Okay, this is interesting as I am myself now on day five of an intentional news fasting and it is amazing. So, I'm going to take some effort here; mainly for the purpose of active reflection.

===

> Reducing my intake of what is essentially junk information has significantly reduced anxiety and worry in my day to day life, and has freed up more of my time to pursue other interests and deeper reading.

Confirmed.

> My view is that "the news" primarily exists to keep consumers entertained rather than keeping citizens informed, ...

No, it exists primarily for two reasons:

1) Making a financial profit.

2) Political control over citizens.

The entertainment and dopaminergic aspects of it are simply means to those ends.

> most commonly in the form of advertisements, but also in the form of news that's constantly competing for our attention

Advertisement and news are often indistinguishable.

> I think any news junkie reading this will immediately go on the defensive.

I'm a news junkie in recovery.

> In ancient times having power meant having access to data. Today having power means knowing what to ignore. The 24 hour news cycle is something to be ignored.

Harari is a very uninteresting journalist writing shallow and irrelevant books. And those borderline pun based sound bites are indicative of it. There is no meaningful "power" in knowing what to ignore.

> resulting in "alternate" sources of information being either absurd conspiracy theories or "takes" of mainstream news on social media.

I do not agree. "Alternate" sources are the only sources of some of the news I care about. Some are maybe overly conspiracy theoretical but our governments and industries are conspirative. Regular news sources are almost worthless beyond providing a very high-level idea about what happened.

> Stories themselves are often slanted to please advertisers and company shareholders.

Or governments. And that is in and of itself highly conspirative.

> a small number of companies control 90% of the media - not just "the news". That's 90% of what we read, watch, and listen to.

And that's why people flock to "alternative" media ...

> A common argument against cutting out the news is that "ignorance is bliss", suggesting that those who do not consume the news are ignorant.

Isn't that more an argument for ignorance with regard to news?

> Let that sink in.

And that's why even X is relevant here. Cause where else will I be informed about who was stabbed again by a refugee somewhere in Germany if not there - and this is something I _DO_ care about. But also one major reason why I refuse to further bother with it as I lack the power to change anything about it.

> Rather it makes one less informed of the world and distracts you from what's going on in your own physical life and your own neighborhood, while instilling a very negative view of the world that's divorced from reality.

Yes. There is only so much attention you can give and if you waste it on what happens in Israel, Westjordanland, Ukraine or Venezuela then you have no attention left to what happens with yourself, your family, your neighborhood, your town. But those are usually not as exciting.

> Information junkies often have the most extreme views (on both sides of the US political spectrum) with a strong "us vs them" mindset where "them"

That matches my personal experience. Reading about all the terrible things happening all day long will put you into a constant mode of alarm and panic for which you have to find a release.

> That said, what difference does it make if I hear about the story hours after it happens?

Several times I've been lusting for live news on some exciting event on Twitter - hitting the F5 like in a fever. Last example probably was the assassination attempt on Trump. This always wrecks my entire day. My attention is glued to this object of excitement and my dopamine is going through the roof numbing my motivation management for anything else.

> we are today and governments and corporations are still getting away with murder and exploitation.

Yes, because they'll just produce news which is going to divert the attention somewhere else if it gets too hot. And the usual news agencies (all of them) are catering to their advertisers and certain political parties.

> Who is more ignorant of the world ... ?

I don't care about whether someone maybe considers me ignorant. The author shouldn't worry about that either. I care about my time and especially my mental health.

> Sharing your outrage of said article on social media makes it feel like you're doing something; that you're taking action, that you're doing gods work by spreading the word and keeping others informed of what's really going on.

Noticed this as well. But then again many of such people also search for ways to do something practical like going on demonstrations.

> ... but it leads us to make probabilistic errors with actual risks we face in real life.

Yes, but for many people school-shootings are not just exciting out of personal fear but also due to human compassion and empathy. For example my risk of getting stabbed by some crazy guy is negligible but I'm sick of reading about it, knowing somebody lost their life because we failed to deport someone who was a criminal long before.

> The truth is that we're far more likely to die in an auto accident or heart disease than we are from being shot or dying in a plane crash ...

Yes, but it's not like the former two examples aren't also used to feed people news. The entire Corona panic was based on a minimally raised risk of dying from it. And in some countries reporting on car crashes and other fatalities by displaying all the gory details is a relevant news segment.

> I'm not advocating a nihilistic worldview and if you think I'm being too cynical, I actually believe I'm being optimistic.

I'd advocate realism and fatalism. Nihilism is nonsense as life is valuable and all nihilists share this perspective while hiding it behind a mask of indifference. And cynicism is often simply a symptom of chronic depression - which isn't desirable either.

> Do you want news reporters setting the public agenda for what's important?

Well, they don't ... politicians and billionaires set the agenda.

===

I'm powerless with regard to each and everything that makes the news. So, why bother if all it does is consume time and make me miserable. That's my perspective.

Having said that ... I would prefer to have one reliable news source which I can consume for one hour once a week. That would be fantastic. But I just don't trust any newspaper anymore.