Weekly poll #1 results


For last week’s poll we asked you to share how you felt about the following statement:

You can never have too much news.

perceptive_vegetable said: "I agree because even if there was news in India, England, Romania, Italy, Spain all at the same time no one can stop that so I agree."

generous_lime said: "I'm in the middle because whenever you want to know about something, you will never get to know each and everything about it, some things about it will be left untold but you can say that you have enough news when it is enough for you to judge the situation judiciously."

generous_physics said "I disagree because then you will have way too much news."

The results are in and here's what you thought:

week 1 results!

There are so many different places that we can find out about the news – for example, social media, websites, television channels and newspapers. In fact, the news is in so many places that sometimes we can’t choose when we hear about it and when we don't.

Because of covid-19, the amount people looking for news has increased. Many people have also developed a habit of “doomscrolling” – spending a lot of time scrolling through bad or sad news.

This got us thinking about whether or not it’s possible to have too much news. What do you think?

Comments (12)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • I put I'm in the middle. I did this because sometimes when I get news I like to process it all before I get more. So If I got lots in one go, I would not be able to think and focus on one thing.

    1. I agree because it is important to process the news and to generate your opinions and develop critical thinking base on decent amount of information.

    2. I'm not sure about this because... I don't believe that thinking and focusing on one thing will be relevant to this topic. I believe this because as the topic question is: "Do you think that there is anything called to much news", don't you believe that one can say a statement that is worded a little differently.
      I don't mean to be insulting you, but I just don't understand the message which you are trying to convey.
      After all, a reader should also understand your point. Right?

      Don't you agree?

    3. I object to your words, as it is not necessary to focus on all the news and analyze it, but rather focus on what is useful to us in our lives. News programs provide news for all types and classes of society. They provide news that may not interest you, but it is of interest to another group of society. Stock market news does not benefit the farmer, but it benefits the investors Thus, the news does not present a classified, but you have to categorize what is important to you and focus on it, and then the news that is important to you will be less, so you can see more of it.

    4. That's interesting that you say that you put that you're in the middle. Why didn't you put disagree?

    5. Good explanation quickwitted_tamarind. Can you explain more by what you mean when you process the news before you get more? Do you go away and research the news topic further or discuss it with friends/peers?

  • I put dissagre because then you will be way too much news

    1. I'm not sure about this because... what do you mean to say by "then you will be way too much news" because someone cant physically be news but they can be on the news.

      Do you agree?

      1. Great way to generate discussion illuminated_newspaper. You have used our problem-solving skill!

        1. Thank you for being so considerate with the star and providing me that positive boost. I am really grateful. Thank you again.

    2. Thanks for commenting, tell me what you mean by way too much news.

    3. Hi generous_physics! You say that there will be way too much news, but what do you mean by that?

  • I am in the middle because not all news reaches us, as there are many and many unknown news channels, that there are some marginalized news, and that news channels focus on what you like to hear and not all news, meaning that they publish what attracts viewing and not what should be watched And knowing what do you think of my saying this?

    1. This is a great point receptive_outcome

    2. That's an interesting comment. What would it be like ideally, for you?

  • I said that I'm in the middle.

    On one hand, it is good to be informed about regional, national or global issues that may have an impact directly or indirectly on your life or future generations.
    On the other hand, too much news , especially negative can stress you and cause anxiety or depression while you have no possibility to make a positive contribution.
    Therefore, keeping a good balance between absorbing news and living your life and socialising with family and friends is the best way to move forward.

    1. That's a very thoughtful comment. How do you go about finding that balance for yourself?

    2. I agree because if you have too much of a negative stress, it can cause some mental problems and anxiety . We should not be living in fear. If we do, we are only causing problems to ourselves, which is not going to help with your personal situation. If we continue being pessimistic and thinking about the worst, it will not do anything to better what is happening around you.
      The reasons above is why I agree with you, brilliant_vegetable.

  • I'm in the middle because whenever you want to know about something, you will never get to know each and everything about it, some things about it will be left untold but you can say that you have enough news when it is enough for you to judge the situation judiciously.

    1. That's a good answer. Do you feel like you usually get that right level of news?

      1. Mostly but it depends on the situation.

  • I do not watch TV on school days nor do I own a smartphone hence my only access to news is by reading The Week Junior. I have a lot of extra-curricular activities: swimming, piano, 5 km park runs ... and these greatly help me when I feel stressed. Moreover, I play allot with my sister and friends which aids me in staying optimistic/ positive.

  • I selected that I'm in the middle. I selected this answer because...

    On one hand, one thing or the other will be occurring in some edge of the world. Furthermore, it is good to be informed about regional, national or global issues which are happening and can impact you. Moreover one can also comprehend the diverse impacts on people and citizens globally.

    Whereas, on the other hand, too much news can create stress, anxiety and depression to one. This is depicted to many in numerous forums with news contributing as a major factor.

    Therefore, too much news can direct one into a zone of anxiety and depression when they see comments such as:
    - Electricity and water bills rising
    - Bombs exploding and people suffering terrible deaths
    and many more..
    But, it can also be positive.

    The best possible solution which one can do, is to just continue with the journey of life, embark on new routes and adventures and socialize with family and friends.

    1. Well explained and detailed answer

  • I said that I am in the middle.
    I think this because if the news stations are giving too much news, you might be stressed about what is going to happen for your future and won't pay attention to what is happening in reality.
    This can be very bad for your mental health. In order to swerve away from that, the news stations will have to reduce the amount of news they are giving to the public to make sure that they don't get too concerned or worried about what is happening around them.

    1. Interesting points here contemplative_signature! How would you suggest news stations decide what is the right amount of news to show to inform the public, without making them worry too much?

      1. I think that to determine the right amount of news for the public to know about is to hold a mandatory poll. With this poll, the public will be able to have the daily news fit to their preference. I think this poll should be held once every few months so that they can monitor and adjust so that their news watchers/readers are comfortable with how the amount of news that the news stations are addressing to the public.

        1. This is a very creative idea, contemplative_signiture. It really got me thinking. What if there was a big, important news story but people had chosen not to see much news at that time. Would it be OK for them not to hear about it until the next poll in a few months time?

  • I put I agree because even if there was news in India, England, Romania, Italy, Spain all at the same time no one can stop that so I agree.

    1. Do you think having lots of news available can be a bad thing for us in any way, perceptive_vegetable?

  • There can never be too much news? But how do you know their is too much news? It depends what you classify as too much news. Some might have a bit more global awareness therefore they are accustomed in retaining more information about events whilst others can be utterly shocked by an incident that can be too much to take in.

    So what do you think?

    Could their be a limit to news?
    Could reading a lot of news have a more positive/ negative impact on a person?

  • I'm actually in the middle. I do not own a phone or have access to television. I am always told to read my books. Most of the news I hear or know about is through the newspapers my dad buys for himself. Instead of going to doom scroll I can easily relate with my friends and families. it helps me stay cheerful and confident.

  • On my side I feel there can't be too much news since news don't report about the same topic and not being updated about an issue can make you fall for problem, for example one can hear about news o0f a different country and feels its not important but the second day finds him self having to travel to that country and the news he thought was useless becomes useful so on my side there is no too much news