[slyall]

The point is that 90% of the news is unimportant. Often you can read a weekly and that is enough

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.

[ffuxlpff]

All of this is very easy to filter out while browsing the internet. Not when you are speaking with actual persons. Believe or not, there are still people who watch television and believe in old media.

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.

[hvb2]

> Believe or not, there are still people who watch television and believe in old media.

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

[BigGreenJorts]

YouTube? Lots of people doing legit investigative journalism on there it's pretty impressive.

[hvb2]

I guess I would always wonder who's paying them. YouTube doesn't pay them a salary so is it the ads or is this one side of the story paying for exposure

[ryandrake]

I think OP's point is that if your life is so blessed that "90% of the news is unimportant to you" then that itself is a great, fortunate privilege.

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.

[braza]

> 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.

[Yodel0914]

This is something outraged rich people tell themselves to feel better about their outrage.

[slyall]

and the ICE news would be that 10% that is important.

[hypeatei]

> ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.

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.

[mslt]

Apparently more people need to see more information about those things because they’re still happening

[rockskon]

Maybe you need to read more news if you think we have people in charge who'd care about public opposition to the practice.

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

[dangus]

No capacity to affect change?

Are we forgetting that this specific policy we are discussing was voted in by the public and won the popular vote barely more than a year ago?

I think if more people were legitimately better educated and informed that outcome might not have happened.

The problem is…who is doing the informing and educating? Oftentimes the sources taking up that role are doing so with motives that are not in the people’s best interests.

[rockskon]

Wow. Great. Which term is our President on again and can you confirm that time flows linearly and cannot, in fact, flow backwards to undo the election?

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.

[veidr]

effect change