What if you get the following item in your RSS reader:
"Dalai Lama Shows Support for Olympics" (NY Times)
How will you know the significance of this if you don't know who Dalai Lama is? And you would also need to know about the protests to know why his support is newsworthy.
This is on the right track, but once again we have the chicken-and-egg problem. You're using your knowledge of history and geography to sort through news feeds, trying to tease out which stories are meaningful. But students have little reason to practice that skill unless they believe that there is meaning to be teased out in the first place. And how are they to know that? It's all I can do to find a reason to read a news feed -- in fact, I don't do it. I get pointed to the most interesting news by reading the blogs of half a dozen news-junkie bloggers, who watch the papers and the TV and link to the articles that are actually significant... often placing them in a larger context at the same time. Otherwise, I ignore the news. I'm already depressed and fearful enough.
Those who haven't yet started reading news blogs, though, might find it hard to fall over them by accident. What they will find by accident is CNN and the like, and why should we be surprised when students think that CNN is a waste of time? It is a waste of time -- pseudo-scandals, celebrity gossip, mindless stenography, yammering talking heads, scare stories with blood, flames, and explosions...
Give the students a reason to believe that news is valuable and important -- perhaps by raising their political consciousness, as the author of the original article did -- and they'll learn the skills they need to find valuable and important news.
What if you get the following item in your RSS reader: "Dalai Lama Shows Support for Olympics" (NY Times)
How will you know the significance of this if you don't know who Dalai Lama is? And you would also need to know about the protests to know why his support is newsworthy.