Tuesday, June 1, 2010

A low-information diet?

There are lots of good reasons for paying as little attention as possible to news and news media. Tim Ferriss, in his “Four Hour Working Week”, recommends a “low information diet”, not only to avoid time-wasting distractions but as a way of asserting the primacy of your own agenda and world-view. Many writers on self-help and personal development put forward a similar argument – that we should focus our attention on our own goals and the changes we can make around us.

The stories in the media are doubly disempowering, this argument runs: firstly they redirect our concern and attention to distant tragedies which we can do nothing about, and secondly they control the discourse by determining what we should be thinking and talking about, and what we shouldn’t. (For instance: Louisiana oil spill and European debt crisis yes, ongoing tragedies in Darfur and Congo, no.) And from there it’s only a small step towards sharing in the conventional wisdom on the topics in view: Obama isn’t doing enough to stop the oil; European countries need to become more competitive and to enhance economic growth. Then you can waste huge amounts of time in internet forums clashing with people who don’t share the same “wisdom” as you – as if either your opinions or theirs made any difference, or challenged the power of governments or corporations in any way whatsoever.

Most creative artists and other highly productive people spend little or no time surfing the media – they’re too full of their own goals and agendas to give headspace to anything else. Shouldn’t we all be emulating them, becoming more effective and productive in the process, and cut these intellectual and spiritual parasites out of our lives?

Largely speaking, yes we should – but there’s a fault in the argument that these tragedies have nothing to do with us, or that we can’t do anything about them. Of course, we can’t directly stop the oil spill (even if we’re the CEO of BP, apparently), but it’s a direct consequence of our oil-focused economies and our general failure to act as caring and responsible stewards of the planet which we go on casually wounding.

Perhaps it’s a duty to feel above all – to feel our connectedness with all humanity and all life, and then to act accordingly. Not in internet forums or saloon-bar discussions, but out there in the world, in our own world, wherever we can make a difference.

A low-information diet yes, but not a no-information diet. To be aware of what’s happening, and then to find our own original and authentic response to it – that’s the way to use the media, and not to be used by them.

3 comments:

  1. I couldn't agree more. I recently did a post on exactly the same issue. I wish to be informed - I will never again feel that my voice has no merit. Never again will I let my government do as it pleases without my angry email to the Whitehouse. Yes, I know it means little, but for me it means I'm watching...

    On the other hand there is little I can do by obsessively reading about it. It's better for me to do as you suggest - stay in a good frame of mind to do what I can to make this world a better place.

    Nice post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are those that suggest you can do more for the world by not participating in the media, than by engaging it. If it's really true that our greatest legacy to the future is the consciousness we develop, then being "informed" may not be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But don't you think that by not being informed about something like the BP oil spill we'd be playing into the hands of those who don't want it to change pubic policy in any way?

    It's not just about information, but also emotion: rage at the callousness and greed of the oil companies and pain for all the harmless and beautiful creatures that are suffering from the oil. Isn't this a part of being authentically human, and a necessary precondition to doing anything about our oil addiction?

    ReplyDelete