What do you think?
Rate this book
Notícias: Manual do usuário
Atualmente as notícias ocupam o lugar preponderante antes dominado pela religião, porém não costumamos refletir sobre o impacto delas em nossa vida. Em Notícias, o aclamado escritor Alain de Botton se vale de histórias típicas do noticiário — como um desastre de avião, um homicídio, um escândalo político e uma entrevista com uma celebridade — para construir sua análise inteligente e profunda.
Ele também traz questões reveladoras, como: por que manchetes de grandes desastres nos envolvem tanto? O que torna a vida amorosa das celebridades tão interessante? Por que adoramos ver políticos se dando mal? E por que as notícias sobre revoltas em países distantes costumam ser tão... entediantes?
De Botton elaborou o manual definitivo da nossa era viciada em notícias, que trará calma, entendimento e um parâmetro de sanidade para as nossas interações diárias (e às vezes feitas a toda hora) com a máquina de notícias.
Alain de Botton tem best-sellers publicados em mais de trinta países.
Hoje há um forte debate sobre como as notícias são construídas e como os seus aspectos ideológicos moldam a nossa compreensão da realidade.
As obras do autor são usadas em diversos cursos acadêmicos e também atraem um grande número de leitores interessados em compreender os principais dilemas da atualidade.
“Por que nós obedientemente ligamos o rádio em determinada hora e a TV em outra para ouvir nos dizerem que isso ou aquilo é A Notícia?”The Guardian
238 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 2, 2014
324 people are currently reading
4246 people want to read
About the author
Alain de Botton
166 books15.4k followersAlain de Botton is a writer and television producer who lives in London and aims to make philosophy relevant to everyday life. He can be contacted by email directly via www.alaindebotton.com
He is a writer of essayistic books, which refer both to his own experiences and ideas- and those of artists, philosophers and thinkers. It's a style of writing that has been termed a 'philosophy of everyday life.'
His first book, Essays in Love [titled On Love in the US], minutely analysed the process of falling in and out of love. The style of the book was unusual, because it mixed elements of a novel together with reflections and analyses normally found in a piece of non-fiction. It's a book of which many readers are still fondest.
Bibliography:
* Essays In Love (1993)
* The Romantic Movement (1994)
* Kiss and Tell (1995)
* How Proust Can Change Your Life (1997)
* The Consolations of Philosophy (2000)
* The Art of Travel (2002)
* Status Anxiety (2004)
* The Architecture of Happiness (2006)
* The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work (2009)
He is a writer of essayistic books, which refer both to his own experiences and ideas- and those of artists, philosophers and thinkers. It's a style of writing that has been termed a 'philosophy of everyday life.'
His first book, Essays in Love [titled On Love in the US], minutely analysed the process of falling in and out of love. The style of the book was unusual, because it mixed elements of a novel together with reflections and analyses normally found in a piece of non-fiction. It's a book of which many readers are still fondest.
Bibliography:
* Essays In Love (1993)
* The Romantic Movement (1994)
* Kiss and Tell (1995)
* How Proust Can Change Your Life (1997)
* The Consolations of Philosophy (2000)
* The Art of Travel (2002)
* Status Anxiety (2004)
* The Architecture of Happiness (2006)
* The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work (2009)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 440 reviews
September 9, 2016
When is the last time you heard something new in the news?
Considering all the time spent reading, watching and listening to the news, what did you learn from it? What do you remember? What remains of all this information aside some vague ideas about the economy, the other side of the world, your compatriots?
I was wondering about these questions myself and decided that instead of reading the news, it was time to read about the news.
Alain de Botton, an author relatively unknown to me before my eye fell on this book, seems to be mostly famous for endeavoring to bring philosophy and psychology closer to the people. He tries to accomplish this by linking topics close to people's hearts, such as love and traveling, to grander ideas, hoping to create a greater consciousness of being well and truly alive. Popularising philosophy always comes with certain dangers, of oversimplification for example, and apparently the dear man has come under some harsh criticism, but I like what he's trying to do. Even more so because in this book he chose to address a topic that I feel rather strongly about.
The news is omnipresent. Every minute of the day one can plug into the world information machine and receive an overwhelming stream of data, stories and events. Important information. Crucial information. You can read and hear about it everywhere, television programming is organised around the holy hours of 1, 6, 8 and 11 PM in which news bulletins spread their gospel. Radios have an even stricter regimen with hourly updates and repetitions on the important goings on in the country and in the world.
In his introduction, incidentally my favorite part of any non-fiction book, de Botton managed to crystallize the general, fluid antipathy I feel towards the news and the respect it garners. The unease I felt with opaque news organisations' largely unacknowledged but nonetheless exceedingly high demand on our time and attention got a clear formulation through this book's opening chapters. The way news anchors condescendingly tell me when to be worried through their frowns, when to take note of serious and difficult economic trends and when to be happy with their merry reports of animals born in a zoo at the end of their depressing bulletins has annoyed me for many years, and it seems I'm not alone in this. The symmetry with organised religion is inescapable, what with the regular hours and the formulaic way each bulletin is organised into well-timed segments of sensational news, serious news, sports, the weather and some town's festivities to round it all off in a spasm of happy ending. I tried to disconnect from it all, limiting myself to opinion pieces and word on the street. If it's really important, I'll hear about it in the cafeteria at work. But there seems to be no way to truly disconnect. My phone's home screen gives me unwanted headlines of people murdered, people arrested, celebrities spotted in their underwear and cataclysmic weather events. But not only technology is an adversary in my struggles. If one doesn't follow the news, one is considered an idiot. Today it might be blasphemy to be a fully clothed woman on a French beach, but what's even worse is not knowing about the whole hubbub surrounding this issue. The news wields an almost dictatorial, unquestioned power over our senses. We must LISTEN to the news. We must STUDY the news. We must FORM OPINIONS and DISCUSS these IMPORTANT events.
Only to forget about them a week later and talk about something else.
This book takes you through the news by looking at how different kinds of information speak to us. Why are we so drawn to stories about accidents? Are we really happy when watching feel-good programmes with stories of ludicrously successful people? What do we feel and think about when reading yet another story of a dad murdering his children and committing suicide? What's with the giddy anticipation when there's news of an approaching blizzard?
Alain de Botton takes us through all these questions and more, in the way a stand-up comedian would: by pointing out controversial but surprisingly common inner thought processes that we all recognise but thought to be only valid for ourselves, in the context of something mundane like shopping, asking out a girl or ... the news. In this book, an endearing "we" is used and it works convincingly most of the time, but when it doesn't, the writer comes off just as bad as the conceited news anchors. A thin line any writer pretending to know his reader walks on, and a personal one. For me de Botton usually stays at the right side of it so that it felt like he held up a mirror, but it all depends on how much you identify yourself with his opinion.
The way de Botton states his opinion is what will have me read more of his books in the future. I love his prose. As some of you may know I'm not particularly fond of non-fiction, usually haunted by dry prose and factual elaborations. But this book is a page-turner and that's not just because many pages are adorned with pictures, news cuttings and white space. Just consider the following quote:
"Stock indices leave one juggling a set of varied feelings of admiration for the fertility of modern business, a wonder at the extraordinary degree of intelligence and effort demanded to succeed in any industry, and yet a guilty sense of the absurdity and waste of so much of our toil and, in the middle of the night, when the mind tends to avenge itself on the compromises of the day, a pained wonder at what we might be doing with the ever-more precious bit that still remains of our lives."
You have to hand it to him, to jump from stock indices to the image of a pained and self-doubting insomniac in one sentence takes some doing.
Or how about the weather?
"In the case of this snowstorm, the forecasters have the monster well mapped. In the National Weather Center, an IBM Power 7 supercomputer, with a peak processing performance of one petaflop, keeps the glacial spectre firmly within its sights, though the ability to predict what will happen gives the experts no power whatsoever to alter nature's implacable intent."
Whoa, if only the weather man talked like that.
With comedy, a relieved sigh of "Aaah, you as well?" precedes uproarious laughter and we applaud. In a novel graced with fine prose, we get taken away by the images forming in our minds. But lest you forget, this book is not intended for purely comedic or artistic effect.
Now that I own the BBC
What am I supposed to do with this thing?
Now that I own the BBC
What am I supposed to make of this thing? - Sparks
The talented Mael brothers already wondered what they'd do if they'd own the BBC (apart from broadcasting their own underappreciated songs), and Alain de Botton now provides a moralistic answer, pointing out the possibilities of the news' enormous power and where it could help people in leading better, more fulfilling lives. A tall order. While I could easily accept the news as a great vantage point to discern more of man's nature, his internal struggles and sources of happiness, I'm not convinced an exercise in the other direction is fruitful. The author took it upon himself to devise ways to make news better for the people and lost some credibility in doing so. He investigates different kinds of news (political, international, economic, celebrity, disaster and consumer news) and provides a way forward for all of these.
For example, while I found the explanation for a longing for fame quite appealing, I didn't find the way it got turned around convincing. :
"Celebrity News
In this category, we would be introduced to some of the most admirable people of our era - as judged by mature and subtle criteria - and guided as to how we might draw inspiration and advice from them. The famous would make us envious in productive and measured ways, helping us to realise our own genuine but timid talents by the example of their audacity and perseverance. But we would also be reminded that the best cure for a longing of fame would ultimately be a world in which kindness and respect were more generously and evenly distributed."
Basically the red line through all of his lessons is that news should be more like books. To turn articles on crimes into true crime novels. To turn tables and figures of the stock exchange into gripping stories of stressed managers trying to delay heart attacks and save their marriage. To provide a clear, full and nuanced image of everyday life on an island while reporting on the earthquake that devastated it. But does anyone really have time for that? What doesn't help is that in all of this, it seems like the reader is a precious little flower who needs to be cradled and fed by the news, unable to find context for himself. Maybe the news needs to change, but there's room for the recipients of the information machine to be educated as well, preferably outside of the news. An aspect that was largely (though not completely) ignored in this book.
In all, this was definitely an entertaining and informative read, but it kind of fell flat during the overly ambitious and naive conclusion. My own conclusion? Screw all that news! Unplug! But maybe it's me who's being naive. In my view, what de Botton proposes already exists but it just isn't going to be found in the news. It's called a library.
Considering all the time spent reading, watching and listening to the news, what did you learn from it? What do you remember? What remains of all this information aside some vague ideas about the economy, the other side of the world, your compatriots?
I was wondering about these questions myself and decided that instead of reading the news, it was time to read about the news.
Alain de Botton, an author relatively unknown to me before my eye fell on this book, seems to be mostly famous for endeavoring to bring philosophy and psychology closer to the people. He tries to accomplish this by linking topics close to people's hearts, such as love and traveling, to grander ideas, hoping to create a greater consciousness of being well and truly alive. Popularising philosophy always comes with certain dangers, of oversimplification for example, and apparently the dear man has come under some harsh criticism, but I like what he's trying to do. Even more so because in this book he chose to address a topic that I feel rather strongly about.
The news is omnipresent. Every minute of the day one can plug into the world information machine and receive an overwhelming stream of data, stories and events. Important information. Crucial information. You can read and hear about it everywhere, television programming is organised around the holy hours of 1, 6, 8 and 11 PM in which news bulletins spread their gospel. Radios have an even stricter regimen with hourly updates and repetitions on the important goings on in the country and in the world.
In his introduction, incidentally my favorite part of any non-fiction book, de Botton managed to crystallize the general, fluid antipathy I feel towards the news and the respect it garners. The unease I felt with opaque news organisations' largely unacknowledged but nonetheless exceedingly high demand on our time and attention got a clear formulation through this book's opening chapters. The way news anchors condescendingly tell me when to be worried through their frowns, when to take note of serious and difficult economic trends and when to be happy with their merry reports of animals born in a zoo at the end of their depressing bulletins has annoyed me for many years, and it seems I'm not alone in this. The symmetry with organised religion is inescapable, what with the regular hours and the formulaic way each bulletin is organised into well-timed segments of sensational news, serious news, sports, the weather and some town's festivities to round it all off in a spasm of happy ending. I tried to disconnect from it all, limiting myself to opinion pieces and word on the street. If it's really important, I'll hear about it in the cafeteria at work. But there seems to be no way to truly disconnect. My phone's home screen gives me unwanted headlines of people murdered, people arrested, celebrities spotted in their underwear and cataclysmic weather events. But not only technology is an adversary in my struggles. If one doesn't follow the news, one is considered an idiot. Today it might be blasphemy to be a fully clothed woman on a French beach, but what's even worse is not knowing about the whole hubbub surrounding this issue. The news wields an almost dictatorial, unquestioned power over our senses. We must LISTEN to the news. We must STUDY the news. We must FORM OPINIONS and DISCUSS these IMPORTANT events.
Only to forget about them a week later and talk about something else.
This book takes you through the news by looking at how different kinds of information speak to us. Why are we so drawn to stories about accidents? Are we really happy when watching feel-good programmes with stories of ludicrously successful people? What do we feel and think about when reading yet another story of a dad murdering his children and committing suicide? What's with the giddy anticipation when there's news of an approaching blizzard?
Alain de Botton takes us through all these questions and more, in the way a stand-up comedian would: by pointing out controversial but surprisingly common inner thought processes that we all recognise but thought to be only valid for ourselves, in the context of something mundane like shopping, asking out a girl or ... the news. In this book, an endearing "we" is used and it works convincingly most of the time, but when it doesn't, the writer comes off just as bad as the conceited news anchors. A thin line any writer pretending to know his reader walks on, and a personal one. For me de Botton usually stays at the right side of it so that it felt like he held up a mirror, but it all depends on how much you identify yourself with his opinion.
The way de Botton states his opinion is what will have me read more of his books in the future. I love his prose. As some of you may know I'm not particularly fond of non-fiction, usually haunted by dry prose and factual elaborations. But this book is a page-turner and that's not just because many pages are adorned with pictures, news cuttings and white space. Just consider the following quote:
"Stock indices leave one juggling a set of varied feelings of admiration for the fertility of modern business, a wonder at the extraordinary degree of intelligence and effort demanded to succeed in any industry, and yet a guilty sense of the absurdity and waste of so much of our toil and, in the middle of the night, when the mind tends to avenge itself on the compromises of the day, a pained wonder at what we might be doing with the ever-more precious bit that still remains of our lives."
You have to hand it to him, to jump from stock indices to the image of a pained and self-doubting insomniac in one sentence takes some doing.
Or how about the weather?
"In the case of this snowstorm, the forecasters have the monster well mapped. In the National Weather Center, an IBM Power 7 supercomputer, with a peak processing performance of one petaflop, keeps the glacial spectre firmly within its sights, though the ability to predict what will happen gives the experts no power whatsoever to alter nature's implacable intent."
Whoa, if only the weather man talked like that.
With comedy, a relieved sigh of "Aaah, you as well?" precedes uproarious laughter and we applaud. In a novel graced with fine prose, we get taken away by the images forming in our minds. But lest you forget, this book is not intended for purely comedic or artistic effect.
Now that I own the BBC
What am I supposed to do with this thing?
Now that I own the BBC
What am I supposed to make of this thing? - Sparks
The talented Mael brothers already wondered what they'd do if they'd own the BBC (apart from broadcasting their own underappreciated songs), and Alain de Botton now provides a moralistic answer, pointing out the possibilities of the news' enormous power and where it could help people in leading better, more fulfilling lives. A tall order. While I could easily accept the news as a great vantage point to discern more of man's nature, his internal struggles and sources of happiness, I'm not convinced an exercise in the other direction is fruitful. The author took it upon himself to devise ways to make news better for the people and lost some credibility in doing so. He investigates different kinds of news (political, international, economic, celebrity, disaster and consumer news) and provides a way forward for all of these.
For example, while I found the explanation for a longing for fame quite appealing, I didn't find the way it got turned around convincing. :
"Celebrity News
In this category, we would be introduced to some of the most admirable people of our era - as judged by mature and subtle criteria - and guided as to how we might draw inspiration and advice from them. The famous would make us envious in productive and measured ways, helping us to realise our own genuine but timid talents by the example of their audacity and perseverance. But we would also be reminded that the best cure for a longing of fame would ultimately be a world in which kindness and respect were more generously and evenly distributed."
Basically the red line through all of his lessons is that news should be more like books. To turn articles on crimes into true crime novels. To turn tables and figures of the stock exchange into gripping stories of stressed managers trying to delay heart attacks and save their marriage. To provide a clear, full and nuanced image of everyday life on an island while reporting on the earthquake that devastated it. But does anyone really have time for that? What doesn't help is that in all of this, it seems like the reader is a precious little flower who needs to be cradled and fed by the news, unable to find context for himself. Maybe the news needs to change, but there's room for the recipients of the information machine to be educated as well, preferably outside of the news. An aspect that was largely (though not completely) ignored in this book.
In all, this was definitely an entertaining and informative read, but it kind of fell flat during the overly ambitious and naive conclusion. My own conclusion? Screw all that news! Unplug! But maybe it's me who's being naive. In my view, what de Botton proposes already exists but it just isn't going to be found in the news. It's called a library.
September 12, 2025
چه خویشتنداری پارسایانهای لازم است برای روی گرداندن از مهلکهی اخبار و روزی را گوش سپردن تنها به صدای باران و افکار خود. صفحهی ۱۴ کتاب
۱۴۰۴/۰۶/۲۱
۱۴۰۴/۰۶/۲۱
February 10, 2014
(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
May 27, 2014
Poor Alain de Botton gets a lot of stick for his pop philosophy, especially here in the UK. I’ve read most of his books and quite like them (The Art of Travel is probably my favorite), and I admire the work his School of Life does, especially on bibliotherapy. I didn’t get a chance to read this one all the way through because my Edelweiss download expired on publication day, but from skimming it I’d say this is among his weaker works.
The premise, that laymen need help in figuring out how to read and process the news, seems somewhat dubious. And even if such a task were necessary, is he really the one to help us? He keeps citing travel and art, especially architecture, in indulgent and even self-referential ways – bringing his own pet interests to bear on a subject he doesn’t know all that much about.
De Botton has high standards for the news; he thinks in an ideal world its roles would include telling the truth, directing our attention, fostering sympathy (like George Eliot or Flaubert in another time), and awakening readers from their indifference. Ah, if only the news were conveyed in snippets as interesting and gripping as a given section of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, he muses, journalism could have lasting literary merit.
As Craig Brown said in his review for the Mail on Sunday, “[de Botton’s] books stimulate thought, even if the thought is ���but that would NEVER WORK IN PRACTICE’.” That would certainly be an accurate response to his Religion for Atheists, which is full of lovely but entirely improbable suggestions for how thinking people might introduce the best of religion into their daily, secular lives without absorbing any of the nasty stuff.
It cannot be denied, however, that we need our priorities adjusting when it comes to the news: we’d rather read about the Duchess of Cambridge’s baby and David Bowie’s new single than the latest civil wars in Africa. For that reason, “World News” and “Disaster” were the two best and most useful sections for me, while the chapters on politics, economics and celebrity I could take or leave. I agree with de Botton that photography has a special role in conveying information and emotion. He discovered on a (largely irrelevant) trip to Uganda that you don’t really understand a place until you see it on the ground; thus the (photo)journalist, like a travel writer, has the task of showing through words and images just what it’s like to be there.
What I will probably take away from this book (which I am unlikely to read in full) is the idea of the news, especially that of catastrophes, as fulfilling a cathartic role: “There is a peculiar, though undeniable, benefit to be found in exposure to the sufferings of strangers. This might be because we are all, somewhere within us, uncomfortably sad and disappointed. We harbor, quietly, a lot of darkness...The crashes, cancers, explosions and fires relativize our own failures. Disaster bears within it a broad and helpful message: humanity suffers.”
There’s been a particularly vituperative response to this book in the UK newspapers – perhaps journalists resent him butting in on their business and daring to venture an uneducated opinion. I chuckled at Brown’s characterization of de Botton as “both lofty and banal, a bit like God on an off-day.” The Evening Standard’s David Sexton concurred, stating that de Botton writes “with a preachiness that would give the most complacent vicar pause.”
I prefer to think of de Botton as a genial thinker and dreamer. I saw him speak at Runnymede literary festival a few years ago and thought he seemed entirely pleasant and inoffensive (such that I could hardly believe the bitter screed he later launched at a writer who reviewed one of his books unfavorably in the New York Times).
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if...” de Botton starts, and even if some of the phrases he fills that blank with are less than realistic, you can’t help but love him for them anyway. If we could learn from our travels, if we could apply the best of philosophy to our everyday lives, if we could find purpose in our work, if we could take from the news a determination to be grateful for our own lot and empathize with others’ – why, the world just might be a better place.
The premise, that laymen need help in figuring out how to read and process the news, seems somewhat dubious. And even if such a task were necessary, is he really the one to help us? He keeps citing travel and art, especially architecture, in indulgent and even self-referential ways – bringing his own pet interests to bear on a subject he doesn’t know all that much about.
De Botton has high standards for the news; he thinks in an ideal world its roles would include telling the truth, directing our attention, fostering sympathy (like George Eliot or Flaubert in another time), and awakening readers from their indifference. Ah, if only the news were conveyed in snippets as interesting and gripping as a given section of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, he muses, journalism could have lasting literary merit.
As Craig Brown said in his review for the Mail on Sunday, “[de Botton’s] books stimulate thought, even if the thought is ���but that would NEVER WORK IN PRACTICE’.” That would certainly be an accurate response to his Religion for Atheists, which is full of lovely but entirely improbable suggestions for how thinking people might introduce the best of religion into their daily, secular lives without absorbing any of the nasty stuff.
It cannot be denied, however, that we need our priorities adjusting when it comes to the news: we’d rather read about the Duchess of Cambridge’s baby and David Bowie’s new single than the latest civil wars in Africa. For that reason, “World News” and “Disaster” were the two best and most useful sections for me, while the chapters on politics, economics and celebrity I could take or leave. I agree with de Botton that photography has a special role in conveying information and emotion. He discovered on a (largely irrelevant) trip to Uganda that you don’t really understand a place until you see it on the ground; thus the (photo)journalist, like a travel writer, has the task of showing through words and images just what it’s like to be there.
What I will probably take away from this book (which I am unlikely to read in full) is the idea of the news, especially that of catastrophes, as fulfilling a cathartic role: “There is a peculiar, though undeniable, benefit to be found in exposure to the sufferings of strangers. This might be because we are all, somewhere within us, uncomfortably sad and disappointed. We harbor, quietly, a lot of darkness...The crashes, cancers, explosions and fires relativize our own failures. Disaster bears within it a broad and helpful message: humanity suffers.”
There’s been a particularly vituperative response to this book in the UK newspapers – perhaps journalists resent him butting in on their business and daring to venture an uneducated opinion. I chuckled at Brown’s characterization of de Botton as “both lofty and banal, a bit like God on an off-day.” The Evening Standard’s David Sexton concurred, stating that de Botton writes “with a preachiness that would give the most complacent vicar pause.”
I prefer to think of de Botton as a genial thinker and dreamer. I saw him speak at Runnymede literary festival a few years ago and thought he seemed entirely pleasant and inoffensive (such that I could hardly believe the bitter screed he later launched at a writer who reviewed one of his books unfavorably in the New York Times).
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if...” de Botton starts, and even if some of the phrases he fills that blank with are less than realistic, you can’t help but love him for them anyway. If we could learn from our travels, if we could apply the best of philosophy to our everyday lives, if we could find purpose in our work, if we could take from the news a determination to be grateful for our own lot and empathize with others’ – why, the world just might be a better place.
Read
June 29, 2020I have to admit, first of all, that I haven't finished reading this book, not because it would be a bad one, but it's not quite my type of reading. Besides, he didn't bring me anything new, about News.
A friend used to tell me the other day, that he hadn't watched TV in a few years, and news - for about 10 years. He was intrigued by the fact that out of 8 advertisements, 5 are for medicines, and the rest for products containing chemicals. Another friend told me that nowadays, the model from the Grand Inquisitor has been updated , the one through which the control of humanity was achieved only by the insurance of daily bread. Now, in order to have control, you have to offer circus and bread, to keep people in a permanent and distressing assault with ( non) informations, the type of can-can ones. Because of this negative connotations of the Media, of télévision in particular, an anti-television movement was born, which began to be adopted as a value in itself. Lately, this very refusal to watch TV has become one of the indisputable proofs of the differentiation, a renouncement before the actual social interaction. On the other hand, if we have action, we also have re-action.There is also an anti-movement against opposition of watching TV. I know, it seems weird. If you are one of those who no longer watch TV, you risk becoming a snob, elitist, or even ignorant.
I don't know what is more correct - to watch or not to watch TV, to inform yourself only strictly as much as you need, or have the freedom to reply to anti-movements ? It is difficult to say, but it is certain that our freedom of action is modified, even altered, due to the hundreds of news items we are assaulted with. It is mandatory, imperative even, to develop relevant sorting and selection skills, from all this information heap.I apologize to Botton for neglecting his book, but I don't think I lost more, exposing my own thoughts.
A friend used to tell me the other day, that he hadn't watched TV in a few years, and news - for about 10 years. He was intrigued by the fact that out of 8 advertisements, 5 are for medicines, and the rest for products containing chemicals. Another friend told me that nowadays, the model from the Grand Inquisitor has been updated , the one through which the control of humanity was achieved only by the insurance of daily bread. Now, in order to have control, you have to offer circus and bread, to keep people in a permanent and distressing assault with ( non) informations, the type of can-can ones. Because of this negative connotations of the Media, of télévision in particular, an anti-television movement was born, which began to be adopted as a value in itself. Lately, this very refusal to watch TV has become one of the indisputable proofs of the differentiation, a renouncement before the actual social interaction. On the other hand, if we have action, we also have re-action.There is also an anti-movement against opposition of watching TV. I know, it seems weird. If you are one of those who no longer watch TV, you risk becoming a snob, elitist, or even ignorant.
I don't know what is more correct - to watch or not to watch TV, to inform yourself only strictly as much as you need, or have the freedom to reply to anti-movements ? It is difficult to say, but it is certain that our freedom of action is modified, even altered, due to the hundreds of news items we are assaulted with. It is mandatory, imperative even, to develop relevant sorting and selection skills, from all this information heap.I apologize to Botton for neglecting his book, but I don't think I lost more, exposing my own thoughts.
September 4, 2019
“امروزه مدیا این امر را ممکن کرده که شخصی هم زمان هم فاقد تخیل و خلاقیت و خشک مغز باشد هم بسیار با معلومات.احمق مدرن به طور روتین از این امکان برخوردار است که چیزهایی را بداند که در قدیم فقط نوابغ می دانستند و با این همه باز احمق بماند.واین ترکیبی یأس آور از خصلت هایی است که قرون قبل هیچ نگرانی ای از بابت آن نداشتند.از نگاه فلوبر،خبر حماقت را تجهیز کرده و به احمق ها قدرت بخشیده است.”
آلن دوباتن همیشه با نوشته هاش ذهن آدم رو روشن میکنه و باعث میشه به چیزایی توجه کنم که قبلا حواسم بهشون نبود.
مثل همیشه طرفدارشم و خوندن این کتابو توصیه میکنم اما بنظرم ترجمه خیلی روان نبود و کمی باهاش مشکل داشتم.
آلن دوباتن همیشه با نوشته هاش ذهن آدم رو روشن میکنه و باعث میشه به چیزایی توجه کنم که قبلا حواسم بهشون نبود.
مثل همیشه طرفدارشم و خوندن این کتابو توصیه میکنم اما بنظرم ترجمه خیلی روان نبود و کمی باهاش مشکل داشتم.
August 26, 2017
Admiro grandemente a capacidade de Alain de Botton de descodificar e simplificar temas complexos e apresentá-los com leveza e humor, sem por isso deixar de ser rigoroso (pelo menos, tanto quanto me é dado perceber). Este livro é particularmente interessante, numa época em que a facilidade de acesso à internet móvel nos torna ainda mais sujeitos à exposição constante às notícias.
Ficam alguns excertos, para amostra (nota: li o livro numa tradução brasileira):
Nós evoluímos de uma sociedade em que quase nada mudava — e qualquer mudança que de fato ocorresse tinha tudo para ser muito significativa e talvez até representasse uma ameaça à vida. Desse passado, herdamos uma fragilidade cognitiva no que diz respeito à novidade: partimos do pressuposto de que o novo também deve ser importante.
Mas nem sempre é assim. Para manter a lucidez em uma era dominada pelo noticiário, devemos constatar que as categorias da novidade e da importância se sobrepõem, mas são fundamentalmente distintas.
Quando estamos tensos e tentados a fugir de nós mesmos, que solução melhor, mais imersiva e respeitável do que correr para o noticiário? Ele representa a desculpa séria perfeita para não prestarmos atenção em muitas coisas que podem ser mais importantes. Deixamos de lado, de bom grado, toda responsabilidade por nós mesmos para ouvir a respeito de questões graves e urgentes, como a dívida brasileira, o novo líder da Austrália, as taxas de mortalidade infantil em Benim, o desflorestamento na Sibéria e um homicídio triplo em Cleveland.
Não podemos encontrar no presente tudo de que precisamos para refinar nossa humanidade. Existem atitudes, ideologias, modalidades de sentimentos e filosofias em cujo encalço precisamos voltar nos séculos, pelos corredores das bibliotecas de referência, passando por armários esquecidos em museus, com suas armaduras medievais enferrujadas percorrendo páginas de livros de segunda mão cheios das anotações de donos já mortos ou subindo aos altares de templos meio arruinados e cobertos de musgo.
De vez em quando, deveríamos abrir mão de nossas notícias para prestar atenção nas manchetes muito mais estranhas e maravilhosas das espécies menos eloquentes que nos cercam: gaviões e gansos, besouros e gafanhotos, lêmures e criancinhas. Todas criaturas muito desinteressadas por nossos melodramas, contrapesos de nossas ansiedades e de nosso egocentrismo.
Ficam alguns excertos, para amostra (nota: li o livro numa tradução brasileira):
Nós evoluímos de uma sociedade em que quase nada mudava — e qualquer mudança que de fato ocorresse tinha tudo para ser muito significativa e talvez até representasse uma ameaça à vida. Desse passado, herdamos uma fragilidade cognitiva no que diz respeito à novidade: partimos do pressuposto de que o novo também deve ser importante.
Mas nem sempre é assim. Para manter a lucidez em uma era dominada pelo noticiário, devemos constatar que as categorias da novidade e da importância se sobrepõem, mas são fundamentalmente distintas.
Quando estamos tensos e tentados a fugir de nós mesmos, que solução melhor, mais imersiva e respeitável do que correr para o noticiário? Ele representa a desculpa séria perfeita para não prestarmos atenção em muitas coisas que podem ser mais importantes. Deixamos de lado, de bom grado, toda responsabilidade por nós mesmos para ouvir a respeito de questões graves e urgentes, como a dívida brasileira, o novo líder da Austrália, as taxas de mortalidade infantil em Benim, o desflorestamento na Sibéria e um homicídio triplo em Cleveland.
Não podemos encontrar no presente tudo de que precisamos para refinar nossa humanidade. Existem atitudes, ideologias, modalidades de sentimentos e filosofias em cujo encalço precisamos voltar nos séculos, pelos corredores das bibliotecas de referência, passando por armários esquecidos em museus, com suas armaduras medievais enferrujadas percorrendo páginas de livros de segunda mão cheios das anotações de donos já mortos ou subindo aos altares de templos meio arruinados e cobertos de musgo.
De vez em quando, deveríamos abrir mão de nossas notícias para prestar atenção nas manchetes muito mais estranhas e maravilhosas das espécies menos eloquentes que nos cercam: gaviões e gansos, besouros e gafanhotos, lêmures e criancinhas. Todas criaturas muito desinteressadas por nossos melodramas, contrapesos de nossas ansiedades e de nosso egocentrismo.
April 14, 2020
Pēdējā laika pastiprinātā vajadzība visu laiku skatīties ziņas tā nogurdināja, ka izdomāju palasīt kaut ko PAR ziņām.
Tāds neitrāls skats uz to, ko ikdienā vērojam televīzijā, presē, internetā. Ne pārāk dziļa, bet analīze pa kategorijām, kā atšķiras politikas, ekonomikas, laika ziņas. Ko mēs sagaidām no katra segmenta, un arī kā uzlabot šo ziņu veidolu, lai informācija mums būtu ne tikai jauna, bet arī noderīga.
Mūsu dabīgā interese uz stāstiem un visa veida naratīvu dzen mūsu kāri pēc ziņām. Bet tas nenozīmē, ka ziņas būtu jāskatās, pilnīgi pietiek arī ar grāmatām vai citu mediju.
Tāds neitrāls skats uz to, ko ikdienā vērojam televīzijā, presē, internetā. Ne pārāk dziļa, bet analīze pa kategorijām, kā atšķiras politikas, ekonomikas, laika ziņas. Ko mēs sagaidām no katra segmenta, un arī kā uzlabot šo ziņu veidolu, lai informācija mums būtu ne tikai jauna, bet arī noderīga.
Mūsu dabīgā interese uz stāstiem un visa veida naratīvu dzen mūsu kāri pēc ziņām. Bet tas nenozīmē, ka ziņas būtu jāskatās, pilnīgi pietiek arī ar grāmatām vai citu mediju.
June 16, 2018
Speaking as a reformed news junkie, this was the perfect book for me at the time I read it -- a month or so into swearing off the urge to tweet and Facebook every last inane thought that entered my head. I'm back blogging and tweeting and goodreading again, but in a much diminished capacity, and this book gives all the reasons why shunning the news cycle is an eminently sensible thing to do. As de Botton says, trying to understand the complex world around us with soundbites and headlines is like trying to understand a Tolstoy novel one shouted sentence at a time. Smart stuff and an entertaining read.
June 10, 2014
Started well but I was weary of it and de Botton's seemingly repetitive arguments by the end. "Wouldn't it be great if the news was nicer?" He doesn't really tackle why the news is the way it is, or the influence and culture of large news organisations. Crucially, any personal experience or perspective is lacking in comparison to his better works such as The Art of Travel, which makes this a fairly tedious read over the long haul. Also, I usually enjoy his books because I learn about something new to me from them, but this time he only regurgitates some previous tropes wholesale: Flaubert and Madame Bovery, Greek tragedy, etc.
There is some benefit in going over the last chapter though, in which de Botton considers how we might best moderate the more negative influences of an endless diet of "important" news.
There is some benefit in going over the last chapter though, in which de Botton considers how we might best moderate the more negative influences of an endless diet of "important" news.
January 1, 2018
This book studies the effects of the news on modern mentality, viewed through the prism of 25 news stories. Nothing innovative to me, but the writing was informative, clear and perfect for those with even a mild interest in the subject.
December 12, 2014
interesting topic, but shallow. i felt like large portions were unexplored, and the book, merely a compilation of observations. some observations were interesting, but not enough to hold the book together. the first half was definitely better than the latter part (The chapter on Consumption was the worst, the ones on Politics and on World News, the best). nonetheless, i don't regret reading this, as it urges us to think more about the news we consume everyday, and how it might be better presented.
July 27, 2024
"Bizler, hiçbir şeyin kolay kolay değişmediği toplumlarda yaşamış insanların soyundan geliyoruz (eğer bir değişiklik meydana gelebilmişse, bu muhtemelen son derece önemli ve hatta hayatı tehdit edebilecek mahiyette bir değişiklik oluyordu). Yeniliklere karşı bilişsel zaafımız işte bize bu geçmişten miras kalmıştır: Otomatikman yeni olanın ayni zamanda mutlaka önemli olduğunu varsayarız.
Ama her zaman öyle değildir. Haberlerin boyunduruğu altındaki çağımızda akıl sağlığımızı korumak istiyorsak, yenilik ile önemin örtüşen fakat birbirinden tamamen farklı iki kategori olduğunu anlamamız gerekir."
Gündelik olanda gizli felsefeyi bulup çıkarmasını çok sevdiğim Alain de Botton'un "Haberler: Bir Kullanma Kılavuzu" kitabına merakla başladım, doğru sorular sorup kafamı güzel yerlerden karıştıracağını düşünüyordum ama pek öyle olamadı maalesef. Yukarıda alıntıladığım bölüm gibi ilginç, düşündürücü bazı kısımları olmakla beraber, içinde yaşadığımız haber bombardımanı çağının dinamiklerine dair biraz kafa yormuş biriyseniz pek yeni bir şey söylemeyen bir kitap bu maalesef. Ben de gazeteci bir babanın çocuğu ve yakın çevresi gazetecilerle dolu biri olarak aradığımı bulamadım, zira de Botton'un bu kitapta bahsettikleri epey malumun ilamı gibi oldu benim için.
Politika, Dünyadan Haberler, Ekonomi, Ünlüler, Felaket, Tüketim gibi başlıklar altında çeşitli haber kategorilerini inceliyor ve bunların servis edilme biçimlerindeki türlü sorunları ve üzerimizdeki olası etkilerini izah etmeye çalışıyor. Ancak dediğim gibi, pek ilginç bir şey söylemiyor maalesef. Üstelik de zaman zaman fazla naif bir perspektifle yazıyor; "haberler aslında şöyle olsa neler değişirdi" dediği şeylerin çoğu pek de olası değil. Basına ve haberlere özellikle ilk bölümlerde yüklemek istediği misyon da epey problemli bence, bahsettiği iş büyük ölçüde sosyolojinin konusu, basının toplumu tarif ettiği biçimde anlayıp analiz etmesini beklemek bana pek gerçekçi gelmedi.
Neyse, sonuçta pek çok açıdan sorunları olan bir kitap bence bu. Rahat okunuyor, ara ara hoş kısımları da var ama genel olarak kendini çok tekrar eden ve yeni bir şey söylemeyen bir metin. Bu kez olmadı Alain bey, maalesef.
Ama her zaman öyle değildir. Haberlerin boyunduruğu altındaki çağımızda akıl sağlığımızı korumak istiyorsak, yenilik ile önemin örtüşen fakat birbirinden tamamen farklı iki kategori olduğunu anlamamız gerekir."
Gündelik olanda gizli felsefeyi bulup çıkarmasını çok sevdiğim Alain de Botton'un "Haberler: Bir Kullanma Kılavuzu" kitabına merakla başladım, doğru sorular sorup kafamı güzel yerlerden karıştıracağını düşünüyordum ama pek öyle olamadı maalesef. Yukarıda alıntıladığım bölüm gibi ilginç, düşündürücü bazı kısımları olmakla beraber, içinde yaşadığımız haber bombardımanı çağının dinamiklerine dair biraz kafa yormuş biriyseniz pek yeni bir şey söylemeyen bir kitap bu maalesef. Ben de gazeteci bir babanın çocuğu ve yakın çevresi gazetecilerle dolu biri olarak aradığımı bulamadım, zira de Botton'un bu kitapta bahsettikleri epey malumun ilamı gibi oldu benim için.
Politika, Dünyadan Haberler, Ekonomi, Ünlüler, Felaket, Tüketim gibi başlıklar altında çeşitli haber kategorilerini inceliyor ve bunların servis edilme biçimlerindeki türlü sorunları ve üzerimizdeki olası etkilerini izah etmeye çalışıyor. Ancak dediğim gibi, pek ilginç bir şey söylemiyor maalesef. Üstelik de zaman zaman fazla naif bir perspektifle yazıyor; "haberler aslında şöyle olsa neler değişirdi" dediği şeylerin çoğu pek de olası değil. Basına ve haberlere özellikle ilk bölümlerde yüklemek istediği misyon da epey problemli bence, bahsettiği iş büyük ölçüde sosyolojinin konusu, basının toplumu tarif ettiği biçimde anlayıp analiz etmesini beklemek bana pek gerçekçi gelmedi.
Neyse, sonuçta pek çok açıdan sorunları olan bir kitap bence bu. Rahat okunuyor, ara ara hoş kısımları da var ama genel olarak kendini çok tekrar eden ve yeni bir şey söylemeyen bir metin. Bu kez olmadı Alain bey, maalesef.
March 8, 2015
Alain I love you but you were trying to be a philosopher, a writer, a psychologist, and a social commentator in this book and it just ends up in disarray.
The author writes beautifully; every time I read a book of his, my brain involuntarily marvelled at how someone could have such an astute mastery of the Queen's english. It's absolutely enjoyable to read a book that's made of beautiful sentences.
But this book, oh, where should I start. Under its seemingly organised structure, the writing is inconsistent. In some chapters Alain poses a question and provides a solution; in some, he doesn't. In some, he has a clear idea about how to approach a certain type of news; in some, he isn't very sure. The uncertainty is jarring compared to some well-thought-out solutions.
I'm sure the book is well-researched, but not many examples are used in it. Alain plainly explains why such news is such and every such paragraph reads like a conclusion of an academic essay people would never read. Know how we always skip the conclusions. Needless to say, without context, those analyses are hard to swallow.
The entire book is so dry several times I wanted to give up reading. I pressed on but I can't say I liked it very much.
Edit: I saw another review that says the book reads like an essay and I completely agree with that.
The author writes beautifully; every time I read a book of his, my brain involuntarily marvelled at how someone could have such an astute mastery of the Queen's english. It's absolutely enjoyable to read a book that's made of beautiful sentences.
But this book, oh, where should I start. Under its seemingly organised structure, the writing is inconsistent. In some chapters Alain poses a question and provides a solution; in some, he doesn't. In some, he has a clear idea about how to approach a certain type of news; in some, he isn't very sure. The uncertainty is jarring compared to some well-thought-out solutions.
I'm sure the book is well-researched, but not many examples are used in it. Alain plainly explains why such news is such and every such paragraph reads like a conclusion of an academic essay people would never read. Know how we always skip the conclusions. Needless to say, without context, those analyses are hard to swallow.
The entire book is so dry several times I wanted to give up reading. I pressed on but I can't say I liked it very much.
Edit: I saw another review that says the book reads like an essay and I completely agree with that.
February 21, 2020
حقیقت اینه که انتظارم از این کتاب با توجه به کتاب قبلیای که از این نویسنده خونده بودم (جُستارهایی در باب عشق) خیلی بالاتر بود. آلن دو باتن تو کتاب جستارهایی در باب عشق همه مسائل عاطفی موجود در رابطه رو به منطقیترین شکل ممکن بررسی میکنه اما نمیدونم چرا در کتاب اخبارش این شکلی نیست. تو این کتاب (خصوصا فصلای آخر) کاملا در قالب معلم اخلاق فرو میره و مُدام تأکید داره که ما باید از اخبار درس بگیریم. مثلا باید وقتی خبر حوادث غمانگیز مرگ آدمها رو میخونیم به یاد بیاریم که ما انسانها فانی هستیم.
یک نکته منفی دیگه کتاب در نظر من نگاه خیلی ایدهآل گرایانه به اخباره. انتظاری که دو باتن از سازمانهای خبری داره واقعا زیاده! اینکه این سازمانها باید تبدیل به یک جور روانشناس بشن و مخاطبانشان رو دقیق بشناسن و برای بالا بردن سطح تفکر و زندگی مخاطبان تلاش کنن. تو این دنیا با وجود این همه اتفاق و مهمتر از همه سیاستهای کثیفی که در سازمانهای خبری در کل دنیا وجود داره، این خواسته خیلی خیلی بعید و دور به نظر میرسه. و من هم نمیفهمم که فایده گفتنشون تو این کتاب چیه؟ اگه قرار بر اینه که این کتاب راهنمای کاربرانه، چرا حرف از سازمانهای خبری ایدهآل دو باتن هست؟
نمیدونم چون ما ایرانیها به واسطه جامعهمون شهروندان سیاسی شده هستیم و زندگیمون (حتی زندگی روزمرهمون) به اخبار گره خورده، اینجوری فکر میکنم که خیلی چیزهایی که تو این کتاب گفته شده بود (خصوصا تو بخشی که به سیاست ربط داشت) خیلی بدیهی به نظر میرسه یا بقیه مردم جهان هم همین فکر رو دارن؟ یک وقتهایی انگار دو باتن فراموش کرده که در چه عصری زندگی میکنیم و سازمانهای خبری تنها چیزی که اولویتشون نیست، مردمن. تو عصری هستیم که پول حرف اول رو میزنه و سازمانها هم قاعدتا سیاستی رو دنبال میکنن که به پول بیشتری برسن. پس چقدر میشه بهشون اعتماد کرد؟ و تازه امید هم داشت که اوضاعشون بهتر بشه و به نیازهای روانشناختی مخاطبانشون هم توجه کنن!
یک جای دیگهای هم دو باتن میگه نباید زیاد غرق جزئیات حوادث شد چون در آخر این حادثه و مشکل برای ما اتفاق نیفتاده و برای دیگری بوده (هر چند که اتفاق تأثر برانگیزی بوده باشه) اما حقیقت اینه که این موضوع در جامعه ما ایرانیها جوابگو نیست. اتفاقا برای اینکه تغییری اتفاق بیفته باید مُدام حواسمون باشه که فراموش نکنیم چه بلایی سر هموطنانمون افتاده، که انگار اونها هم بخشی از خانواده ما بودن.
در کل به نظرم این کتاب چندان مناسب ما ایرانیها نیست. بیشتر برای غربیهایی که اخبار و سیاست براشون حالت فانتزی داره مناسبه.
——
دنیای امروز به ما آموخته است که راههایی بسیار موذیانهتر و بدبینانهتر از سانسور هم برای تهی کردن مردم از اراده سیاسی وجود دارد؛ راههایی مانند سردرگم کردن، کسل کردن و پرت کردن حواست اکثر مردم از طریق ارائه خبرها به نحوی بینظم، متفرق و متناوب، به طوری که اکثر مخاطبان قادر نباشند حتی برای مدتی کوتاه مهمترین مسائل را دنبال کنند.
ص۳۰
یک نکته منفی دیگه کتاب در نظر من نگاه خیلی ایدهآل گرایانه به اخباره. انتظاری که دو باتن از سازمانهای خبری داره واقعا زیاده! اینکه این سازمانها باید تبدیل به یک جور روانشناس بشن و مخاطبانشان رو دقیق بشناسن و برای بالا بردن سطح تفکر و زندگی مخاطبان تلاش کنن. تو این دنیا با وجود این همه اتفاق و مهمتر از همه سیاستهای کثیفی که در سازمانهای خبری در کل دنیا وجود داره، این خواسته خیلی خیلی بعید و دور به نظر میرسه. و من هم نمیفهمم که فایده گفتنشون تو این کتاب چیه؟ اگه قرار بر اینه که این کتاب راهنمای کاربرانه، چرا حرف از سازمانهای خبری ایدهآل دو باتن هست؟
نمیدونم چون ما ایرانیها به واسطه جامعهمون شهروندان سیاسی شده هستیم و زندگیمون (حتی زندگی روزمرهمون) به اخبار گره خورده، اینجوری فکر میکنم که خیلی چیزهایی که تو این کتاب گفته شده بود (خصوصا تو بخشی که به سیاست ربط داشت) خیلی بدیهی به نظر میرسه یا بقیه مردم جهان هم همین فکر رو دارن؟ یک وقتهایی انگار دو باتن فراموش کرده که در چه عصری زندگی میکنیم و سازمانهای خبری تنها چیزی که اولویتشون نیست، مردمن. تو عصری هستیم که پول حرف اول رو میزنه و سازمانها هم قاعدتا سیاستی رو دنبال میکنن که به پول بیشتری برسن. پس چقدر میشه بهشون اعتماد کرد؟ و تازه امید هم داشت که اوضاعشون بهتر بشه و به نیازهای روانشناختی مخاطبانشون هم توجه کنن!
یک جای دیگهای هم دو باتن میگه نباید زیاد غرق جزئیات حوادث شد چون در آخر این حادثه و مشکل برای ما اتفاق نیفتاده و برای دیگری بوده (هر چند که اتفاق تأثر برانگیزی بوده باشه) اما حقیقت اینه که این موضوع در جامعه ما ایرانیها جوابگو نیست. اتفاقا برای اینکه تغییری اتفاق بیفته باید مُدام حواسمون باشه که فراموش نکنیم چه بلایی سر هموطنانمون افتاده، که انگار اونها هم بخشی از خانواده ما بودن.
در کل به نظرم این کتاب چندان مناسب ما ایرانیها نیست. بیشتر برای غربیهایی که اخبار و سیاست براشون حالت فانتزی داره مناسبه.
——
دنیای امروز به ما آموخته است که راههایی بسیار موذیانهتر و بدبینانهتر از سانسور هم برای تهی کردن مردم از اراده سیاسی وجود دارد؛ راههایی مانند سردرگم کردن، کسل کردن و پرت کردن حواست اکثر مردم از طریق ارائه خبرها به نحوی بینظم، متفرق و متناوب، به طوری که اکثر مخاطبان قادر نباشند حتی برای مدتی کوتاه مهمترین مسائل را دنبال کنند.
ص۳۰
February 9, 2014
Alain de Botton is a modern-day philosopher who has tried to make the examination of topics as diverse as Religion, Happiness, Proust and Travel accessible to a wider audience. In his latest book, de Botton tackles the all-pervading concept of The News which he considers to occupy a position of power and influence comparable to that previously held by faith and religion in earlier civilizations.
In this user’s manual, de Botton delves into how the media deals with politics, economics, disasters, consumerism and world news. In particular, he casts an interesting light on the way the media handles celebrity, theorising that a person’s search for fame is merely a desire for the respect and kindness that was initially lost through rejection in childhood. He asks wide-ranging questions as to what should the news ideally be? What deep needs should it be catering for? How can news optimally enrich us?
de Botton notes also how technology is changing the way we interact with news so that it is becoming a more personalised medium where rather than having the news pushed at us, we are filtering the news according to our own interests. But he also warns that we should not become too obsessed with the 24/7 accessibility to news and allow time to contemplate our own thoughts as well.
If, as de Botton suggests, the news is the new religion, then this worthy and topical book is an important read for our times.
Written for the Book Trust January 2014
In this user’s manual, de Botton delves into how the media deals with politics, economics, disasters, consumerism and world news. In particular, he casts an interesting light on the way the media handles celebrity, theorising that a person’s search for fame is merely a desire for the respect and kindness that was initially lost through rejection in childhood. He asks wide-ranging questions as to what should the news ideally be? What deep needs should it be catering for? How can news optimally enrich us?
de Botton notes also how technology is changing the way we interact with news so that it is becoming a more personalised medium where rather than having the news pushed at us, we are filtering the news according to our own interests. But he also warns that we should not become too obsessed with the 24/7 accessibility to news and allow time to contemplate our own thoughts as well.
If, as de Botton suggests, the news is the new religion, then this worthy and topical book is an important read for our times.
Written for the Book Trust January 2014
November 18, 2014
Alain de Botton is again brilliant in The News: A User's Manual. He discusses how politics, economics, and disasters are covered by the media - or rather mis-covered. He encourages more narrative in news and less "objectivity" which he points out is almost nonexistent in today's news which is usually deeply biased. A quote:
"A contemporary dictator wishing to establish power would not need to do anything so obviously sinister as banning the news: he or she would only have to see to it that news organizations broadcast a flow of random-sounding bulletins, in great numbers but with little explanation of context, within an agenda that keeps changing without giving any sense of the ongoing relevance of the issue that seemed pressing only a short while before, the whole interspersed with constant updates about the colorful antics of murderers and film stars. This would be quite enough to undermine most people's capacity to grasp political reality -- as well as any resolve they might otherwise have summoned to alter it. The status quo could confidently remain forever undisturbed by a flood of rather than a ban on, news."
"A contemporary dictator wishing to establish power would not need to do anything so obviously sinister as banning the news: he or she would only have to see to it that news organizations broadcast a flow of random-sounding bulletins, in great numbers but with little explanation of context, within an agenda that keeps changing without giving any sense of the ongoing relevance of the issue that seemed pressing only a short while before, the whole interspersed with constant updates about the colorful antics of murderers and film stars. This would be quite enough to undermine most people's capacity to grasp political reality -- as well as any resolve they might otherwise have summoned to alter it. The status quo could confidently remain forever undisturbed by a flood of rather than a ban on, news."
January 4, 2021
The best parts of this book are the ideas of other people: Hegel, George Eliot, etc. Credit is due for having some good taste there.
Mostly this book reminds me of Bill Burr's routine about Steve Jobs and how he just told other people what to invent. The author would like for journalists and news organizations to do a lot of things better, basically to approach their topics in a more probing literary or artistic fashion. He isn't doing that himself or showing how they should do it or creating a space for it to happen, it would just be nice if they did. Okay, and I'd like a pony for my kids while we're wishing for things.
Mostly this book reminds me of Bill Burr's routine about Steve Jobs and how he just told other people what to invent. The author would like for journalists and news organizations to do a lot of things better, basically to approach their topics in a more probing literary or artistic fashion. He isn't doing that himself or showing how they should do it or creating a space for it to happen, it would just be nice if they did. Okay, and I'd like a pony for my kids while we're wishing for things.
February 11, 2014
Took me two days to read and it feels like that's how long it took to write. I thought there might be some material in it that would be useful for school, and there was a bit, but it's very, very slight. I can imagine that journalists would be infuriated by this, as de Botton just doesn't seem to know enough about the media that he thinks needs to be reformed.
March 14, 2014
Dear Alain, your most recent work is a cut way above that book you wrote about spending time at the airport (LHR?). In fact, I would recommend your latest as highly entertaining material during a monotonous trans-Atlantic flight. Nice assortment of fascinating excerpts, framed by your usual wit and philosophical insights. I agree with what you said recently, "The news takes us to the edge of something deeply interesting – but then abandons us at the process Aristotle calls catharsis -- that explains the background anxiety that the news consistently creates." You're an expert on anxiety (five stars for your book Status Anxiety), deconstructing the news from literary and industrial viewpoints, as well as, my recent addiction to personalized Google news. Oui, Flaubert nailed it in Le Dictionnaire des idées reçues. Thanks for shedding light on my psychological impulse to absorb the horrors of the world while contemplating the emptiness left behind by unresolved tragedy, universally due to the cyclical human condition which never ceases to amaze all of us. More news promises to fill that emptiness, but its implicit failure to do so is why news is such a perpetuating mechanism. [In the second edition, please add an epilogue with your analysis as to why Reddit draws so much reader traffic. I suspect it must be because of the photos which are absolutely revelatory (as opposed as merely collaborative) news.] In closing, I should register my disagreement regarding your Hegelian premise that news occupies religion’s former place in society. More precisely, religion has been displaced by the technology which brings us the news among other very distracting things at a hyper-pace, leaving us very little time to reflect on the essence of living a non-virtual (virtuous :-) life. We have come to worship ourselves, smartphones as totems, more than godheads. Tweet back soon from your "Atheism 2.0" church.
December 15, 2017
Absolutely crucial. We do need instructions on how to deal with the news. It is not neutral. Here are two quotes I loved:
“Though anger seems a pessimistic response to a situation, it is at root a symptom of hope: the hope that the world can be better than it is. The man who shouts every time he loses his house keys is betraying a beautiful but rash faith in a universe in which keys never go astray. The woman who grows furious every time a politician breaks an election promise reveals a precariously utopian belief that elections do not involve deceit. The news shouldn’t eliminate angry responses; but it should help us to be angry for the right reasons, to the right degree, for the right length of time – and as part of a constructive project. And whenever this isn’t possible, then the news should help us with mourning the twisted nature of man and reconciling us to the difficulty of being able to imagine perfection while still not managing to secure it – for a range of stupid but nevertheless unbudgeable reasons.”
“Applied to the news , having perspective involves an ability to compare an apparently traumatic event in the present with the experiences of humanity across the whole of its history – in order to work out what level of attention and fear it should fairly demand. With perspective in mind, we soon realize that – contrary to what the news suggests – hardly anything is totally novel, few things are truly amazing and very little is absolutely terrible.”
“Though anger seems a pessimistic response to a situation, it is at root a symptom of hope: the hope that the world can be better than it is. The man who shouts every time he loses his house keys is betraying a beautiful but rash faith in a universe in which keys never go astray. The woman who grows furious every time a politician breaks an election promise reveals a precariously utopian belief that elections do not involve deceit. The news shouldn’t eliminate angry responses; but it should help us to be angry for the right reasons, to the right degree, for the right length of time – and as part of a constructive project. And whenever this isn’t possible, then the news should help us with mourning the twisted nature of man and reconciling us to the difficulty of being able to imagine perfection while still not managing to secure it – for a range of stupid but nevertheless unbudgeable reasons.”
“Applied to the news , having perspective involves an ability to compare an apparently traumatic event in the present with the experiences of humanity across the whole of its history – in order to work out what level of attention and fear it should fairly demand. With perspective in mind, we soon realize that – contrary to what the news suggests – hardly anything is totally novel, few things are truly amazing and very little is absolutely terrible.”
March 25, 2014
I was not impressed by The News the same way as by de Bottons’ other titles. His analysis of the news and newspapers is very predictable. Practically many of us are on the same page, but there were no new insights or revelations. Yes, we are surrounded by news that superficial, sensational and very often misleading. Yes, we are addicted to gossips, consumerism and envy from the news. With new technology it is easy to drown in the endless ocean of news. The problem is where to stop, whom to believe, and not to be affected easily by the information. With so many important events happening around us the news are more powerful than ever, but we have a new power to choose what to digest and where to stop.
February 18, 2014
As always, after finishing one of Alain de Botton's books, you look up with a fresh perspective on something that had seemed sorted and steady in your mind; the world seems to be a slightly brighter and more interesting place. Here he takes on that multi-headed behemoth, the Media, and slowly dissects it and its relationship with us so that we can better understand its motivations and faults. A very good read, well narrated, though the production (the music, and the constant interruptive numbers) was slightly distracting.
August 1, 2017
Appropriately enough, I read ‘The News: A User’s Manual’ during a weekend of news-avoidance. There has been too much news lately and it stresses me out to constantly confront the apparent collapse of society, the economy, and the environment thanks to Brexit, Trump, and climate change (to name but the three main headings of news I read). I recommend completely avoiding the news at weekends as a relaxation technique. This is probably easier if, like me, you hate smart phones and don’t have a TV. Anyway, Alain de Botton agrees that the news is hard to deal with and accordingly he has advice. I don’t disagree with his analyses as such, however I find his tone ever-so-slightly patronising. Perhaps because he always sounds so calmly definite, like a textbook. That fits with the description of the book as a manual, of course. However, it jibes with my personal taste for hedging, qualifying statements, and admitting to uncertainty. De Botton sounds so damn comfortably sure about everything! What must that be like? It’s a personal preference, in any event, and did not detract more than marginally from my appreciation of the book. (Notice the hedging there - apparently an introvert characteristic.)
De Botton’s manual uses a range of examples, covering most subcategories of news that confronts us daily. Or at least did until a last year, when ‘implosion of US’ and ‘implosion of UK’ came to merit their own subsections. In each case, he invites the reader to consider the story’s deeper meaning, wider context, and how it could be structured or presented more usefully. There are wise and well-expressed comments to be found amongst these short chapters. A couple that especially struck me:
One rather delightful thing I learned from this book was Flaubert’s intense antipathy towards the news, which he skewered in a posthumously published 'Dictionary of Received Ideas'. De Botton quotes the following samples:
He then suggests some additional clichés more suited to a hundred and fifty years later:
I’m not sure that the De Botton approach is sufficiently robust to deal with the current febrile insanity of the news, which gives the relentless impression of constant and unstoppable chaotic collapse. Nor do his generally sensible suggestions for its improvement seem remotely likely to eventuate. At times, I think total avoidance of news is the only way to prevent yourself being overwhelmed. Nonetheless, I found this book a thoughtful and interesting perspective on how we experience news and how it could it made better. The edition I read was also rather beautiful, with visible page stitching and pleasing use of red ink for italics.
De Botton’s manual uses a range of examples, covering most subcategories of news that confronts us daily. Or at least did until a last year, when ‘implosion of US’ and ‘implosion of UK’ came to merit their own subsections. In each case, he invites the reader to consider the story’s deeper meaning, wider context, and how it could be structured or presented more usefully. There are wise and well-expressed comments to be found amongst these short chapters. A couple that especially struck me:
Societies become modern, the philosopher Hegel suggested, when news replaces religion as our central source of guidance and our touchstone of authority. In the developed economies, the news now occupies a position of power at least equal to that formerly enjoyed by the faiths. [...] But the news doesn’t just follow a quasi-religious timetable. It also demands that we approach it with some of the same deferential expectations we would once have harboured of the faiths. Here, too, we hope to receive revelations, learn who is good and bad, fathom suffering and understand the unfolding logic of existence.
[...]
Herein rests an enormous and largely uncomprehended power: the power to assemble the picture that citizens end up having of one another; the power to dictate what our idea of ‘other people’ will be like; the power to invent a nation in our imaginations.
This power is so significant because the stories the new deploys end up having a self-determining effect. If we are regularly told that many of our countrymen are crazed and violent, we will be filled with fear and distrust whenever we go outside. If we receive subtle messages that money and status matter above all, we will feel humiliated by ordinary life. If it’s implied that all politicians lie, we’ll quietly put our idealism and innocence aside and mock every one of their plans and pronouncements. And if we’re told that the economy is the most important indicator of fulfilment and that it will be a disaster for a decade at least, we will be unable to face reality with much confidence ever again.
One rather delightful thing I learned from this book was Flaubert’s intense antipathy towards the news, which he skewered in a posthumously published 'Dictionary of Received Ideas'. De Botton quotes the following samples:
BUDGET Never balanced.
CHRISTIANITY Freed the slaves.
EXERCISE Prevents all illnesses. To be recommended at all times.
PHOTOGRAPHY Will make painting obsolete.
He then suggests some additional clichés more suited to a hundred and fifty years later:
3D PRINTING In future, everything will be 3D-printed. Express surprise and awe at the prospect.
INTERNET Has made concentration impossible. So hard now to read long novels.
MANDARIN Language of the future.
I’m not sure that the De Botton approach is sufficiently robust to deal with the current febrile insanity of the news, which gives the relentless impression of constant and unstoppable chaotic collapse. Nor do his generally sensible suggestions for its improvement seem remotely likely to eventuate. At times, I think total avoidance of news is the only way to prevent yourself being overwhelmed. Nonetheless, I found this book a thoughtful and interesting perspective on how we experience news and how it could it made better. The edition I read was also rather beautiful, with visible page stitching and pleasing use of red ink for italics.
February 14, 2024
I deeply recommend this if you are thinking about Taylor Swift and the media obsession with her, if you are debating whether to leave social media or go all out and become a creator as well... Or if you are just generally curious about the impact of the media as an audience member.
As a media nerd I loved it! It was really good at illuminating the problems with media - digital or traditional - and how we can all see how it weaves with things like kindness in a society to parenting styles.
As a media nerd I loved it! It was really good at illuminating the problems with media - digital or traditional - and how we can all see how it weaves with things like kindness in a society to parenting styles.
March 28, 2014
(More to come later at www.fictionalskills.com).
I'm a huge Alain de Botton fan. I've read 11 of his books. That's why I'm giving this book 3 (really 3.5) stars. De Botton takes the best bits of his previous books and applies them to "The News." The book lacked the original research and observations about the specific, eponymous topic that I love so much in his other work. "The buildings we love reflect qualities we want to see in ourselves," an idea I adore in "The Architecture of Happiness," seems sloppily applied to the idea of consumption: "The foods we eat reflect qualities we hope to embody," and is far less appealing, especially when I think of the Trailer Park Torchy's Tacos I eagerly gobbled down yesterday.
Alain de Botton would argue that the tacos represent my desire to be more carefree, meticulously thrown together, relaxed, which is probably true, but I'm more willing to indulge intense self-reflection when looking up at buildings than down at my plate.
The Philosophers Mail, the book's spin-off project, gets consumption better than the book does. That said, I don't see The Philosopher's Mail implementing some of the ideas I loved most in the book: where is my deep story about a big business; my Dostoevskian murder that sets me at ease with my relatively sane self; a mudslide that humbles me and my wounded ego in the grand scheme of mother nature?
Those ideas, and many others, are incredibly helpful. The disaster section calms me as I prepare to board a plane in the wake of MH370 to East Africa (as De Botton does himself in the book; why he goes to Uganda I'm still not sure). He convinces me that if the news learned from the arts, it would be more meaningful. But why is it meaningful now? Why even bother with the BBC and CNN and even The Philosopher's Mail if Tolstoy and Flaubert can teach me everything I need to know? This book is missing a key chapter: "The news is important. It should be more like art, but we can't live on art alone. Here's why."
I'm a huge Alain de Botton fan. I've read 11 of his books. That's why I'm giving this book 3 (really 3.5) stars. De Botton takes the best bits of his previous books and applies them to "The News." The book lacked the original research and observations about the specific, eponymous topic that I love so much in his other work. "The buildings we love reflect qualities we want to see in ourselves," an idea I adore in "The Architecture of Happiness," seems sloppily applied to the idea of consumption: "The foods we eat reflect qualities we hope to embody," and is far less appealing, especially when I think of the Trailer Park Torchy's Tacos I eagerly gobbled down yesterday.
Alain de Botton would argue that the tacos represent my desire to be more carefree, meticulously thrown together, relaxed, which is probably true, but I'm more willing to indulge intense self-reflection when looking up at buildings than down at my plate.
The Philosophers Mail, the book's spin-off project, gets consumption better than the book does. That said, I don't see The Philosopher's Mail implementing some of the ideas I loved most in the book: where is my deep story about a big business; my Dostoevskian murder that sets me at ease with my relatively sane self; a mudslide that humbles me and my wounded ego in the grand scheme of mother nature?
Those ideas, and many others, are incredibly helpful. The disaster section calms me as I prepare to board a plane in the wake of MH370 to East Africa (as De Botton does himself in the book; why he goes to Uganda I'm still not sure). He convinces me that if the news learned from the arts, it would be more meaningful. But why is it meaningful now? Why even bother with the BBC and CNN and even The Philosopher's Mail if Tolstoy and Flaubert can teach me everything I need to know? This book is missing a key chapter: "The news is important. It should be more like art, but we can't live on art alone. Here's why."
February 11, 2020
Uau. Todos os cidadãos que desejam estar devidamente informados deveriam ler este livro.
Relacionado: https://fuiprocrastinar.blogs.sapo.pt...
Relacionado: https://fuiprocrastinar.blogs.sapo.pt...
January 25, 2025
نویسنده در مقدمه از تاثیر اخبار بر ذهنیت خوانندگان میگه و اینکه اعتیاد به اخبار میتونه از بدترین انواع اعتیاد باشه.
در قسمت سیاستها میخونیم که حقیقت چیزی نیس که نسخهی کمی ازش باشه، و اخبار به ما از «همهی» زوایای خبری آگاهی رسانی نمیکنه و صرفن چیزی رو نشر میده که طرفدار بیشتری داره و کنجکاوی بیشتری رو تحریک میکنه (هر چه وحشتناکتر و جنایتکارانهتر، بهتر) ؛ و به همین صورت به دنبال کنندگان اخبار دیکته میشه که درباره موضوع یا شخص خاصی چطور فکر کنند. انسان میتونه کم و بیش با هر کسی همدردی کنه یا به حد انزجار متنفر بشه، اگر داستان زندگی او به روشی خاص تعریف بشه.
بر اساس این باور که نبود اخبار سیاه ممکن است ملت را دچار توهم نادیده گرفتن مشکلات خود کنند و احمقانه از خود احساس رضایت کنند، اکثر مواقع بخش منفی و نیمه خالی لیوان به ما نشان داده میشه و بعضی خبرها علیرغم طبیعی بودن، غیر ممکن جلوه داده می��ن.
اخبار از بیماریها، تصادفات و مرگ میگه ولی هیچگاه به ما نمیگه که در مقابل، کسی هم انتظار نداره تا ابد عمر کنه و هر کدوم ازین اتفاقات یه راه برای پایان دادن به عمر محدود ماست و نیازی به ترس و وحشت نیست. و اگر این حقیقتِ به شدت فرّار که اکثر اتفاقات ناامیدکننده هستن رو پیشفرض ذهنی خود قرار داده و مدام به خود یادآوری کنیم، کمتر دچار هراس میشیم.
از نقاشی معروف «سقوط ایکاروس» یاد میکنه با این مفهوم که به دلیل مردن کسی، زندگی متوقف نمیشه.
در قسمت سلبریتیها میگه اینکه اخبار بجای تحلیل دقیق مسیری که دیگران طی کردند موفقیتها و دستاوردهاشون رو شانسی و اسرارآمیز نشون میده فقط باعث حس حسادت، هراس، بیتحرکی و انفعال در خوانندگان میشه.
تمایل دیوانهوار به شهرت رو تحلیل میکنه و میبینیم که ریشههای اون برمیگرده به محرومیت عاطفی و نادیده انگاشته شدن فرد در کودکی و اینکه حتا کسب شهرت بندرت آثار تحقیر در کودکی را اصلاح میکنه.
در قسمت مصرفگرایی، میخونیم که برای مثال بخش اصلی تمایل به رفتن به یک رستوران این است که انسان ارزش های آن رستوران را کسب کند و با رفتن به آنجا میخواهد برای خود مقام و موقعیتی خاص قائل شود و به شکل مبهمی شبیه به آن شود!
و در آخر باز این حقیقت تکرار میشه که ما نیاز داریم از افکار جنگ، اعتصاب، موشکها، رکود اقتصادی و اهمیت عصری که در آن زندگی میکنم رهایی یابیم و به زندگی کردن مشغول شویم.
در قسمت سیاستها میخونیم که حقیقت چیزی نیس که نسخهی کمی ازش باشه، و اخبار به ما از «همهی» زوایای خبری آگاهی رسانی نمیکنه و صرفن چیزی رو نشر میده که طرفدار بیشتری داره و کنجکاوی بیشتری رو تحریک میکنه (هر چه وحشتناکتر و جنایتکارانهتر، بهتر) ؛ و به همین صورت به دنبال کنندگان اخبار دیکته میشه که درباره موضوع یا شخص خاصی چطور فکر کنند. انسان میتونه کم و بیش با هر کسی همدردی کنه یا به حد انزجار متنفر بشه، اگر داستان زندگی او به روشی خاص تعریف بشه.
بر اساس این باور که نبود اخبار سیاه ممکن است ملت را دچار توهم نادیده گرفتن مشکلات خود کنند و احمقانه از خود احساس رضایت کنند، اکثر مواقع بخش منفی و نیمه خالی لیوان به ما نشان داده میشه و بعضی خبرها علیرغم طبیعی بودن، غیر ممکن جلوه داده می��ن.
اخبار از بیماریها، تصادفات و مرگ میگه ولی هیچگاه به ما نمیگه که در مقابل، کسی هم انتظار نداره تا ابد عمر کنه و هر کدوم ازین اتفاقات یه راه برای پایان دادن به عمر محدود ماست و نیازی به ترس و وحشت نیست. و اگر این حقیقتِ به شدت فرّار که اکثر اتفاقات ناامیدکننده هستن رو پیشفرض ذهنی خود قرار داده و مدام به خود یادآوری کنیم، کمتر دچار هراس میشیم.
از نقاشی معروف «سقوط ایکاروس» یاد میکنه با این مفهوم که به دلیل مردن کسی، زندگی متوقف نمیشه.
در قسمت سلبریتیها میگه اینکه اخبار بجای تحلیل دقیق مسیری که دیگران طی کردند موفقیتها و دستاوردهاشون رو شانسی و اسرارآمیز نشون میده فقط باعث حس حسادت، هراس، بیتحرکی و انفعال در خوانندگان میشه.
تمایل دیوانهوار به شهرت رو تحلیل میکنه و میبینیم که ریشههای اون برمیگرده به محرومیت عاطفی و نادیده انگاشته شدن فرد در کودکی و اینکه حتا کسب شهرت بندرت آثار تحقیر در کودکی را اصلاح میکنه.
در قسمت مصرفگرایی، میخونیم که برای مثال بخش اصلی تمایل به رفتن به یک رستوران این است که انسان ارزش های آن رستوران را کسب کند و با رفتن به آنجا میخواهد برای خود مقام و موقعیتی خاص قائل شود و به شکل مبهمی شبیه به آن شود!
و در آخر باز این حقیقت تکرار میشه که ما نیاز داریم از افکار جنگ، اعتصاب، موشکها، رکود اقتصادی و اهمیت عصری که در آن زندگی میکنم رهایی یابیم و به زندگی کردن مشغول شویم.
July 16, 2014
This book was recommended to me by the Sacramento (CA) Public Library's new Personalized Recommendation System. It was the first book I tried, and I was wonderfully delighted!
A. de Botton, with a philosophy background, covers each section of the news: Politics, World News, Celebrity, Disaster, and Consumption. He first offers illustrations of headlines or stories, giving us food for thought. He then proceeds to analyze the reasons these articles are chosen for the news; these are not simply "to get the ads," as I had previously thought!
A. de Botton then goes on to analyze the psychological reasons why each article was chosen, and why it was written in the specific way it was. For example, if a starlet is robbed, many aspects could be emphasized. He may explain that the article is included in order for us to feel more comfortable in our ordinary life roles--after all, if a starlet can be robbed, then we are not so badly off in our dangerous neighborhoods, after all!
The analyses are ezquisite! I love his writing style. And each chapter includes the "ideal" section: how the newspaper or tabloid would write the stories if they were in the best interest of the entire public. This gives aspiring journalists a moral/ethical compass to guide them in their training!
Excellent book! 5 stars! To be read by all bright teens and adults in society!
A. de Botton, with a philosophy background, covers each section of the news: Politics, World News, Celebrity, Disaster, and Consumption. He first offers illustrations of headlines or stories, giving us food for thought. He then proceeds to analyze the reasons these articles are chosen for the news; these are not simply "to get the ads," as I had previously thought!
A. de Botton then goes on to analyze the psychological reasons why each article was chosen, and why it was written in the specific way it was. For example, if a starlet is robbed, many aspects could be emphasized. He may explain that the article is included in order for us to feel more comfortable in our ordinary life roles--after all, if a starlet can be robbed, then we are not so badly off in our dangerous neighborhoods, after all!
The analyses are ezquisite! I love his writing style. And each chapter includes the "ideal" section: how the newspaper or tabloid would write the stories if they were in the best interest of the entire public. This gives aspiring journalists a moral/ethical compass to guide them in their training!
Excellent book! 5 stars! To be read by all bright teens and adults in society!
Read
July 30, 2014Dissapointing two stars book.
It was just such a simplistic take on the theme. The general theme is, wouldn't it be great if news were not so boring, written like literature, educated the masses on economy, humane in giving celebrity gossip, etc; please add your own idealistic gripe. To which, the only sensible response would be, "well, yes... so?"
Everything were discussed fleetingly, even the caution about news being dictated by advertisement, a crucial subject that I've read partially on Noam Chomsky's book, was only given perfunctory finger wagging text. There's even a stray note on architecture, how it represents the society, just like the news! Only, the example was again ridiculously simplistic. Studying architecture of a harbour should show us all we need to know about its community; neglecting time, style, capital, globalisation. It's better to take that out.
Of course not all books should delve deep. There is such thing as introductory book, perhaps this description fits the book better. Though it would be better if introductory book inspires reader to find out more about the subject instead of plunging them into apathetic meh. It would be a whole lot better if it's not so boring to read.
It was just such a simplistic take on the theme. The general theme is, wouldn't it be great if news were not so boring, written like literature, educated the masses on economy, humane in giving celebrity gossip, etc; please add your own idealistic gripe. To which, the only sensible response would be, "well, yes... so?"
Everything were discussed fleetingly, even the caution about news being dictated by advertisement, a crucial subject that I've read partially on Noam Chomsky's book, was only given perfunctory finger wagging text. There's even a stray note on architecture, how it represents the society, just like the news! Only, the example was again ridiculously simplistic. Studying architecture of a harbour should show us all we need to know about its community; neglecting time, style, capital, globalisation. It's better to take that out.
Of course not all books should delve deep. There is such thing as introductory book, perhaps this description fits the book better. Though it would be better if introductory book inspires reader to find out more about the subject instead of plunging them into apathetic meh. It would be a whole lot better if it's not so boring to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 440 reviews