constant repetition of ideas, style of prose verging on hysterical, and unbearably preachy to boot. The chapter on news lunches was not only preachy, but condescending. I don't need to maximise my friendships by asking my friends to give me a speech on an intellectual topic when we have lunch, thank you very much. I'm content not having pseudo-intellectual business lunches with my mates.
samphire92's review against another edition
3.0
Agree with the main thrust of the book, but find the author and his focus on optimisation as opposed to pleasure quite annoying. His alternatives to reading the news (go for lunch with your intelligent scientist friends! etc) also often seem quite specific to his life and circles and not particularly useful in a broader context
mindbloweress's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
2.0
While the main thesis of the book is interesting, I found the book to be terribly boring. The author repeats the main idea every chapter and almost on every page, uses even the same words and phrases to do so. It could be summorized in a couple of paragraphs maybe pages and it would have been enough. It felt bloated and superficial. Ironically, while advocating for greater depth than superficial understanding of the world, the arguments presented are exactly the latter - very short and underdeveloped. I feel that I haven't learned almost anything new and I actually agree with the author that limiting the consumption of news is a sensible idea. The most interesting questions were actually raised at the end of the book - how can we stay well informed as citizens in democracies and how can we hold those in power accountable through media. Those are for me the most interesting points in the book but the author failed to actually explore them beyond "just read more books and pay for investigative journallism". His approach is deeply individualistic, literally you have to stop reading the news, full stop. He criticizes journalists for reporting events without providing context but he does the same thing. A few people who stop reading the news will have zero impact on the situation. What we need is a societal discussion, education about media literacy, laws and regulations. These are complicated topics that he gives no space. How can one even write such a book without talking about media literacy at schools, supporting people of all ages in understanding the online environment. We need more cooperation between people, direct communication about media and its role in our societies. "Stop reading the news" reminds me of "reduce your carbon footprint and you'll save the world" - it is too small too individualistic a solution which distracts us and absorbs our attention while we should be focusing on passing laws and creating systems that allows us to decarbonize our societies. We need to think systemically, not individualistically. So, while I appreciated a few points in the book, I would not recommend it. Read a well researched article instead.