Scan barcode
shallowdepths's review
2.0
I agree with many of the issues presented about mainstream news, but this book has a specific, narrow vision of both what news is and what it should be. It shows limited understanding of how the news landscape has changed, and how and why people take in information. Also perhaps a limited view of art.
I disagree with almost every sentence containing the word "should" (there are a lot of them).
I disagree with almost every sentence containing the word "should" (there are a lot of them).
youngserfs's review against another edition
Shallow and unengaging, the author utterly refuses (at least in the first hundred pages) to look beyond the status quo and insists on only alluding to vague and ill-defined philosophies by an ideal news source would operate under.
timhoiland's review
5.0
About halfway through college, at the recommendation of my academic advisor, I decided to pick up a minor in journalism. Only it wasn’t called that anymore. For some odd reason, TPTB had decided to bestow upon this minor a newfangled (but somehow already antiquated) name: Print Media Studies.
I enjoyed my journalism classes very much and went on to do some writing that appeared in magazines. But the ensuing decade was a distressing one for anyone invested in the future of print anything. Between daily newspapers going out of business and massive bookstore chains shuttering their doors, the third millennium AD was off to a rocky start. It was beginning to seem as though I’d accidentally earned a minor in history.
But lo and behold, it’s 2017 and print still has a pulse. While the number of daily newspapers dropped nearly 10% over a ten-year period, as of 2014 there were still 1,331 of them in the United States – an average of more than 26 per state. And the market for print books, while still shaky, is actually growing – something the prognosticators of ten years ago would not have anticipated.
All the same, the news organizations we broadly refer to as “the media” face challenges that run far deeper than the economic disruptions of the digital revolution. They face nothing less than a crisis of believability, particularly when it comes to politics.
That’s why this is as poignant a time as any to pause and ask some big questions about the news: What public service should news organizations exist to provide? How do we decide which news outlets deserve our attention and patronage? What are the news-related dangers we should be careful to name, and if possible, avoid?
When it comes to asking incisive questions about aspects of society we are prone to take for granted, the philosopher Alain de Botton is our guy. His books have asked “why” questions about subjects as diverse as travel, work, and architecture. Those philosophical questions now continue in The News: A User’s Manual.
With thematic sections focused on politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, and consumption, de Botton assesses the tendencies of news organizations related to each category of coverage and suggests what “the ideal news organization of the future” might do to better fulfill its unique obligation to society.
The news, de Botton argues, has a responsibility not only to remind us of everything that’s going wrong but also “to train and direct [our] capacities for pride, resilience and hope.” While a nation can enter into decline due to “sentimental optimism,” it’s also possible for such a decline to be precipitated by a kind of “media-induced clinical depression.” He continues:
Alongside its usual focus on catastrophe and evil, the news should perform the critical function of sometimes distilling and concentrating a little of the hope a nation requires to chart a course through its difficulties. While helping society by uncovering its misdeeds and being honest about its pains, the news should not neglect the equally important task of constructing an imaginary community that seems sufficiently good, forgiving and sane that one might want to contribute to it.
I agree it would be agreeable if the news media were to perform this “critical function” with consistency. But I also recognize that most of the time we get the news coverage we deserve. It’s hard enough for news organizations to make a viable go of it anyway; why undertake the risk of investing in virtue-inspiring “celebratory journalism” when all that most of us actually want is a daily dose of envy and excitement, anger and fear?
Fortunately, alternatives do exist – as do citizens who support them. As for me, one of the qualities in journalism I especially value is breathing room. I find this quality in some of the online pieces that have come to be known, weirdly, as “longreads.” It can be found in lengthy, well-researched works of reportage in magazines, like this and this. And there is plenty of it in documentaries, podcasts, public radio, and, of course, in full-length books by journalists. I don’t expect any of these platforms or outlets to vanish anytime soon; and if I’m right, all it means is that there are many others who, like me, continue to value the existence of reporting and nonfiction storytelling that has been given room to breathe – even if it requires more of our time, even if (gasp!) we need to pay for it.
This idea of journalistic breathing room is especially critical when it comes to news of events that take place outside the normal parameters of our daily lives – precisely because we know so much less about the people who live, work, and play where we don’t.
“Unless we have some sense of what passes for normality in a given location, we may find it very hard to calibrate or care about abnormal conditions,” de Botton writes. “We can be properly concerned about the sad and violent interruptions only if we know enough about the underlying steady state of a place, about the daily life, routines and modest hopes of its population.”
Yet this kind of context is all too often entirely absent, especially (but not exclusively) in world news. The problem, de Botton says, is that “we don’t know whether anyone has ever had a normal day in the Democratic Republic of Congo” or “what it’s like to go to school or to visit the hairdresser in Bolivia” or “whether anything like a good marriage is possible in Somalia” or “what people do on the weekend in Algeria.”
Because we only hear about disasters and unrest in these places (when we hear about them at all), we can’t identify with the everyday lives of ordinary people there, which means we struggle to care about them when they fall victim to calamity.
Seen in this way, journalism with breathing room shouldn’t be viewed as a distraction from “hard news” but rather “the bedrock upon which all sincere interest in appalling and disruptive events must rest.” Which leads de Botton to this proposal:
The ideal news organization of the future, recognizing that an interest in the anomalous depends on a prior knowledge of the normal, would routinely commission stories on certain identification-inducing aspects of human nature which invariably exist even in the most far-flung and ravaged corners of our globe. Having learned something about street parties in Addis Ababa, love in Peru and in-laws in Mongolia, audiences would be prepared to care just a little more about the next devastating typhoon or violent coup.
Ideally, the thinking goes, a citizen who makes a habit of staying informed about local, national, and international news would be less ignorant, less prejudiced, and more intelligent. But de Botton knows it doesn’t always work out that way. “In its scale and ubiquity,” he writes, “the contemporary news machine can crush our capacity for independent thought” – which is just to say that as with everything else in life, we should handle the news with care.
My encouragement, for what it’s worth, is twofold: First, avoid at all costs the purveyors of news whose business model is built on propagating fear and rage. Seek factual, verifiable reporting from multiple sources as well as commentary that can be characterized as calm and principled (which doesn’t have to mean “boring”). You may have to dig a bit to find these folks; they’re out there, but are often drowned out by louder, brasher voices. Then, once you’ve identified these journalists, commentators, and outlets, support them.
The idea that a free, independent press is essential for the flourishing of society is not a new one, nor should it be controversial to say as much. If by chance you encounter reporters on the street, in the workplace, or (much more likely) on social media, do something revolutionary: thank them for their public service.
I enjoyed my journalism classes very much and went on to do some writing that appeared in magazines. But the ensuing decade was a distressing one for anyone invested in the future of print anything. Between daily newspapers going out of business and massive bookstore chains shuttering their doors, the third millennium AD was off to a rocky start. It was beginning to seem as though I’d accidentally earned a minor in history.
But lo and behold, it’s 2017 and print still has a pulse. While the number of daily newspapers dropped nearly 10% over a ten-year period, as of 2014 there were still 1,331 of them in the United States – an average of more than 26 per state. And the market for print books, while still shaky, is actually growing – something the prognosticators of ten years ago would not have anticipated.
All the same, the news organizations we broadly refer to as “the media” face challenges that run far deeper than the economic disruptions of the digital revolution. They face nothing less than a crisis of believability, particularly when it comes to politics.
That’s why this is as poignant a time as any to pause and ask some big questions about the news: What public service should news organizations exist to provide? How do we decide which news outlets deserve our attention and patronage? What are the news-related dangers we should be careful to name, and if possible, avoid?
When it comes to asking incisive questions about aspects of society we are prone to take for granted, the philosopher Alain de Botton is our guy. His books have asked “why” questions about subjects as diverse as travel, work, and architecture. Those philosophical questions now continue in The News: A User’s Manual.
With thematic sections focused on politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, and consumption, de Botton assesses the tendencies of news organizations related to each category of coverage and suggests what “the ideal news organization of the future” might do to better fulfill its unique obligation to society.
The news, de Botton argues, has a responsibility not only to remind us of everything that’s going wrong but also “to train and direct [our] capacities for pride, resilience and hope.” While a nation can enter into decline due to “sentimental optimism,” it’s also possible for such a decline to be precipitated by a kind of “media-induced clinical depression.” He continues:
Alongside its usual focus on catastrophe and evil, the news should perform the critical function of sometimes distilling and concentrating a little of the hope a nation requires to chart a course through its difficulties. While helping society by uncovering its misdeeds and being honest about its pains, the news should not neglect the equally important task of constructing an imaginary community that seems sufficiently good, forgiving and sane that one might want to contribute to it.
I agree it would be agreeable if the news media were to perform this “critical function” with consistency. But I also recognize that most of the time we get the news coverage we deserve. It’s hard enough for news organizations to make a viable go of it anyway; why undertake the risk of investing in virtue-inspiring “celebratory journalism” when all that most of us actually want is a daily dose of envy and excitement, anger and fear?
Fortunately, alternatives do exist – as do citizens who support them. As for me, one of the qualities in journalism I especially value is breathing room. I find this quality in some of the online pieces that have come to be known, weirdly, as “longreads.” It can be found in lengthy, well-researched works of reportage in magazines, like this and this. And there is plenty of it in documentaries, podcasts, public radio, and, of course, in full-length books by journalists. I don’t expect any of these platforms or outlets to vanish anytime soon; and if I’m right, all it means is that there are many others who, like me, continue to value the existence of reporting and nonfiction storytelling that has been given room to breathe – even if it requires more of our time, even if (gasp!) we need to pay for it.
This idea of journalistic breathing room is especially critical when it comes to news of events that take place outside the normal parameters of our daily lives – precisely because we know so much less about the people who live, work, and play where we don’t.
“Unless we have some sense of what passes for normality in a given location, we may find it very hard to calibrate or care about abnormal conditions,” de Botton writes. “We can be properly concerned about the sad and violent interruptions only if we know enough about the underlying steady state of a place, about the daily life, routines and modest hopes of its population.”
Yet this kind of context is all too often entirely absent, especially (but not exclusively) in world news. The problem, de Botton says, is that “we don’t know whether anyone has ever had a normal day in the Democratic Republic of Congo” or “what it’s like to go to school or to visit the hairdresser in Bolivia” or “whether anything like a good marriage is possible in Somalia” or “what people do on the weekend in Algeria.”
Because we only hear about disasters and unrest in these places (when we hear about them at all), we can’t identify with the everyday lives of ordinary people there, which means we struggle to care about them when they fall victim to calamity.
Seen in this way, journalism with breathing room shouldn’t be viewed as a distraction from “hard news” but rather “the bedrock upon which all sincere interest in appalling and disruptive events must rest.” Which leads de Botton to this proposal:
The ideal news organization of the future, recognizing that an interest in the anomalous depends on a prior knowledge of the normal, would routinely commission stories on certain identification-inducing aspects of human nature which invariably exist even in the most far-flung and ravaged corners of our globe. Having learned something about street parties in Addis Ababa, love in Peru and in-laws in Mongolia, audiences would be prepared to care just a little more about the next devastating typhoon or violent coup.
Ideally, the thinking goes, a citizen who makes a habit of staying informed about local, national, and international news would be less ignorant, less prejudiced, and more intelligent. But de Botton knows it doesn’t always work out that way. “In its scale and ubiquity,” he writes, “the contemporary news machine can crush our capacity for independent thought” – which is just to say that as with everything else in life, we should handle the news with care.
My encouragement, for what it’s worth, is twofold: First, avoid at all costs the purveyors of news whose business model is built on propagating fear and rage. Seek factual, verifiable reporting from multiple sources as well as commentary that can be characterized as calm and principled (which doesn’t have to mean “boring”). You may have to dig a bit to find these folks; they’re out there, but are often drowned out by louder, brasher voices. Then, once you’ve identified these journalists, commentators, and outlets, support them.
The idea that a free, independent press is essential for the flourishing of society is not a new one, nor should it be controversial to say as much. If by chance you encounter reporters on the street, in the workplace, or (much more likely) on social media, do something revolutionary: thank them for their public service.
ladamic's review
1.0
A mix of wishful-thinking idealistic drivel (let's not report on government corruption in Uganda, let's instead write how the flowers smell -- dude, that's what the travel section is for), and moralizing (don't be envious of successful people, except try to constantly better yourself by studying their success). It seemed like most of de Botton's objections were to the daily news, but he completely ignored that weekly and monthly magazines do fulfill many of his demands (giving more background info, educating and placing things in context).
lauralantran_'s review
5.0
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Alain de Botton has done it again with this book which I believe will remain unendingly useful for people. I have been constantly made disoriented by the news and the echo chambers formed in comment sections and social media groups, and at a time I had been so disenchanted that I stopped looking and listening to reports and quit social media. People around me encouraged and applauded this decision, which prompted me to realise that the problem is not so much a deficiency of my intellect but the "news-ness" of the news.
Alain guides us through how to categorise and make sense of the news but in a **critical and introspective way**. He calmly and elegantly points out how flawed our modern news reports are to a detrimentally disorienting effect, especially when it comes to how the news never relate to the old, or old news. It is the readers' job now to piece together the fragments of facts to construct a coherent narrative, relate to their own values, and create their own conviction or conform to popularity. Now that Alain has shown this, it's ridiculous how much work we need to do that journalists are not doing. No wonder I was so sick of the news, and no wonder I wanted a long break from all these mentally taxing juggernauts.
There is so much more that Alain talks about in this book, including religion, philosophy, the reason behind our reactions to the news, why we sought them out so desperately in certain times, etc. It seems like a lot, but the book is incredibly easy to take in while not sacrificing the necessary eloquence and candour. Alain's words are always reawakening, nourishing and soothing, a reaffirmation of his gentle philosophy on interacting and teaching people for which I am eternally grateful.
Alain de Botton has done it again with this book which I believe will remain unendingly useful for people. I have been constantly made disoriented by the news and the echo chambers formed in comment sections and social media groups, and at a time I had been so disenchanted that I stopped looking and listening to reports and quit social media. People around me encouraged and applauded this decision, which prompted me to realise that the problem is not so much a deficiency of my intellect but the "news-ness" of the news.
Alain guides us through how to categorise and make sense of the news but in a **critical and introspective way**. He calmly and elegantly points out how flawed our modern news reports are to a detrimentally disorienting effect, especially when it comes to how the news never relate to the old, or old news. It is the readers' job now to piece together the fragments of facts to construct a coherent narrative, relate to their own values, and create their own conviction or conform to popularity. Now that Alain has shown this, it's ridiculous how much work we need to do that journalists are not doing. No wonder I was so sick of the news, and no wonder I wanted a long break from all these mentally taxing juggernauts.
There is so much more that Alain talks about in this book, including religion, philosophy, the reason behind our reactions to the news, why we sought them out so desperately in certain times, etc. It seems like a lot, but the book is incredibly easy to take in while not sacrificing the necessary eloquence and candour. Alain's words are always reawakening, nourishing and soothing, a reaffirmation of his gentle philosophy on interacting and teaching people for which I am eternally grateful.
nomadreader's review
3.0
(originally published at http://nomadreader.blogspot.com)
The basics: The News: A User's Manual is a manifesto for what we should want and demand from news organizations, as well as a critique of their current offerings.
My thoughts: I majored in journalism as an undergraduate, and although I walked away from my desire to ever be a journalist, I still have a deep love for journalism. I spend a lot of time with the news, as a consumer and as a critic. I assumed I was the target audience for this book, but de Botton operates under the faulty assumption that no one else has ever thought critically about the news and its role in our lives. To be fair, the more I read, the more I came to believe de Botton isn't interested in being a journalist himself, and this book is less an examination of the news as it is a personal examination of the news. de Botton doesn't investigate the large body of historical or contemporary news criticism. Instead, he seeks to do it all himself. Again, at times this approach is more successful than at others.
Alain de Botton is not a journalist, and his lack of knowledge about journalism shows in this book, for good and for bad. Having an outsider's perspective brings a certain freshness to the topic, but it also causes a few major missteps. Too often de Botton speaks about news outlets as a single, monolith beast. As anyone who follows news and its increasingly few corporate owners, this trend is alarmingly true, but de Botton doesn't separate the majority from the minority. In this age of the Internet, there are important journalist voices working outside of this mainstream. More disturbingly, de Botton never addresses his decidedly British perspective. At times, it was clear he was talking about his experience with British news, but at times it wasn't. There are significant differences between news organizations in the UK and the U.S., and de Botton misses the opportunity to both clarify his points and articulate these differences.
de Botton organizes this manifesto thematically, with sections on politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, and consumption. Some of these sections were more interesting, and more original, than others. I particularly enjoyed the sections on world news and celebrity. In these sections, de Botton did a better job articulating the big picture and making an argument for and why things should be different.
Favorite passage: "Foreign news wants to tell us with whom and where we should fight, trade or sympathize. But these three areas of interest aren't priorities for the majority of us."
The verdict: The News: A User's Manual was at times an incredibly frustrating reading experience. I found the second half more successful than the first because de Botton began to more clearly express his point: to ask what news should be. It's an interesting exploration, but I don't think his approach successfully captured the complicated nature of what news currently is.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
The basics: The News: A User's Manual is a manifesto for what we should want and demand from news organizations, as well as a critique of their current offerings.
My thoughts: I majored in journalism as an undergraduate, and although I walked away from my desire to ever be a journalist, I still have a deep love for journalism. I spend a lot of time with the news, as a consumer and as a critic. I assumed I was the target audience for this book, but de Botton operates under the faulty assumption that no one else has ever thought critically about the news and its role in our lives. To be fair, the more I read, the more I came to believe de Botton isn't interested in being a journalist himself, and this book is less an examination of the news as it is a personal examination of the news. de Botton doesn't investigate the large body of historical or contemporary news criticism. Instead, he seeks to do it all himself. Again, at times this approach is more successful than at others.
Alain de Botton is not a journalist, and his lack of knowledge about journalism shows in this book, for good and for bad. Having an outsider's perspective brings a certain freshness to the topic, but it also causes a few major missteps. Too often de Botton speaks about news outlets as a single, monolith beast. As anyone who follows news and its increasingly few corporate owners, this trend is alarmingly true, but de Botton doesn't separate the majority from the minority. In this age of the Internet, there are important journalist voices working outside of this mainstream. More disturbingly, de Botton never addresses his decidedly British perspective. At times, it was clear he was talking about his experience with British news, but at times it wasn't. There are significant differences between news organizations in the UK and the U.S., and de Botton misses the opportunity to both clarify his points and articulate these differences.
de Botton organizes this manifesto thematically, with sections on politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, and consumption. Some of these sections were more interesting, and more original, than others. I particularly enjoyed the sections on world news and celebrity. In these sections, de Botton did a better job articulating the big picture and making an argument for and why things should be different.
Favorite passage: "Foreign news wants to tell us with whom and where we should fight, trade or sympathize. But these three areas of interest aren't priorities for the majority of us."
The verdict: The News: A User's Manual was at times an incredibly frustrating reading experience. I found the second half more successful than the first because de Botton began to more clearly express his point: to ask what news should be. It's an interesting exploration, but I don't think his approach successfully captured the complicated nature of what news currently is.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
rudders93's review
4.0
In a world increasingly influenced by "fake news" and sensationalism, this book challenges the way many of us consume media. We learn about the purpose of the news and the responsibilities a mature reader shoulders, while also gaining visibility into the author's philosophical principles. While the lessons aren't explicit, examples across six news categories guide us through the beautiful depth of 'life simulation' that could be gained from the news and yet which the skimming reader may miss. We learn about what it means to be a responsible reader and we glimpse into how a world with robust news powered by strong editorial guidance could enhance our lives.
This book is eye-opening and well written, yet could have been improved as a 'manual' with more actionable techniques on how to engage with the news.
This book is eye-opening and well written, yet could have been improved as a 'manual' with more actionable techniques on how to engage with the news.
carimayhew's review
3.0
I believe this book has the wrong title. Let me explain.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Check out more of my reviews on www.bookblogbycari.com
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Check out more of my reviews on www.bookblogbycari.com