> But if you live in a democracy, you have to spend some of your time being informed about things so you know how to vote. I don’t think you fairly addressed h

> But if you live in a democracy, you have to spend some of your time being informed about things so you know how to vote. I don’t think you fairly addressed his question at all in this comment, and the reason lies right in that vague word: “things”. People who live anywhere will always take an interest in information which directly affects them, or that they can profit off of, or which might cause them to incur losses. Generally there are multiple means of attaining this information and the “news” in the mass media sense is just one of them. I don’t for example pay close attention to all legal news, so when I need legal advice which tends to be situational in nature I hire people who do rather than proceeding on my own partially-informed opinions from what I gleaned out of a newspaper which probably missed important details and which is usually written from a biased perspective. This is true for any number of domains I don’t specialize in (almost all of them), and in seeking counsel I gain information along the way that can shape my future actions. So lets come back to that word, “things”, which things should people be informed of that you get from the news media but are unlikely to receive from anywhere else?