The News: A User's Manual

“Despite flaws in his expectations of journalism, de Botton makes a number of astute observations about modern media.”

In the mistitled The News: A User’s Manual, author Alain de Botton provides not a user’s guide but a polemical tract on the aims and effects of modern journalism. Some of de Botton’s philosophy offers intelligent insights on the news and how we consume it. But at times, he seems to misunderstand journalism’s role and limitations.

The author organizes his book into chapters about what he sees as the main topics of the news: Politics, World News, Economics, Celebrity, Disaster, and Consumption. Under each of these headings he presents thoughts on why the media focus on that subject, the impact of the coverage, and how that coverage might improve.

His analysis of journalism’s impact usually makes sense, but he tends toward the unrealistic when he recommends ways to improve coverage. For example, in a subsection titled Fear and Anger, de Botton points out that what we see on the news often scares us or makes us angry. No one would argue with that.

The author further says: “The news shouldn’t eliminate angry responses; but it should help us be angry for the right reasons.” So far so good. But then he adds, “Wherever this isn’t possible, then the news should help us with mourning the twisted nature of man. ”

Man’s innate flaws might make a good op-ed topic from time to time. But beyond the occasional opinion piece, mourning human nature becomes a job for ministers and scholars. Hard to imagine the editor who wants to go that deep into theology and philosophy every day.

And in the Consumption chapter, de Botton observes that consumer news often comes under the following headings: Dining, Travel, Technology, Fashion. True enough; we see those sections in newspapers all the time. But he suggests: “A fairer and richer assessment of our needs would group consumer news stories under rather different headings: Conviviality, Calm, Resilience, Rationality.”

If you work in journalism, go suggest that to your editor. I dare you.

Though de Botton has been a newspaper columnist and TV presenter, at times he doesn’t appear familiar with the gritty workings of day-to-day deadline journalism. In the Politics chapter, for instance, he states: “In serious journalistic quarters, bias has a very bad name. . . . Yet we should be perhaps more generous toward bias. . . . Bias strives to explain what events mean and introduces a scale of values by which to judge ideas and events.”

Here the author seems to confuse bias with news judgment. In journalists’ gatekeeper function, they make judgments every hour about what events mean. But that function doesn’t necessarily force them to take sides.

As de Botton imagines a better journalism, he sometimes sets the bar impractically high. In the World News chapter, he suggests that the media present portrayals of normal life in foreign countries, so viewers and readers will have better context for the abnormal: the bombings, disease outbreaks, and other disasters that often make up foreign news. The author says: “Having learned something about street parties in Addis Ababa, love in Peru and in-laws in Mongolia, audiences would be prepared to care just a little more about the next devastating typhoon or violent coup.” 

But how many people will sit through a documentary on street parties in Addis Ababa? And everybody knows it’s bad if a storm washes away your house.

In the chapter on Celebrity, de Botton says the news “shouldn’t pretend that it is normal to present an audience with repeated evidence of the accomplishments of the most energetic and inventive members of the species and not expect that it will be driven a little crazy as a result.” He goes on to say that editors “carefully (and sadistically)” keep us from realizing very few people will attain celebrity and success.

During my journalism career, I experienced a few sadistic editors, but none who had the time to manipulate the audience that way. They were normally scrambling just to meet the next deadline. And we all understand that what makes the news is the unusual. Man bites dog, and all that. Reporters tell us what’s out of the ordinary. Parents, teachers, friends, and society at large teach us what is (or is supposed to be) ordinary.

Despite flaws in his expectations of journalism, de Botton makes a number of astute observations about modern media. He cites Gustave Flaubert’s The Dictionary of Received Ideas, published in the 19th century, which noted that newspapers put lots of facts into the hands of everyone—including those with narrow minds. The author says, “The news had, for Flaubert, armed stupidity and given authority to fools.” Flaubert would be horrified to see what fools can do with blogs and podcasts.

Perhaps the most relevant observations come when de Botton addresses the personalization of media. He notes that technology promises to let our computers sift through the media for stories tailored to our own tastes. Already we can choose websites and talk shows that tell us only what we want to hear, leading to partisan echo chambers.

De Botton states: “Far from helping us to develop a rich and complex individuality, ‘personalised news’ might end up aggravating our pathologies and condemning us to mediocrity.”

Look to the American Congress for proof of that statement.