>>You ignored the first paragraph in my reply, where I pointed out that the first, and most horrifying, vignette in the article wasn't even related to the actua

>>You ignored the first paragraph in my reply, where I pointed out that the first, and most horrifying, vignette in the article wasn't even related to the actual topic. I apologize - you are correct. I re-read that paragraph again and indeed, it's not clear if there is anything there other than the dog literally eating her face, and it's unclear to my why that's included other than the emotional element. >>Seeing a laundry list of heartbreaking problems as I page through the news isn't even slightly helpful in helping me form a bigger picture of what's good or bad in the world. And obviously you are free to have such an approach. For me personally seeing starving children in Sudan or children getting blown up Ukraine or Gaza is far more evocative and effective at making me care about those issues than any "dry" stats would ever be. >>we're being overall less effective in helping others than we might otherwise be. Alright, can you share how exactly are you helping others due to non-emotional news pieces that you encounter? I'm genuienly curious.