Over saturation of news can be depressing for me. I've had to take a couple of deliberate breaks and shield myself from it (mostly due to politics). I consider it a very real threat to my mental health and I now limit the sources of information I let in early on when I see warning signs that it's happening again. One thing that works for me is to focus primarily on issues were I believe I can make a difference by staying informed and not those where I genuinely feel powerless to affect change. It's imperfect, but I'm a lot more capable of dealing with it this way.

I tried to found a subreddit with the idea that if some article is still interesting 6 moths after it's written, then it's actually interesting stuff. Most things in the world don't happen in a day. And even those that happen, are often understood only with time.

But I can't keep a reddit account. The amount of misinformation in reddit and my tendency to correct people just gets too consuming.

A 'Slow News' service sounds intriguing. Especially if it was covertly collecting 'data' points for each story on a day-to-day basis and presented these on a timeline when the story was surfaced. A kind of ultra-modern-history.

The airliner crash in Sinai is a current example; there's really no pointin speculating or acting until the investigation team presents their findings, but every day people and states are taking actions that don't make sense from the immediate perspective. Looking back six months from now with a timeline view we might be able to understand.

It does already exist: http://www.slow-journalism.com/

However, I can not say anything about that magazine's quality as I haven't read it myself.

It already exists. It's called "books". ;)

True. That's why I read books.

But books are written by dictator. I'd want something that's ranked like HN or reddit, without the newness bias. With wide range of topics and varying depth and length of article.

This only works if the community is cool. But I' have a hunch it would attract mostly cool people.

You guessed the name right. And I found it again: https://www.reddit.com/r/slownews

You can probably guess who is that [deleted].

I've had similar thoughts, though my time limit was 5 or 10 years, rather than months.

My other thought was to tie it to current events, so if Iraq was in the news then dig out something from the archive that takes a long view, you'd probably learn more than you would from a list of who died yesterday.

Part of the idea was that we have "event bias". Lots of meaningful things happen in the world without any significant event. Look at gap minder or green revolution.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -Eleanor Roosevelt

Personally I don't like the idea of ranking people. There is nothing wrong discussing people or events. But I'm natural idea person and most websites have very poor signal to noise ratio in that respect.

So much on r/all these days is fluff, breaking stories don't appear as quickly as they used to - in spite of admins repeatedly stating that they're "looking into it".