[nradov]

I guess it's one of those game theory things. Individually each of us can improve our lives by "defecting" and ignoring the news. But if we all "cooperate" by consuming a lot of news then we have better odds of voting in ways that actually improve the world. An interesting moral dilemma: is it right to become a low-information voter in order to be happier?

(I am not judging your choices. I honestly don't know the correct answer.)

[chmod600]

"by consuming a lot of news then we have better odds of voting in ways that actually improve the world"

I doubt that's true. Certainly not if we are all reading broadly and shallowly, from a few dozen media sources all trying to trigger outrage.

It would be true if we all looked deeply at different topics. Then voting would represent some combination of all of that deep knowledge.

[wolverine876]

How could it be 'right' to abidicate resposibility? If others do it, how will anything get done?

Claiming powerlessness is an excuse to avoid the stress of our times. Now, more than ever, people need to step up and take responsibility.

[bumby]

An alternative is to find someone whose thought process you trust who does consume a lot of news and treat them as a human filter. Not too much different than how we use experts in other domains.