You don't really know what's going on. You only know what you're told, and there's many ways to interpret the source data. You really can't have a good sense o

You don't really know what's going on. You only know what you're told, and there's many ways to interpret the source data. You really can't have a good sense of corporations and governments unless you work specifically for a particular company or government and know the inner workings and side effects of what's happening. And if that's the case, you don't need to read the news to learn about it. You don't know much about the wars nor the relations between countries. You never get to sit in on leader meetings or see first hand what's happening and not happening. You think you know something about Michigan because you learned about the Flint water crisis. But do you really know what failures took place or the economic state of all of Michigan? What about all of the other crises in America you didn't hear about, simply because the news chose to make you care about Flint and not another crisis? Data breaches and environmental disasters are often reported in a way that makes corporations seem negligent when other information is left out. This is why there's so much "debate" and "different opinion" on such matters. There's no right answer, yet the news does a good job of presenting a singular narrative. The news is definitely endlessly intriguing, just like a drug. The worst part about it is you only ever have a very small fraction of the totality of what's going on. Every time we hear about Trump, we're not hearing about local politicians who arguably have a greater impact on our lives. You can't really be informed about most topics, and it's less likely to be informed the more we focus on matters outside of our local proximity, depending on journalists to translate events with inevitable inaccuracy.