Reuters isn't so much a source of news, it's a (top level) news aggregator. A source would be an experiencer telling their story about the events considered new

Reuters isn't so much a source of news, it's a (top level) news aggregator. A source would be an experiencer telling their story about the events considered new, i.e. unexpected. News are updates of our collective model of the world. Human communication has the aspects of content, sentiment and style. People look at style first, as they take it as an indicator for the social standing of the speaker. Sentiment is a close second, as it tells you about the attitude that speaker has towards the reported events. Content lastly is just the events themselves as they (reportedly) happened. People find that content part hard to follow on its own, mostly because they usually don't really know the context anyway. Focusing on it as supposedly important "unbiased" "true" news is a gross misunderstanding. Like yourself, people generally have a very incomplete idea of the world they live in. Like you, they don't seem to take much interest in it, as they view it as "not relevant to their lives". That is an absurd statement to make, if one has no clue about that part of the world to begin with, like you observed.