Things You Notice When You Quit the News
IMHO, a lot of what is in the OP is correct, but I conclude that a more <i>nuanced</i> view is important.<p>Yes, I have long wanted, and
still want, to know
what is important, both to me
personally and more generally,
 about <i>what
is going on in the world</i> so
still make efforts to be so
&quot;informed&quot;.  Then, over time,
I went through much of the
negative views 
about news in the OP:  (1) One summer while in college, I was with my parents in DC and read <i>The Washington Post,</i>
a lot of it,
everyday and
at the end of the summer concluded
that I&#x27;d learned next to nothing and
99 44&#x2F;100% had just wasted time.  (2) Later, one day I counted and found 
that, in trying to be informed, I was getting 22 print periodicals,
concluded that even the 22 were not
telling me much of value, and cut
way back.  (3) I happened to
notice in an Andy Hardy
movie from the 1930s that
then, too, apparently the movie makers
believed that their audience
would accept that the news was
junk information.  
(4) I have left over from
the past three quite good
TV sets and with my phone and
Internet service have some TV service
for no extra charge.
Still, I have no TV set connected to
a cable or any other source and haven&#x27;t watched 
TV in years with one exception:
I tried to watch the first Republican
debate on TV; mostly that was
a flop.  I watched the debate later
on the Internet and got and read
a transcript -- much better.<p>For the <i>mainstream media</i>, say
AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, LAT, 
ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC,
NBC, Slate, Salon, Huffpo, 
Business Insider, and more,
I have a <i>triage</i>:<p>(i) I am willing to glance at the
headlines if only to see what
nonsense the MSM is pushing
onto the public now.  And if there
really is a big story, say,
a nuke exploded somewhere, then
I will want to know and
likely that will be in the headlines.
Also I get some
lessons by example in, say, PR nonsense
from some experts in getting 
attention from even usually next to
nothing in meaningful content!  Like in the remark about 
writing news stories of the reporter in the
original version of the movie
<i>The Thing,</i> if the real story
is not good, then he &quot;will make it
good&quot;.  So, the news distorting
the truth is an old story.  I also learn about &quot;the
common man in the street&quot; --
from the fact that millions of
people  watch that stuff --
maybe the most important thing
can learn from watching the news
is about people
from the fact that each day hundreds
of millions of people pay attention
to that stuff!<p>(ii) Any article written by a 
reporter or news organization,
e.g., AP, I nearly always refuse
to take seriously or even read
at all anymore.  From my huge
sample of such articles I did
read in the past, I assume 
that such an article fails
even common high school term
paper writing standards for
meaningful, trustworthy content
and that it is likely
some or all of
uninformed, misinformed,
biased, and deliberately 
distorted, fabricated, or
lying.  I say that such articles
are (borrowing from the
Bogart movie <i>The Maltese Falcon</i>),
with bitter contempt, 
by <i>newsies</i> and nearly always
refuse to read them or, if read them
for some special reason,
flatly refuse to take the
content at face value.<p>(iii) I am eager to pay attention
to news stories on topics
I&#x27;m interested in and signed
by people with high credibility.  
Mostly for such an article,
I keep a copy on my computer
with a reference to the source
and with an abstract and an
entry in an index.<p>I believe that staying &quot;informed&quot;
is important:  E.g., here in the
US we just had an election
for POTUS.  IMHO, the two main
candidates were very different
and promised significantly
different, better&#x2F;worse, results for the US
and even my own life.<p>So, first,
I tried to say informed and, to
some extent, more superficial
than I would like, did.
And by watching the campaigns,
the candidates, and the reactions
of the newsies and citizens, I
did get some education
in such things -- I got some
more insight into people, 
personalities, politics, e.g.,
stuff I didn&#x27;t learn much
about studying mathematics!<p>And, second, I got <i>involved</i>
by practicing my writing and
posting on-line --
so, I tried to do better as
a US citizen.<p>So, sure, now I get essentially
all my <i>news</i> from the Internet.
One important approach is to
use HN as a <i>filter</i> to find more important
content.<p>Here at HN, often there are 
references to articles 
at the NYT.  Unless such 
articles appear to be
signed by people
with credibility and
independent of the NYT,
I flatly, automatically refuse
to read them.  I have,
maybe with one exception
a decade, 
zip, zilch, and zero respect
for anything the NYT
thinks or believes.<p>The Internet permits a <i>news
organization</i>, maybe
just some one person,
to reach nearly everyone
who might be interested
in content from that person.
From that fact,
I am guessing that the Internet --
that does permit <i>deeper</i>
presentations of information --
is the key to an
irresistible, radical
transformation of public
understanding
and effectiveness in
the US democracy.<p>So, net, with some nuance, 
I disagree with some of the OP
and conclude that 
the <i>news</i> and staying informed,
are important.