A politician said something and other politicians reacted. Usually unimportant unless it was backed by a law or something. If it was important then the weekly will cover it.

Main Character of the day on Social media. unimportant

A crime happened nearby. Unimportant

A celeb did something. Unimportant

Something happened to random person. Unimportant

Sport result. If you follow that team you already know, if not then not important.

Seriously go to the front page of the New York times or some other outfit and count the stories that you needed to read today.

Television teaches them that the proper response to someone disagreeing is to get angry and shout when the opposing party tries to explain their point of view. Something that is useless or even technically impossible in anonymous net forums.

If you look at the old media, important decisions are mentioned but completely ignored after someone has said something offensive or an accident happened somewhere.

Social media is people and people are the problem, not technology or anonymity. Everyone who has spent Christmas with relatives knows this.

Enlighten me, where do you go for proper investigative journalism that is not considered old media?

For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.

Exactly. There's a post from last week on how media/journalism became more entertainment than information, and I think the complete opposite of the first reply: If you have bandwidth and time to consume most of those "world news", then you're the privileged.

One example: In Germany if you watch/read the state regional public broadcast from Berlin[1] for 2 days you will learn more about the whereabouts of Donald Trump, the President of Ukraine, sports news, or some broad reporting about "cultural" aspect of the city (e.g. about Hildegard Knef, something about Karl Lagerfeld and so on), or general gossip.

The city itself has fewer private investments than 5 years, the schools lack basic infrastructure, educational ratings are dropping, delays in public transportation, the hospitals are lacking personnel, 10% unemployment, and an awful housing situation, squeezing the working people.

[1] - I'm totally in favor of public broadcasting that comes from the principle called "broadcast what you want to become or aspire to be" that is more focused on factual journalism (i.e., no commentary), educational programs (especially with Public Universities STEM lectures being broadcasted), educational cartoons, classic music and orchestras, and space/nature/technology documentaries.

Maybe the first few stories are, but what past masked goons throwing up Nazi salutes and sending people to foreign labor camps do you need to keep up on? If you're into politics, then sure, but your average Joe probably doesn't need to know that they're, yet again, terrorizing people and acting like a secret police force.

This is foisting misery on people who have no capacity to affect change.

The public has no ability to affect change on the policy this Presidency makes. Especially not the public that is predisposed to dislike the President.

This is sadistic and selfish to believe the public must be relentlessly informed of these individual policies that they cannot do anything about. Anything they are informed about present day will almost certainly be forgotten years down the line. But they'll be stressed and unhappy along the way.

Well, even that isn’t true. The congressional midterms are next year. Control over congress is on the ballot. Turnout will be the decider as it always is.

If “did not vote” was a candidate, it often wins elections.

In addition, local politics happen every year with higher levels of influence per person, and they often directly affect individuals more than national politics.

Going around telling people they have no impact guarantees that outcome.

And referring to the present in contrast with the next Presidential election - an event thematically related to the previous Presidential election that you referenced - it seemed relevant.

As for what people need to be informed about - they'll inform themselves via increased prices on just about everything due to tarriffs + continued lowered interest rates despite notable inflationary pressures.

I maintain it is cruel to relentlessly and aggressively inform people of the horrors of the world that they - and I repeat myself - cannot do anything about. From news media fewer and fewer trust every year.

Being relentlessly informed of all the miseries of the world is a choice for most people in developed countries not in the middle of a war.

Which poor people exactly do you consider privileged, and why?

> The point is that although anyone can ignore the news, the news won't necessarily ignore them!

What can they do about the news, though? I specifically said, "they may feel powerless to change anything".

The alternative is worse, and the result of an uninformed citizenry can be disasterous and a regression towards non-democracy.

You personally might have the expectation that when you vote, you should be informed about what you're voting on/for - but that is entirely optional.

edit: I'd love to hear about some of your proposed solutions to solving this problem ;)

News media gets harsh anti-monopoly rules: no more billionaires owning every station in every jurisdiction, in fact no more conglomerates whatsoever. More independent funding for local news: I'm content for a bunch of these to go bankrupt on a regular basis but we'll sponsor more people putting out independent journalism.

At an international scale spin off an entity like the Federal Reserve which would be the Federal International Reporting Bureau with some iron clad rules about funding changes and the sole mission to baseline the availability of boots-on-the-ground international journalism, with a mission charter the citizenry must have accurate reporting to understand how they will choose leaders to guide international politics. This one would be tricky to get right, I suspect you'd probably end up tying resource allocation to government funding alotments and the like via some automatic mechanisms.

The first and last are probably pie in the sky: really let's start by shredding a couple of media empires into 50 different fiefdoms and let them battle it out for views, but there'll be no more mergers or cross-media ownership that's for sure.

> At an international scale spin off an entity like the Federal Reserve which would be the Federal International Reporting Bureau with some iron clad rules about funding changes and the sole mission to baseline the availability of boots-on-the-ground international journalism

That sounds great in theory, but given the recent scandals at the BBC and uncovering of systematic bias there we can see how fragile such institutions can be. Even without M&A driving it the BBC has become a primarily leftist monoculture.

> Increase education funding, mandate a couple of levels of free choice liberal arts/philosophy type courses to ensure people have to expand their thinking a little

Sounds great, but also prone to systemic bias. Universities in general have become echo chambers in liberal arts departments.

Perhaps combine that with options for doing national service of some sort that would balance out education. Afterall, classroom learning only gives one aspect of life and experience. Often just exposing people to new places and environments broadens their outlooks.

Almost all news that's actually important - that might actually affect your life - will find you one way or another. Most news isn't important (eg sports drama). Or it isn't urgent (eg tariff news). Or both, like celebrity gossip.

Only a vanishingly small percentage of news is both urgent and important. And there's plenty of people in my life who would tell me if - for example - we needed to evacuate the city due to a fire.

Really. You can switch off. It'll be ok. Try it, and you'll see.