[croon]

> Best case scenario is that you are shown a select few fragments of reality, strategically arranged. Worst case scenario is the fragments themselves are questionable.

1) Things happen around the world that you can't observe.

2) People need to participate in democracy for democracy to work.

3) Things that happen elsewhere might affect things locally through latter order effects.

Can we agree on those assumptions?

If so, you may need to keep at least somewhat up to date on current events. How would you do so without news?

Further; painting all "news" with the same brush is getting real old. It's not a single organism.

[LAC-Tech]

> Can we agree on those assumptions?

Kind of

1 - Sure. But the idea that your news of choice gives you a representative, unbiased picture of that is laughable.

2 - I disagree. Casting ballots to potentially swap heads of governments - who are largely symbolic and functionally impotent - barely qualifies as participating at all. Power in modern democracies spread very thin, and most of it is not elected.

3 - Sure, I suppose.