[strken]

I'm not sure this is true. Social networks, as in the underlying human phenomenon of communicating with other people, do a phenomenal job of spreading information.

Consider personally important news: some combination of ground-shaking global events, plus stories specific to one's interests, plus some local news. We hear about these things anyway! I heard about the war in Ukraine from friends and acquaintances before seeing it in a newspaper, with less waffling and including links to more in-depth analysis. I hear about human interest stories that actually interest me, weird bits of software/archeology/gaming/ecology/literature/sports/local stuff, instead of random articles about any old thing. I'm more up to date on local gossip than the actual media sometimes, since people who are unwilling to answer a reporter's questions are happy to just have a chat. The most serious news eventually ends up on HN in one form or another, which is at least an industry-specific link aggregator with less whiplash.

Probably there's news I need to know, and weekly might be an okay compromise, but even monthly or quarterly news would be supplemented by people telling me things.

[mistermann]

One advantage of this approach is that it largely short circuits the ability of the various power players and organizations to direct your attention to where they want it when they want it, as well as reduces the chance of you getting your story from a doctored version. I think any approach that messes with potential behind the scenes coordination is just good old-fashioned risk management.