Doomscrolling, Disengagement, and the Search for Balance
On Turning off, Tuning out and Dropping in on Yourself
Reading time: 4 minutes
punditman says…
“Turn on, tune in, drop out.”
—Timothy Leary, 1966
Canadian author, musician, and political veteran Charlie Angus recently offered several ways to fight back against authoritarianism and disinformation. Tip number one? Stop doomscrolling.
“We need to rewire our brains,” Angus writes. “That starts with disengaging from the bots and AI toxicity of the digital realm. These tools are designed to divide, exhaust us, and drain our spirit. Reclaim your focus.”
No argument there. Compulsively scrolling through bad news that is upsetting or anxiety-inducing is no doubt toxic for one’s mental health—and collectively it's corrosive for the body politic.
But resisting this social contagion is easier said than done. Rewiring our brains? Sounds great. Any idea how? After decades of screen-induced hyperstimulation, our nervous systems are practically fused to our phones. Cold turkey, anyone?
More to the point, I’ve noticed that many who don’t doomscroll have opted for a total media blackout. Increasingly, I encounter people who say they don’t watch or read the news—no legacy outlets, no independent journalism. Zilch.
Some even wear their detachment like a badge of honour.
Actually, we’ve built a society where it's possible to be a “model citizen” while remaining barely cognizant of what's happening outside your realm—let alone be aware of the horrors being visited upon others who happen to live elsewhere. So much for the global village.
Not that long ago, I would’ve been really irked by this kind of voluntary ignorance. But now? I kinda get it.
News disengagement is the opposite of, say, the hyper-vigilant social media poster—who is always alert, always reacting. But even the most earnest posts are often preaching to the choir (meanwhile, the hymn book is in tatters, the choir is exhausted, and half its members have left the building).
I often wonder how much time is wasted online that could’ve been better spent making change the old-fashioned way—in the real world. Guilty as charged…
It’s one thing to step back from “being informed” for the sake of one’s mental health. It’s quite another to confuse willful ignorance with self-care.
In a world where children are being slaughtered and starved to death in Gaza, and opponents are being criminalized and labelled anti-Semitic; where masked agents are rounding up people on American streets; where fascism is not just knocking at the door but camping out in the living room, such self-imposed blindness doesn’t just seem naïve—it feels like complicity.
And yet still, I understand.
The horrors are relentless: carnage, corruption, collapse—and now gaslighting over the Epstein list. It’s hard to hold onto hope.
Checking out altogether is a natural human response.
A friend of mine says the world has always had such horrors—it’s just that now we get the information faster and way more of it.
Okay, sure.
But it’s also perfectly normal to not want to see unrelenting images of shredded children, especially while knowing the West is sponsoring and providing political cover for endless Israeli war crimes, and freedom of speech is under serious assault.
Or to not want to see persistent footage of law-abiding people being brutalized and kidnapped by Trump’s Gestapo.
And who can be blamed for not wanting to listen to one more bullshit statement from Trump?
It all becomes too much. We each carry our own struggles and challenges, and the bigger picture can just feed a sense of helplessness and depression, while sending the compassionately inclined spiralling into despair.
Sometimes that weight erupts in flashes of solitary rage—like this woman on a San Francisco bus who suddenly launched into a state-of-the-world address.
I mean, it’s not like becoming the next Unabomber is a viable career option.
So it’s no wonder some people are simply ghosting the news.
Such passivity feels disheartening—then again, maybe it’s an opportunity for the more engaged to consider how to reach the more disengaged, away from the noise and rage-bait headlines.
Lately I’ve noticed that the happier amongst us are somehow less tethered to algorithms and updates. This should not be confused with those who simply don't care.
I'm talking about folks who’ve figured out how to stay sane without a constant drip of outrage at their fingertips—and the compulsion to weigh in on every issue.
They're simply refusing to let the worst of the world colonize their every waking moment—what a novel idea!
Charlie Angus is right—we need to reclaim our focus. But let’s not confuse turning off the doom machine with ignorance, or pretend that silence somehow equals wisdom. He also suggests several proactive steps individuals can take.
Surely it’s possible to care deeply about what is happening, and act accordingly in whatever way suits, while also caring for your soul.
Let’s hope so. Because we’re not much good to anyone when we’re a mess.
Please consider giving to these humanitarian organizations:
International Committee of the Red Cross
United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR)
Thank you so much for reading! If you enjoyed this article and want to encourage Punditman to keep going, you can buy me a coffee below. Every little bit helps!
Yes, I think that a lot of people are tuning out from the depressing news coming out of war zones in Gaza, Darfur, Ukraine, Congo, Myanmar, etc. but that's a form of complicity with the powers that be. One should do something like giving to an appropriate humanitarian organization which is reducing the suffering but often, in places like Gaza and parts of Sudan, warring parties won't even let their humanitarian aid in to those who need it. It's never too late to get involved in political organizations (not just parties) that are challenging the dominant fascist narratives and racism by opposing the ramping up of the military expenditures which seek to perpetuate colonialism and imperialism.
Nice highwire act walking that fine line, Punditman! Is talking to your neighbors and giving to global charities the answer? I used to think so, which I mentioned in this essay written 20 yrs ago but posted recently: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/logos-and-the-borg.
A new mom asked me about my giving strategy in the comments, saying she was embarrassed to admit she'd fallen for some where she wondered if her money had done more harm than good. I wrote back to her:
"We should never feel ashamed of being conned. Those doing the conning should be ashamed! Although the vast majority of them have been conned into it too. At one point, I had a systematic approach to deciding who to give money to. I described the different strategies:
1. Follow your passion! There's so much to do, just do something! I think this is the one that gets more money to animal charities than people.
2. Charity begins at home. To which my answer was, 'You call that charity?'
3. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. This prioritizes the neediest, which is never-ending.
4. What I came to was the most amount of good that could be done for the most amount of people, by helping people help others. I was into microloans, animal husbandry, land. I sponsored kids in Africa. I once gave a big check to Heifer, which was contentious with my husband, and totally backfired because I got on their 'big donor' list and they were relentless. I found a local group called IF that worked in Latin America. Anti-torture groups were something I was deep into. And especially Palestine. Oh and Haiti.
"But I too came to wonder if my money did more harm than good. I look back and think that I put SO much effort into things that never went anywhere. I secretly hoped my donations would get people to listen to my ideas, but they were humoring me. When I expressed this to my daughter Veronica, she said that the example I set of trying so hard made them who they are. Whether it accomplished anything else, it also made me who I am. But I no longer think it's a way to solve the problem."
In my former research on charities, I can tell you definitely that your recommendations are doing more harm than good. One that I did like was Grassroots Int'l because the founder had left another of the big ones because they didn't include Palestine. But I now think we need a strategy more than activism, which means we need real information on what's happening.
I've also taken a step back and don't turn on my internet until after I've spent time working on my book and doing my Course meditation. I find that women like Vanessa Beeley give me meaning and context along with the real news on what's happening in geopolitics: https://beeley.substack.com/p/trumps-alligator-alcatraz-and-maximum. I don't think there's a quick fix between doomscrolling and ditching all outside information. It takes discernment.
And I know that's also what you're saying, which I appreciate. Thanks, Punditman.