I've actually been relying entirely on The Economist for my news for over a year now. I used to spend a lot of time reading various news sources, but then at some point started asking myself for each story I read: "Does having this information make any difference to me? Do I need to know this? How much information does this actually contain?" to which the answer was "No, no, and very little".
The Economist's weekly schedule filters out a lot of the useless noise and it gives time to write in-depth analysis rather than just bloating up non-news to fill the 24h news cycle. As a result I have a much more in-depth understanding of the current affairs than I had before. Of course my view also gets slanted by The Economist's biases, but those biases are at least well justified and supported most of the time.
Of course that does not mean I'm blind to the world around me. When a president gets elected or 9/11 happens or something else that actually matters, I will hear about it. It's just that a lot of the useless noise masquerading as "news" gets filtered out.
The problem I have with filtering out news articles is that you are right about the mean, median and 0.9 quantile of news.
I am not convinced that the value/impact of the 1% doesn't drastically outvalue the rest. That said it seems they are offering a month free so I guess I should go have a look.
The Economist's weekly schedule filters out a lot of the useless noise and it gives time to write in-depth analysis rather than just bloating up non-news to fill the 24h news cycle. As a result I have a much more in-depth understanding of the current affairs than I had before. Of course my view also gets slanted by The Economist's biases, but those biases are at least well justified and supported most of the time.
Of course that does not mean I'm blind to the world around me. When a president gets elected or 9/11 happens or something else that actually matters, I will hear about it. It's just that a lot of the useless noise masquerading as "news" gets filtered out.