Certainly. I'm going to ignore this article because the details it contains are only a distraction from the shape of my perspective. Coverage about the opiate

Certainly. I'm going to ignore this article because the details it contains are only a distraction from the shape of my perspective. Coverage about the opiate epidemic doesn't use personal stories to get the reader to take the issue seriously. They do it to trick the reader into thinking they care about the opiate epidemic for long enough to click some ads. If the death numbers didn't make someone shit their pants and get to work on fixing it, some pictures of white trash aren't going to either. A person reading the news in New York would much rather hear about the problems with a failing school district in Appalachia than their own county. It (among other things) lets them project their impression of Appalacia onto the problem, and lets them avoid thinking about the fact they're already ignoring all the issues in their own schools. Approximately nobody who will effect the local school district first hears of the problems with it in the paper. How many people who want to improve the world have actually make it their job? Or volunteer on the side? Or call local leaders every now and then? Or do as little as donate money to charities making a big impact on the world? The presence of real world issues in the news let people lie to themselves that they're doing more than consuming entertainment. The news is written with that in mind. Not consciously, no. But the system has evolved in adaptation to that constraint.