I suspect that I'll be in the minority with this recommendation, but I do recommend staying on top of the news. However, a news website is the wrong place to do it. You don't want "what's happening right now", because the immediacy of it means incomplete information and the rubbernecking effect.

Think of it like a sports game. If it's ongoing it sucks you in. If it's over, you hear the score and maybe a couple of stats, and you've sucked everything important. Watching the game might take a couple of hours but the recap might take 30 seconds. For sports there's benefit from watching the game, but for news you want the recap, not the game. You want to get your news from people selling you recaps rather than a play-by-play.

What you want is a good newsweekly. Most of the good ones are dead. The Economist is still going. They're biased but wear their biases proud and up front rather than pretending to be neutral like most everybody else does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events is another great option. Blendle's daily email is one. Several others have been posted to HN from time to time.

I think axios.com has a wonderful format for "knowing more or less what's happening" but not incentivizing to spend hours on it. US-centric unfortunately.

Having a news source that you can "finish" for the day, and that you trust will tell you tomorrow if something really important happens today, is important. I've found the NPR Up First podcast to reliably cover major event of the previous day. Marketplace from APM is also great, but tries to couch their coverage in economic terms. Both of these are radio shows by professional journalists and broadcasters that are available in podcast form.

My recommendations as a professional:

The kind of news you want is that which remains relevant tomorrow.

Some news are designed to create cumulative knowledge and cumulative understanding. Search for those formats and make a habit of reading them regularly, but not necessarily daily.

A great example is the economist and in particular its weekly recap.

By the way, I'm not a fan of podcasts because you're not in control when listening. They want you to spend as much time as possible, but you want to skim and skip quickly. Text is vastly superior for that.

I also scan the UK newspaper front pages

https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/

to see the trashy side without any temptation to actually read!

eg: Wetherspoons has begun serving sausages in its breakfast menu in place of eggs

Is an actual front page story.

WRT spend as much time as possible, I see that in Youtube videos, we (or "the internet") are entering the era of "filler" as the dominant concept.

We were in the era of "social" a decade ago, then had some years of "notifications" as a spammy parasocial interaction, and now we're entering the era of "filler".

Its an open debate how "filler" relates to genres such as legacy TV morning variety "news" shows that are mostly press releases for brick and mortar retail intermixed with a rotation of lasagna recipes, vs filler as in some talented charismatic youtubers can take a concept that a talented speaker skilled in brevity could express crystal clearly in perhaps two minutes and stretch that out to fifteen minutes of ad revenue filler.

We're entering an era of rapidly thinning information density. Kind of like the inflation phase of Big Bang theory.

I've stopped reading news 3 years ago. One of the best decisions of my life. Before I was super anxious and had a big FOMO syndrome. Now I'm more relaxed and I sleep better.

If something is really important, I can be sure other will let me know.

This works well for those who live in an authoritarian state where you're not called upon to make any decisions (vote). When you live in a democracy, it breaks down because now you have no information upon which to make your decisions. The direction your life takes will be decided by your neighbors.

Identity politics means vote outcomes will depend solely on demographic data, and polarization has RAPIDLY increased over recent decades.

Some demographic groups already polarize their votes over 90%, the goal of the people in charge is to get ALL demographic groups polarized over 90% then we can get rid of pesky elections and nobody will care or notice.

To some extent, for a surprisingly large fraction of the population, its already true that they only get to vote when they decide to have a child.

The way to overthrow a democracy is not upfront violence but to make it irrelevant. Right now if we did away with uncontested municipal elections nobody would care, for example.

> now you have no information upon which to make your decisions.

You do. As the OP said:

> If something is really important, I can be sure other will let me know.

If you're in the US, in any state which is either clearly red or blue you are already -- at least practically -- "not being called upon to make any decisions". At least on the federal level.

So is it worth suffering declining mental health from consuming news for 2 years, just to give a meaningless vote in a sham election every other year? Probably not.

First, there are ballot measures, judicial elections, city council, school board, and many more offices that have nothing to do with party politics that are on the ballot in almost every election. You'll never know what they are if you don't participate. "Should dog racing be banned?" and "Who should hold the office of Soil & Water Conservation District 9?" have nothing to do with party politics or mental health.

Second, for party elections the vote total still matters. It's a message that says how strongly the electorate feels about particular candidate or issue. There's a big difference between a 49.9/50.1 result and a 70/30 result.

When you don't cast a vote, you are still sending a message.

There's a huge difference between expressing a minority opinion and saying, "I don't care just do whatever you want. It's all a sham anyway."

> First, there are ballot measures, judicial elections, city council, school board, and many more offices that have nothing to do with party politics that are on the ballot in almost every election.

This is a very American thing fwiw. A lot if not most of these positions are not elected in other countries.

Generally agree, but it was fun to be some weeks ahead of my friends when calling covid :P Sometimes you'll catch something important ahead of time, I guess, if you're going to put in effort to take advantage of that and the news generally doesn't freak you out, it seems like a good idea.

I like uniqueuid's recommendation more generally though

I used to read over 40 newspapers/sources of news per day. I speak four languages fluently, so I was interested in reading different views of the same issues. I stopped doing this a few years ago, but here is my recommendation:

1- Get your news from as many sources as possible and from different countries.

2- Go from extreme left, to extreme right to have an idea about each source

3- Form your own opinion. Do not consume news only, but try to take a step back and think about the whole thing.

4- If you did 3 very well, you will see some dynamics and behind the scene influence from different people/ideologies..etc. I'm not talking about conspiracy theories or negative influence (which does exist). I'm talking about the line that each news source follows to get you the news.

5- If you did 4 very well, you understand the news and you are no longer required to follow them every day.

PS: you will find yourself drawn to specific sources because they match your beliefs. That's ok too, just be open about other sources as well.

I get a newspaper delivered every day (weekend edition on Saturday). I have found it far healthier than consuming news online (although I do come here for tech tidbits). I also subscribe to a few magazines on different subjects, which I probably find more impactful. Moving back to physical objects for these things has been a real joy. It makes reading news a deliberate act, not a temptation, and also removes the ability to fall too far down rabbit holes. There's also no need to engage too much decision making about content, jumping around, queuing up tabs, deciding what's most important. Just read front to back and skip if you're bored. I also find solving a cryptic crossword on paper with a pencil to be one of the highlights of my day - something for me, by me, where I don't feel I'm in competition with the whole world (which I do if I'm solving chess puzzles online or during the period Wordle was a thing etc).

The most important change for me, however I choose to consume news, is quitting social media. Not being exposed to the Twitter issue of the day, the hysterical overreaction and the hysterical counter-reaction, means that I no longer feel the need to be angry about something all the time. I'll still grumble about particular developments, but I don't feel the need to have a take. I'll contextualise things and move on, unless I think it'd be interesting to my wife or kids.

I currently have two daily sources of news, Reddit and Google News. On Reddit, it's r/worldnews (global), r/politics (US), and r/news (general US). Occasionally I'll look into Ukraine-specific subreddits to catch up on the war.

I don't think there is a massive benefit to skimming the news. I think the primary benefit is that I might see a topic that interests me and I can do a deep-dive on that and learn way more than I otherwise would. Recently, I've done "research" into Iran, the Yemen civil war, the history of taxes in the US, what kind of soil is under Florida and how continued climate change might affect it, flood insurance in the US, the history of Ukraine, Zelenskyy's politics and public support before the war, Merkel's politics towards Russia, Samsung's most popular phones in different parts of the world, chip manufacturing and node sizes, everything about the Surfside condo collapse, etc.

News is mostly clickbait and you won't learn much other than "this thing happened". What interests me most is "why did thing happen" or "what are the consequences" or "who does this affect and how", and that's when I really start to learn. Also interesting is to look into who supports what position and why.

The biggest danger, imo, is becoming jaded or depressed by reading too much negative news. That's when I know I need to take a temporary break from the daily news cycle.

Yep I went through a phase in my early/mid 20s where I was still in information sponge mode and started applying this to world news, as if somehow by absorbing 100% of world news all the time, I'd be a "more informed citizen" and all the benefits of that.

Now I will casually glance at google news once or twice a day, and my extended friends group has a chat thread where interesting/enraging/amusing headlines get posted with no expectation that it will spur conversation. I probably spend 30-45 min a day reading various articles between the two sources. That feels like the right amount of time to spend on current events. I will however fall down a "wikipedia hole" for an hour or more pretty regularly trying to understand the historical context of a situation.

Me and my close buddies periodically (roughly once a year?) go through a phase where we individually swear off reading the news for a couple of weeks. It is refreshing.

For the mid-terms cycle I don't think I followed any of the races at all, beyond checking fivethirtyeight to see who the projected winners would be, and then a follow up after.

Strong agree that most news is clickbait.

> I currently have two daily sources of news, Reddit and Google News.

> News is mostly clickbait

I don't want to tell you how to do you, but just know that there are plenty of informative journalistic sources that do not reduce their headlines to clickbait - if you are willing to pay a bit for your news.

I know. There are some great news articles out there, but those are things I find when I do my deep-dive. And I'd say despite these sources, the vast majority of news out there is still clickbait. I prefer not to be bound to a single or handful of sources, because of how easy it is to get stuck in bubbles.

Can you recommend some informative journalistic sources that don't reduce their headlines to clickbait?

I hesitate to since what you care about in the news is highly personal, as is your preferred tone.

What works for me though is WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, and The Economist.

Economist, Al Jazeera, New Scientist

My problem is the source selection algorithm.

Take a big list of possibilities, perhaps a Google search, whatever.

Cross off the corporate "video news release" basically its a TV commercial sources.

Cross off the government controlled / funded propaganda outlets. If I wanted the carefully censored and filtered opinion of the party in power, I'd read their website. "We're going to kiss up to everything our .gov says" is not "reporting" that's mere propaganda not worthy of viewing.

Cross off the attempts to violate election spending rules by producing an "independent" channels that coincidentally precisely mirrors and revolving door employs a political party. I don't want or need someone elses echo chamber, or even worse, my own echo chamber.

Cross off the gasping exclamation point clickbait sites.

Cross off anything participating in "celebrity news" (someone famous-ish in area A said something edgy about area B now post it for the rageclicks). Especially cross off sources focused on people who are famous for being famous but never did anything other than hire a PR firm, or people who have not been relevant in 10, 20, 30 years but are still in the news.

Cross off anything pandering to generational topics. I'm too young to be interested in major league baseball where the average fan is now over 70, and I don't want to be pandered to about video games or whatever "they" tell us "our" generation is supposed to be interested in.

What's left in 2022 after all that crossing out unacceptable sources? Nothing, I'm sad to say. Literally nothing left.

WRT better understanding the world you're probably better off reading history books.

Currently it’s convenient for me to listen to NPR Radio in the morning with breakfast—make sure California has not fallen into the Pacific due to earthquake, no one has nuked anyone, aliens haven’t landed, etc.

If I’m feeling particularly chipper I can always listen to BBC America.

Afterwards, various podcasts and aggregation sites will put me into my silo.

Repeat

Until the day aliens nuke California.

Absolutely not, it’s dangerous to my mental health in a way few other things are. People will call me selfish for not being engaged, but the cost of engagement is too high for me.

If I hear news it’s a five minute hourly update on Radio 1. Tech news is another beast, I quite enjoy things like HN.

You are selfish. Democracies can't function if citizens act like ostriches with their heads in the sand.

Do you vote? I sure hope not.

Selfish? Maybe, but my mental health matters far more to me. I’m not looking for approval or saying what I do is right, I am merely answering the question.

Again I would ask that you consider yourself uninformed and abstain from voting if you don't have the mental fortitude to follow the goings on of Planet Earth.

There’s no need to be a dick about it.

I only vote municipal, those elections actually have a real impact on my life and I have firsthand knowledge of the issues and the people.

Did Brexit have an impact on your life? The war in Ukraine? I can assure you it did.

Brexit had zero impact on me that I know of and even if it did, there is literally nothing I could do about it given I’m not a UK citizen. Likewise, I don’t don’t recall being asked to vote on the war in Ukraine.

I have to focus on this I can control and things that impact me directly and most of that happens at the local level, where I actually have power as an individual.

National and international news is almost worthless, it makes me worry over things I have no means of controlling and frankly? My mental health is more important to me than keeping up with news in far off places.

> Brexit had zero impact on me

Sorry, I stopped right here. That statement is delusional. Read a newspaper or something.

It simply didn’t dude, nothing in my life changed in any noticeable way due to Brexit. Claim otherwise as much as you want, but at the end of the day it just didn’t.

The street lighting bill going up though? That was noticeable come property tax time.

My entire point is that you fail to notice and appreciate things that have an effect on your life.

No, I'm not going to take your word for it. You're oblivious.

I know my own life perfectly fine. You have this belief the entire west is self isolating, which shows where you’re coming from in this argument.

Name a tangible effect Brexit had on my life, just one. Not theoretical things like political isolation and the like.

I will give you the Ukraine bit, that has impacted me, but I have zero influence over a war on the other side of the globe. Worrying about it is a waste of my time.

There was a vote for the war in ukraine?

Isolationists are attempting to gain power all across the Western world.

Believe me, assisting the Ukrainians is on the ballot. Read the subtext.

Read? No. Daily? No.

I do listen to a twice weekly podcast that mostly sums up the stuff worth hearing about. In a world that is instant, and where content must be new to be of value, I think it is best to delay our news consumption by at least days if not weeks, and in some cases probably even months. News (I won't say "modern", I suspect it has always been this way) agencies make money off eyeballs, they do not make money by reporting accurately or with calm and reason. They make money with splashy headlines and inaccurate (if only because it is too new and breaking) ledes. You can fix the inaccuracies next week when the dust clears, but right now it is important to shout about the thing.

All this is create over informed and wrong readers who are anxious about everything. I am married with children, I have enough to be anxious about. I do not need to add to my list of worries, especially with things happening on the other side of the world in a country I have no intentions of ever visiting. I can still empathize with the problems of the world, but my empathy is just as useful to those people today as it is in three weeks when the sensationalist headlines have moved onto the new thing.

Aaron Swartz says you shouldn't: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

If you're a politically inclined person you'll want to know what your government is doing so that, for example, you can organise against it when what it is doing is terrible. You will also likely want to know about changes to laws, new government programmes, technological advances, books, essays, art, etc. etc. etc.

All the important stuff makes its way to HN anyway.

Most news platforms I come across display everything that brings clicks. Its usefulness doesn’t seem to matter. I follow specific people on twitter, follow hacker news, and thats enough. You end up being updated on what matters/truly urgent.

Yes, of course. For US news, a mixture of Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal - that gets you a variety of views without extremism. I'm not knocking some of the other major newspapers - if I was living in Chicago, Seattle, or another major city I would certainly include a local paper.

For international news and other takes, BBC, The Guardian, and Financial Times work for me.

For Norwegian news (since that's where I'm living), I stick with NRK since that's free - I'd like to subscribe to a local paper, but their prices are insane.

Nassim Taleb in Antifragile talks about the Lindy Effect and how he uses it to predict how long books & information will be relevant. I love the concept and as a result spend more time reading older books, than newer news articles/tweets/blogs. The trouble is news is addictive and distracting, its hard for me to stay away - if you aren't in the habit dont start! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

I do read news daily but certainly substantially less than a few years ago. I try to consume a "balanced" diet from both left and right news sources and listen in and try to listen in an impartial way. I have a few key observations from all this:

  News is, on balance, very negative. Its designed to stoke your fears and worries. There is no benefit or money in feel-good news, which is why its typically relegated to the end of a news program on TV and almost never on the front page above the fold. 

  A lot of news masquerades as entertainment. Its fine to watch, just be aware its the junk food of content. 

  Omission of supporting facts and context in news is almost as bad as selectively picking facts that spin the story your way. This is probably the most insidious journalistic tactic as it typically helps reinforce outrage without providing the full picture. 

The Economist used to be one of my favorite news sources to counter the trends mentioned above. But I soon realized that they took too many editorial stances on issues were they were quickly proven wrong in days or weeks later.

The right balance to strike with the news is longer-form articles that deep dive into world topics and foster debate within the pages. I think Foreign Affairs serves some of that purpose. But also reading a variety of blogs helps: Astral Codex Ten, Marginal Revolution, etc... Granted, many of the popular ones tend to be left-leaning with progressive agendas. Just be aware.

I do read news regularly. But there are so many "news" and so many ways to go about it. I tend to oscillate - I'll spend a few months reading "slow" news, then a few months reading "fast" news, then a few months break. Not planned, just as my brain/body saturates and craves.

For slow news, there are a few options. There's a quarterly Delayed Gratification magazine that's pretty good. I also personally enjoy Stratfor as a subscription service - understanding their marketing as "civilian intelligence agency" is way overstated, they do present essay-like articles that I find give me background, history, facts, and a bit of forecast that helps me contextualize news.

There's also a weekly Guardian magazine you can subscribe to in physical form which will have a combination of various sources. I've enjoyed it for a while.

For fast news, I like to use combination to give me various perspectives, so my favourites tend to be Axios, Guardian, Al Jazeera, and then a sprinkling of Washington Post, BBC, and my local national newspapers (Financial Post / Globe & Mail / Toronto Star in Canada). Axios in particular is good if you're just starting because you can basically Drill down/through on articles and get context which you'd struggle as you say with plain news agencies.

Note, I've heard good news about The Economist; I've subscribed and tried reading it but it was poor timing due to a new baby; their unsubscribe process was then so incredibly, atrociously, unbelievably, unspeakably user-hostile, that I have made it my mission in life not only to never ever ever subscribe to The Economist again, but to dissuade anybody else I possibly can, on the principle that humanity must prevail and evil overlords should fail. My 100 Croatian Lipa :)

I stopped reading/watching the news at all several years ago (more than 5 probably).

The seed idea was reading this essay: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews

It is not that I agree 100%, but it made clear to me that news is entertainment. Not more, not less. Watching a show on Netflix or watching fulfill the same role. And I prefer fiction.

The “understand better the world” part comes from other sources that are not, at all, about reporting the “news”. Books, articles, podcasts on topics that I am curious about.

Occasionally, I do go to the news. But that’s when I want to know something very specific. Like when I wanted to know the results of the elections in my country. I don’t go to the news to “check what’s going on”. I go only when I already know what I want to check. I’ll watch more news now during the World Cup, for example.

Stopping following the news didn’t make any negative difference in my understanding of the world, I believe.

I read a German tech blogger, who is more of a troll than actual news reporter, but I read it because its a) entertaining and b) an alternative perspective, and I have written a scraper that grabs the news every 20 minutes from a prominent German tech news outlet, but without the tracking and ads. And then I read Tagesschau but I'm disgusted how much propaganda there is. However it serves as an overview of trends that are currently discussed mainstream.

I was thinking of doing a quick 10 minute YouTube video of me reading the news from different sources and commenting on them. One Twitch streamer has a lot of viewers with his political news streams, so I think that could work. After all many do the same and have huge ass businesses and many viewers/readers doing that.

But I can't deal with the bullshit on a daily basis. I hate it when I read obvious bullshit but they try to label it as the truth.

Edit: and HN as a meta news source

Whatever online sources you read, follow or want to read, it's much more efficient and less time-consuming to concentrate them all in a proper feed reader.

Subscribe everything there, classify and sort them as you wish, use the reader service to remove duplicates. If you want to read just the headlines, you can, or the full text articles with pictures, that too, or just based on the images, also possible.

Of course you can also directly share the articles, your full or partial subscription feeds and comment on them.

After Google Reader's demise was announced, Inoreader (.com) replaced and exceeded it very quickly and I'm still a happy paying Pro user of it. They have too many features to mention here, just take a look at https://www.inoreader.com/blog/ .

If you are in the US, the WSJ has something called the "The 10-Point" which is a curated list of the top news stories for the day, delivered via email around 8am ET every weekday. I subscribed to it a couple years ago on a whim, and I feel it fills me in enough to be "responsibly informed".

Yes. My morning coffee sipping routine consists of scrolling Google News (US, Business, Tech, Science and Health) and clicking on articles I'm interested in reading further. Then I venture over to finance.yahoo.com and glance that while also checking my stocks. During baseball season I check MLB.com headlines. This takes me anywhere from 20-40 minutes.

At night after kid goes down I then go into my RSS reader for another 30-45 minutes. That consists of daily headlines from HN, along with some economic and tech sites.

I miss the days of getting newspapers delivered and that was my only news. Something about reading a physical page and smelling the fresh newspaper. Been LONG time though.

I do pretty routinely. I sub to the NY Times because it's thorough, accurate and has a lot of fun stuff like cooking, crossword, Wirecutter. I peruse cnn.com too but mostly browsing headlines because it's so incredibly broad in it's coverage.

If you want less of a time investment, my picks would be npr.org and/or Axios. They're more concise and linear. I'd also add in a local source, preferable a public one (I read Gothamist).

A lot of people do a daily podcast news digest like The Daily from NYT or The World by PRX. They're very good but I never go into them, I prefer to read. Occasionally I listen to long-form stuff on podcast (love On The Media).

Never watch TV news anymore. Occasionally look at a specific story on YouTube.

Kind of? I don't read general news every day. That's more a weekly thing at best.

But I do read tech related news on a daily basis. So if a story is related to gaming or software engineering I probably would have heard about it, but if it's related to the goings on in Westminster or the White House? Not so much.

As for how I choose sources? Well usually it's based on me having found said source reliable in the past, and trusting them afterwards. If they then start posting falsehoods, I'll drop them and find someone else to get info from instead. I usually use a variety of sources for this, all of which I've had experience with for years or decades.

Feel you. I think it is useful to have some broader context but in the past 10 years, the products have evolved to a place where for me they are no longer helpful.

I donate to local and public media because the work is nevertheless important to support but I consume almost none of the product. Sucks.

That said, as a US-centered person, I recently found this factual email distillation, and do find it useful. Think there should be more of these, locally and regionally tailored.

https://join1440.com/

Yes, I read the New York Times and a couple of local news journals every day.

I do not think it would be a good idea to just read the titles of articles. I would recommend reading several articles in full each day (it will only take 15 or so minutes). If you were to just read the titles you would be endlessly mislead - focus on the articles you actually read, and forget everything else. Read the articles critically. Think about what questions are not being asked. Think about what perspectives are not being mentioned. Etc.

If you have iPhone, get News+. After I got it set up, (subscribe to what I want, then turn OFF notifications) I spend about 5-10 minutes in the morning reading the headlines and then picking out an article to read. That's it.

It doesn't need to take much time. If it keeps you awake at night, then you must have had a very posh life where you made no mistakes. Make a family, and they will keep you up at night instead!

No. Most of it isn't actionable or useful to know. My life and my behavior won't be any different for having read it.

News is largely inconsequential moment-by-moment gossip, or unnecessary follow-up to stuff you've already heard about. You feel informed but not in any way that improves your life or your role in society.

I'll hear about the important things without seeking them out.

I believe the general recommendation these days is to stay informed, but not necessarily daily, maybe a weekly newspaper.

Online outlets are neverending, breathless and noisy and you will be too, if you follow them.

It is also important to know owners and editors of a particular publication as well as intended audience and circulation.

An interesting tactic is to read a publication from another country.

I don't read them (except my industry news) because something like 99 out of 100 those news has no direct impact on my life and because of that are basically irrelevant

And majority of them are sad / annoying / drama-driven and only affect my mood

Reading news for me has no value.

If there's something really important then I will know about it anyway - e.g war, covid, etc.

No, if something is important enough it finds its way to me anyways, either through word of mouth or by skimming HN/Twitter/Reddit. I subscribe to a daily news thing that drops in my email and by just reading what the title of the email is I get a sense if anything Really important is going on, and then I just delete it.

DON'T.

I read news daily (tech and general) and it is a) unhealthy, b) not useful in the long run. As for the "creating a better worldview", well it's a good thing but the price is too high for too small benefit. Price is a wasted time and mental impact. And dropping binge reading is probably as hard as dropping smoking.

JUST DON'T.

There's a war going on very close to my country, so yes, I try to stay on top of it. Probably too much, honestly.

I spend all my bloody time reading the news, because I constantly try to procrastinate. It's dreadful.

Reading the headlines of my favourite newspaper’s front page website gives me anxiety. However, taking the time to read the paper, stories I’m interested in, paragraph by paragraph, is a rare and satisfying treat, where I leave feeling much more informed.

I want to read newspapers again. I used to do that ~5-10 years ago, every morning.

One world news site I check each day, to have context for the rest of the day (if we're in a nuclear war or a new pandemic I need to know that). Then a local new site for my area.

I follow Ukraine war and local politics, some national ones.

I tend to stay away from US news as far as possible, unless they leak into common discussions like twitter recently.

"News" is mostly just clickbait, outrage over nothing, and pure theatrics. Simply a waste of time

Yes, I read local and economy news from country I reside (3-4 major sites), same combo from my home country (2-3 sites) and world news at France24, BBC and RT.

It really takes only few minutes to go through headlines and read only what I am interested in, it's actually quite underwhelming since I am not really interested to read The Current Thing propaganda, for instance now I completely ignore news about Ukraine, Zelensky and Putin or homo agenda, though I followed COVID scaremongering in MSM since that was affecting my day to day life. Reading comments to news take me maybe more time than actual news.

I skim also through propaganda at r/Europe (not much to read there) and to stay in touch what's going on also in r/China (much more interesting content), I don't read subs for my home and current countries since those are full of NPCs always supporting The Current Thing they are told by MSM and there can be hardly any information I haven't read in MSM.

yes, by RSS feed.

that way I can see the title/summary and if I feel its rubbish I just skip through to the next one. I get through about 400 articles a day in about 45 mins.

Poland here, I read news hourly. ;]

I tend to go by the BBC and Hacker News.

In the UK the other mainstream ones that aren't paywalled seem to be a mix of left-wing (eg. Guardian) and right-wing (eg. Daily Mail) outrage/misrepresentation/bias for argument-stoking and click-hoarding, or just local ad-ruined drivel.