I read this, and I have to say, it is one of the issues I tend to mull over a lot

This is one of the aspects of news delivery in the digital age that
really bothers me. Most news services, including this one, allow you to
configure your RSS feeds and e-mail alerts to receive only the news that interests you.
If you're an investor, for example, you can set up your feeds to
deliver only financial news. If you swill Budweiser for a living, you
may get no further than your digital sports section.

So, while you might be aware that the market took another dive,
costing you a few bob, or that the Red Sox are pinning their hopes on a
$160 million pitcher from Japan, you are, in effect, capable of
shutting out the rest of the world. And why? Because you're too busy,
or too uninterested, or too "annoyed" to deal with it.

Assuming you no longer read newspapers -- and studies suggest that
more and more of you have dropped the habit -- you can actually go
through life without having any idea at all what's going on in the
wider world. (Watching TV news doesn't count, by the way. That's always
been a joke, at least since Uncle Walter hung 'em up.)

From The World? Your Oyster? Why Not?  

While RSS is really useful in bringing you your wanted stuff, I wonder what the scope of 'your wanted stuff' is, and whether we're essentially cutting ourselves off from parts of 'the world'.

Can I say "depends"... Where depends for me (and my spouse, trained to use RSS by me) means that our readers are used as a rapidfire window into things we are interested in.  We scan probably 50% of the material in our feeds, read another 40% and click through (ctrl-click for a tab behind) to consume that final 10% in depth and comment/follow the white rabbit. 

I had a nice long reply typed up, and internet went down just as I hit Shift-Enter

And now I can't remember exactly what I'd said

bugger 

Can I claim that as well?

That's cheating!

So maybe we are coming full circle - now that we are starting to get to the point that we can get exactly what we want online and only what we want, filtering it in the same way that we have learnt to offline, the off the cuff random gatherings we used to count on around a water cooler or a bar become once again necessary to provide the only outside influence that drags us away from the local, and maybe even a little out of our comfort zone and into the new and interesting... This sounds like a good thing to me. Source exactly what you want when you want it online and stumbleupon in the real world...

Bit deep for this time of night, but don't have the time at the moment to make it sound lighter and more colloquial... Thought it worth putting down though.

btw Didn't know about shift enter til your comment - Good find!

You can use Enter if you change to Chat mode too

I'm digesting what you've said.... I do agree, to an extent... I'm just thinking how much the 'watercooler' talk has come back into vogue given that we are supposed to be busier and moving at a faster pace than ever before...

That's what I mean though - It's really the only point that I stop. Although for me it's not actually the watercoole. It tends to be the corner coffee shop where I get my diet cokes...

Perhaps people who figure out how to stay abreast beyond their "Daily Me" will have a competitive edge over people who do not? Actually, that is the way it's always worked. Those who can take in and process information and knowledge effectively, have always had an edge over those who could not, or did not, IMO. So, I think that people are adapting. At first, some will believe they an get by with a closed off view of the world, but then when it comes back to bite them, they'll learn to re-braoden their views again. 

Very true. I guess I hadn't thought quite that far into it. It comes back to that whole idea of knowledge as currency doesn't it? I learn because I want to learn because I can see the value of knowledge...

Great thread - really has me thinking.

RSS and email alerts are only a small part of where I gather news though.

I tend to source new ideas, news and fresh perspectives within social networks (both online and offline). I use Wikipedia to investigate new ideas, and authoratative sources found via Google or Social bookmark referrals to follow each up. I really only use RSS feeds and email alerts once I have a definite interest, and mostly only to stay current with trends and developments, by which time I also tend to be subscribed to several podcasts.

So I guess that although RSS feeds and email alerts can be set up to deliver only the information that I am interested in (in the way that you mention), that's really all I am looking for them to do.It's the networks I am part of that keep me up to date with what is happening in rest of the world, and honestly I tend to find that they do a better job than dedicated "news" services.

Let's face it, although the Sydney Morning Herald (big as it is) will tell me about the number of carjackings over the last year, and who's dating who, its never going to tell me to the level depth I'm looking for, about the latest developments in Seattle, Silicon Valley or for my interest Yosemite...

Hmmmm some really interesting points brought up all around.

I can see the value in what you both said. Thanks - it kinda slipped my mind, those aspects.

21 century - the race of the information processors