What do you think?
Rate this book
How the News Makes Us Dumb: The Death of Wisdom in an Information Society
We who live at the end of the twentieth century are better informed--and more quickly informed--than any people in history. So why do we also seem more confused, divided and foolish than ever before? Some pundits criticize the news media for political bias. Other analysts worry that up-to-the-minute news reports on radio and television oversimplify complex realities. Still more critics point out that today's reporters can't possibly be experts on the wide variety of subjects they cover. Historian C. John Sommerville thinks the problem with news is more basic. Focusing his critique on the news at its best, he concludes that even at its best it is beyond repair. Sommerville argues that news began to make us dumber when we insisted on having it daily. Now millions of column inches and airtime hours must be filled with information--every day, every hour, every minute. The news, Sommerville says, becomes the driving force for much of our public culture. News schedules turn politics into a perpetual campaign. News packaging influences the timing, content and perception of government initiatives. News frenzies make a superstition out of scientific and medical research. News polls and statistics create opinion as much as they gauge it. Lost in the tidal wave of information is our ability to discern truly significant news--and our ability to recognize and participate in true community. This eye-opening book is for everyone dissatisfied with the state of the news media, but especially for those who think the news really informs them about and connects them with the real world. Read it and you may never again know the tyranny of the daily newspaper or the nightly news broadcast.
155 pages, Paperback
First published February 17, 1999
11 people are currently reading
210 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 3, 2024
Kinda outdated feel but jeez—he basically described what The News has been for the past decade & more: BS. Sensationalism, always telling you there’s a crisis or tragedy, stoking fear & anxiety daily, teaching you nothing, enlightening nothing but dirt, informing you of nothing more than opinions & bias. He includes headlines from newspapers that are polar opposites (e.g. Mr. Smith is going bankrupt vs. Mr. Smith’s profits are at record-high) and that was comical. He champions books and laments that people deem news articles to be acceptable substitutes for book-reading. He describes a world where adults count themselves as knowledgeable and wise from having kept up with the news. I digress I digress I digress! People parroting the news for the past five years: “Oh there’s a surge!” “Oh kids are in danger of dying from Covid, shut down the schools and make them live inside bubbles ‘cause the world is ending!” “OMG Trump this & that, Trump in my head, Trump is the dumbest, Trump is the mastermind of a rigged election, Trump is going down from the Mueller Report, Trump Trump I can’t think of anything else in the world except for one man Trump” -The News.
October 29, 2014
Okay, I admit to having confirmation bias. I haven’t been following the news for a while. I gave up on it because I felt that much of the reporting was unfair, and I constantly had my dander up. For the sake of my blood pressure, I took a break from the barrage.
Sommerville argues that the relentless, daily outpouring of news has consequences. It's led to a poorly-researched, shallow, and flashy experience. We get dumber by taking it in, all the while feeling good about ourselves for being "informed". He reminds us that the important things are rarely covered at all. Important people have a knack for staying out of the news altogether, "Power could probably be defined as the ability to keep oneself out of the news"
He also chastises us for our short memories. We'll get worked up by the latest controversy. Months or years later, we'll learn the truth, yet we're taken right back in with the new flash-in-the-pan the media cooks up. They're banking on it. It's how they make their living.
Worse, the news loves to pit us against each other. It's funny how you can go to work and get along fine with everyone. Someone of a different political party? Check. Different race? Check. Sexual orientation? Check. But when you turn on the evening television, you'd get the idea that a riot could break out any second. I submit that if a riot does break out, it's because the news provoked it.
Sommerville has his own recommendations, but I'll offer a few of my own:
1. Quit the news. You won't regret it.
2. If it's important (and rarely is), it’ll get back to you
3. Instead do your learning through books. You may not be as "informed", but you'll be worlds wiser. Sommerville would agree with this, and getting away from the TV is a big reason my reading has skyrocketed these last couple years.
Sommerville argues that the relentless, daily outpouring of news has consequences. It's led to a poorly-researched, shallow, and flashy experience. We get dumber by taking it in, all the while feeling good about ourselves for being "informed". He reminds us that the important things are rarely covered at all. Important people have a knack for staying out of the news altogether, "Power could probably be defined as the ability to keep oneself out of the news"
He also chastises us for our short memories. We'll get worked up by the latest controversy. Months or years later, we'll learn the truth, yet we're taken right back in with the new flash-in-the-pan the media cooks up. They're banking on it. It's how they make their living.
Worse, the news loves to pit us against each other. It's funny how you can go to work and get along fine with everyone. Someone of a different political party? Check. Different race? Check. Sexual orientation? Check. But when you turn on the evening television, you'd get the idea that a riot could break out any second. I submit that if a riot does break out, it's because the news provoked it.
Sommerville has his own recommendations, but I'll offer a few of my own:
1. Quit the news. You won't regret it.
2. If it's important (and rarely is), it’ll get back to you
3. Instead do your learning through books. You may not be as "informed", but you'll be worlds wiser. Sommerville would agree with this, and getting away from the TV is a big reason my reading has skyrocketed these last couple years.
July 3, 2015
Well, it all just makes me want to move to the Shire and read nothing but the Bible, Wendell Berry novels, and huge history tomes (to the extent that that's not what I'm already doing). It's amazing that this book came out before 9/11 and before the advent of social media; how much more true are the author's arguments now, after the passing of only a few years? And where will we go from here? It has been fascinating to read this book during the week of the Obergefell decision and to contemplate how much the mindset Sommerville describes in this book played into the possibility of such a sweeping change, one that would have seemed impossible even just a generation ago, taking place.
Commonplace entries:
"I don't mean to blame daily publication for all the failings of this most disappointing of centuries. What I am saying is that the news industry has encouraged the assumption that ceaseless, churning change is the normal state of society and that it is the government's job to encourage it" (58).
"Daily news is liberal by its very nature because the emphasis is on 'liberty' and therefore on change and on testing authority. The conservative emphasis is on 'conserving,' on order and stability, and on honoring authority.
Liberalism creates movement, and therefore it is the subject of periodical news. Conservatism retards movement, and that is not appreciated by the news" (61).
"The news is not going to admit that a large number of us do not intend to 'move with the times.' Yet without the news's prodding, people might simply remain divided on questions like family patterns. In short, you can choose whether you want to join in the trends that news promotes. But if you don't join in, you may not find your world represented in news discourse" (103).
"Culture is a necessity of life or at least of society. Yet most of those who are in charge of our society's affairs think that news is the most important thing to know, if one can judge by their reading habits. They seem to think of it as a substitute for culture. They imagine that it is a sort of substitute for books, a shortcut to wisdom. It is not. News is the opposite of books; it is an inoculation against culture and reflection" (132).
"What if we plunged into our own lives instead? What if we neglected the celebrity gossip, political rehash, distant natural disasters and plane crashes and started cultivating our own neighborhoods? We would no longer have the feeling of omniscience that comes from surveying the whole world from a satellite transmission. We might lose the feeling of superiority we get from seeing caricatures of the unprogressive elements in our population. And we would miss vicariously rubbing shoulders with the beautiful people. But we could make our own neighborhoods more beautiful. We could become much better informed about the views of people around us who would never get to finish their sound bites in local news. And we might make common cause with people the media have made us suspicious of" (144-145).
Commonplace entries:
"I don't mean to blame daily publication for all the failings of this most disappointing of centuries. What I am saying is that the news industry has encouraged the assumption that ceaseless, churning change is the normal state of society and that it is the government's job to encourage it" (58).
"Daily news is liberal by its very nature because the emphasis is on 'liberty' and therefore on change and on testing authority. The conservative emphasis is on 'conserving,' on order and stability, and on honoring authority.
Liberalism creates movement, and therefore it is the subject of periodical news. Conservatism retards movement, and that is not appreciated by the news" (61).
"The news is not going to admit that a large number of us do not intend to 'move with the times.' Yet without the news's prodding, people might simply remain divided on questions like family patterns. In short, you can choose whether you want to join in the trends that news promotes. But if you don't join in, you may not find your world represented in news discourse" (103).
"Culture is a necessity of life or at least of society. Yet most of those who are in charge of our society's affairs think that news is the most important thing to know, if one can judge by their reading habits. They seem to think of it as a substitute for culture. They imagine that it is a sort of substitute for books, a shortcut to wisdom. It is not. News is the opposite of books; it is an inoculation against culture and reflection" (132).
"What if we plunged into our own lives instead? What if we neglected the celebrity gossip, political rehash, distant natural disasters and plane crashes and started cultivating our own neighborhoods? We would no longer have the feeling of omniscience that comes from surveying the whole world from a satellite transmission. We might lose the feeling of superiority we get from seeing caricatures of the unprogressive elements in our population. And we would miss vicariously rubbing shoulders with the beautiful people. But we could make our own neighborhoods more beautiful. We could become much better informed about the views of people around us who would never get to finish their sound bites in local news. And we might make common cause with people the media have made us suspicious of" (144-145).
September 15, 2021
This book is even more relevant than when it was published in 1999. I will leave this review with the one suggested by the author:
"There is no way to review this book in a few paragraphs. It's a book. Books develop ideas at some considerable length. They aspire to that larger vision that is wisdom (a word that seems hopelessly quaint in our media-obsessed age). Presenting a few of a book's ideas - or finding fault with them - is not the same as thinking seriously about them. So all that can be said is that you'll have to read the whole thing. It's short. The test of its value is whether the reader can ever see a newspaper the same way afterward." (Pg. 152)
"There is no way to review this book in a few paragraphs. It's a book. Books develop ideas at some considerable length. They aspire to that larger vision that is wisdom (a word that seems hopelessly quaint in our media-obsessed age). Presenting a few of a book's ideas - or finding fault with them - is not the same as thinking seriously about them. So all that can be said is that you'll have to read the whole thing. It's short. The test of its value is whether the reader can ever see a newspaper the same way afterward." (Pg. 152)
Read
March 30, 2011I appreciated Sommerville's insight into the shallowness, inaccuracy, and drain that news is on society. Reading farther and farther through it seemed like he wasn't going to provide any practical application apart from not watching the news but he did end up giving a couple suggestions. Not surprisingly his first suggestion is to stop watching the daily news, take in a little bit here and there if you need to, but really try to cut it out. He suggested reading biographies and other historical pieces that give the whole picture of situations.
I liked his also appreciated his deeper commentary on the effect of "daily news consumption" on culture and society. For some news becomes a substitute for real culture. We are instead watching the world go by (not very accurately) through the grand satellite that is the news. Instead, he suggests that we focus on our local communities. It all comes back to the relationships we have with the people around us! Not those that we here about half a world away (I don't want to seem insensitive because we should care about everyone), but we should invest more in the lives of those around us.
I liked that he pointed out inconsistencies in statistics, which only present one fraction of a situation.
The return to his final practical application. He suggested reading books, cutting out daily and weekly periodicals and finding a good quarterly periodical that suits you. And finally to think more about developing your relationships with those in community around you, instead of relying on the fake community that is the news. The daily news bits tend to only be good for pointing out what is wrong with the world and stirring up conflict, to capture our interest so that we will buy tomorrow's issue.
I liked his also appreciated his deeper commentary on the effect of "daily news consumption" on culture and society. For some news becomes a substitute for real culture. We are instead watching the world go by (not very accurately) through the grand satellite that is the news. Instead, he suggests that we focus on our local communities. It all comes back to the relationships we have with the people around us! Not those that we here about half a world away (I don't want to seem insensitive because we should care about everyone), but we should invest more in the lives of those around us.
I liked that he pointed out inconsistencies in statistics, which only present one fraction of a situation.
The return to his final practical application. He suggested reading books, cutting out daily and weekly periodicals and finding a good quarterly periodical that suits you. And finally to think more about developing your relationships with those in community around you, instead of relying on the fake community that is the news. The daily news bits tend to only be good for pointing out what is wrong with the world and stirring up conflict, to capture our interest so that we will buy tomorrow's issue.
April 11, 2025
Still timely, maybe more so, today
The author lays out the case that the news is the way it is because of its essential nature, and his argument is solid.
If you have ever had an uneasy feeling that something is wrong with our news diet, this book will help you put words to that feeling, and understand why.
The solution? Just like any diet, too much of one thing is not good. The news ends up being best described like the old ads for sugar cereals - part of this nutritious breakfast. The author makes a short and easy case for what else to add to your diet to help you wean off of all news all the time, and become a healthier person.
The author lays out the case that the news is the way it is because of its essential nature, and his argument is solid.
If you have ever had an uneasy feeling that something is wrong with our news diet, this book will help you put words to that feeling, and understand why.
The solution? Just like any diet, too much of one thing is not good. The news ends up being best described like the old ads for sugar cereals - part of this nutritious breakfast. The author makes a short and easy case for what else to add to your diet to help you wean off of all news all the time, and become a healthier person.
August 7, 2025
I have a rather obvious connection to this book: it was written by my great uncle. When I starting visiting potential colleges back in 2004ish, I went down to Gainesville where he is a professor and took the tour.
I went to school for journalism.
After I told him I was going to KU, he apologized and said he hoped none of my professors treated me unfairly because of this book.
No one brought it up.
Now, almost 20+ years later, I can see why he apologized, but also why nothing ever came of it.
Granted, I enjoyed the book (curmudgeonliness seems to be a genetic trait), but his examples and "root cause" of our dumbification (the periodicity of the news) are a bit lacking. I think it's even deeper than he posits; the obsession we have with progressivism birthed the daily (in 1999...what does he think about TODAY's minutely feeds?!) animal we all fight with today.
But hey, maybe I need to write my own curmudgeonly book.
All in all, it's a bit dated, but it's publication date serves to illustrate its purpose more than refute it or make it obsolete. His calls to "care less" about the news and treat it with healthy skepticism are correct and his exhortation to read more books is CERTAINLY a family trait. If we're always obsessed with change and "moving forward," then we're echoing C.S. Lewis' famous quote from The Abolition of Man:
"You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see."
I went to school for journalism.
After I told him I was going to KU, he apologized and said he hoped none of my professors treated me unfairly because of this book.
No one brought it up.
Now, almost 20+ years later, I can see why he apologized, but also why nothing ever came of it.
Granted, I enjoyed the book (curmudgeonliness seems to be a genetic trait), but his examples and "root cause" of our dumbification (the periodicity of the news) are a bit lacking. I think it's even deeper than he posits; the obsession we have with progressivism birthed the daily (in 1999...what does he think about TODAY's minutely feeds?!) animal we all fight with today.
But hey, maybe I need to write my own curmudgeonly book.
All in all, it's a bit dated, but it's publication date serves to illustrate its purpose more than refute it or make it obsolete. His calls to "care less" about the news and treat it with healthy skepticism are correct and his exhortation to read more books is CERTAINLY a family trait. If we're always obsessed with change and "moving forward," then we're echoing C.S. Lewis' famous quote from The Abolition of Man:
"You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see."
February 4, 2017
This book is pushing 20 years old but still resonates so strongly with me. There were a couple of chapters I skimmed since I felt I already got the point but for the most part I was underlining and dog earring pages because of how much value I found in them. Especially now...how much value is in our daily news cycle? Are we getting wiser? Or more ignorant? He doesn't even touch on bias or any of the mainstream criticisms of the press that we hear all the time. It's a strict look at the effects of daily "news" on us as individuals and society, with a lot of history thrown in. Excellent and fairly quick read.
October 2, 2020
Read this book and then take a good hard look at the garbage the "news" is feeding us.
February 4, 2024
"News never asked to replace culture. Its proper function is to raise questions about dominant ideas, not to become the dominant discourse, silencing and undermining all others."
January 22, 2010
Overall, I agree with the author's argument -- the main problem with the news is not fundamentally any particular bias left or right, but its dailiness. Because it comes to us daily, we become filled with information but not wisdom. Because the news is daily, much of it is trivia, picayune, the doings of celebrities, scandals, and mostly without depth or historical perspective. After all, how much depth on a topic can you go into during the nightly news? A long while ago I stopped reading or watching the news in favor of monthly periodicals, books, and audiobooks, and I don't think I've missed anything.
This book is somewhat dated as it came out before the rise of the Internet age. In many ways, the problem of information overload is only compounded by the Internet. But in other ways, I think the Internet has changed the face of news by challenging the business structure of newspapers and weekly newszines (Time, U.S. News & World Report).
One criticism: I wish the author had spent more time illustrating these arguments. I felt that the book was too filled with many insightful assertions that were never fully expounded.
This book is somewhat dated as it came out before the rise of the Internet age. In many ways, the problem of information overload is only compounded by the Internet. But in other ways, I think the Internet has changed the face of news by challenging the business structure of newspapers and weekly newszines (Time, U.S. News & World Report).
One criticism: I wish the author had spent more time illustrating these arguments. I felt that the book was too filled with many insightful assertions that were never fully expounded.
April 10, 2008
Very good book. I ran across this in the library, and the title jumped out at me. I figured if it stunk, I could just put it down and move on the rest the books I got that trip. It turned out to be great. It is nice and compact, so you don't have to worry about making a big commitment. The basic premise of the book is that beyond good reporting, bad reporting, bias, etc. the very nature of news (something new we consume every day) has a dangerous effect on us. It gives many good examples of how 'news' has a problem conveying information about science, religion and other spheres in an accurate and helpful way. It has actually changed the way I consume 'news'. I've been making a point of actively ignoring stories that are transient or otherwise unuseful as described in the book. So take a look. Even if you don't agree with everything it will at least help you think about your news consumption more clearly.
April 17, 2012
A needed counterpoint to my news addiction. Now if I could only follow through by reading less news, rather than simply thinking to myself "this is a dumb story that doesn't matter." there has been a lot of upheaval in the news industry since he wrote this. He thinks the daily frequency of news is a problem. New developments such as twitter, and longer form semi permanent analysis online have both exacerbated and neutralized his point at the same time. Other points (most days nothing meaningful happens, but someone still has to sell news product) are still relevant.
November 13, 2014
A challenging critique of the value of everyday news. I can't say that I agree with Sommerville in going so far as to avoid daily/weekly news altogether, but I greatly agree with his premise that news decontextualizes events and removes the ability to actually learn from the experiences of people around us (as is the case for more thorough presentations of history). Will I stop reading the news? Probably not. But I will read more carefully and consciously, and will continue to emphasize news as but one of my forms in which I take in knowledge, wisdom, and ideas.
March 20, 2008
I don't know what to say about this book. It has an interesting premise; that the news being daily has spoiled the content and made unimportant "news" important. As interesting as this argument is, I still left the book unconvinced.
February 12, 2025
read and reread. Wrote in 1999, before the internet, all seems weirdly familiar in 2025, the problem was already there back then. One of this little book not so famous...but who can change your POV radically in the media-saturate world surround you.
January 22, 2015
Unique arguments, but the author's tone is one of the harshest and most deprecating I have ever come across in media criticism. Hope to see this book in a different light later on.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews