I was flicking between US election coverage on CNN and Fox and the BBC UK coverage (I don't live in the US), the contrast was stark. I could actually feel my blood pressure rising when watching the US channels, as if everyone on there was slightly panicky and had just jogged up a flight of stairs. I don't think you'd see what type of tone on non-US channels unless WWIII was literally breaking out. I couldn't imagine consuming that all the time, it must be horrendous for your mental health.

You can be informed reading the right resources once a week. Being exposed to news content isn’t the same thing as being informed. And we don’t vote daily..

This is how I cut down my news consumption.

I switched from reading a lot of news sites most days to picking the couple sites that I like the best and mostly only reading those. And then I read a few of the truly interesting-seeming articles that bubble up on places like this here website, etc.

Pre-internet, I would only buy one newspaper, and occasionally pick up a second when I was out if there was something eye-catching. I would also occasionally buy a magazine or two at the bookshop once or twice per month. I have tried to emulate this method again with the web, and it seems to be working.

I was never a person who would read every available newspaper and magazine before, so figured maybe I should not do the same online.

I am much happier not to face the firehose anymore.

> And then I read a few of the truly interesting-seeming articles that bubble up on places like this here website, etc.

This approach comes with an obvious sampling bias lurking. I'm not going to tell you not to do it, but it's something to be aware about. That's why I prefer to have my news curated by a small set of organisations that are more diverse and can make me inform myself on a broader set of issues than the ones I would naturally find interesting.

I appreciate your point. It is always good to be aware of possible sources of bias.

You don't need to follow the news very closely. At a certain point it becomes irrelevant.

Take for example the US election. I don't think there's much of a difference between watching it live and just waiting for the result.

In that sense, it's kind of like sports.

Unless you're a key player, if you're watching it closely, it's just entertainment.

And if your entertainment becomes a source of stress and high blood pressure, instead of enjoyment, it's probably wise to consider doing something else.

> How can we vote or make decisions on trends if everyone is only reacting to major events?

I've seen a lot of people who decided years ago that they were never voting for Trump spend the last 5 years obsessing daily over every news article about him. None that news is going to change the way they vote. And usually they don't even remember most of the local politicians who are on their ballot. The claim that this is to be an informed voter is usually a justification for a fairly unhealthy addiction.

Not all news is about Trump, although it can seem that way.