Why is that the only other option? Why can't we just acknowledge that bad things happen without having to know the details of every bad thing?

And is that awareness creating any useful action?

Yes, and recent examples show it: - News coverage allowed whole populations to understand a pandemic was happening and what actions were being taken by governments to tackle this issue. News also allowed public debates over policies to be known to citizens. - News coverage allowed people to follow closely the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the war that followed, including its atrocities, which did lead to specific actions in the form of extra support for Ukraine. - another example given in this discussion was that news allow one to form an understanding of current issues in their country and community and therefore to vote as an enlightened citizen. This is vital in a democracy.

Are you suggesting that protests in e.g. Iraq against a book burning in Sweden are useful actions? That violent rioting in e.g. Marseille is a useful action against police misconduct in Paris? I don't see many links between awareness of the details of something that happens far away from me and the usefulness of my actions.

There are plenty of injustices happening locally against which you can take meaningful action.

It's quite unlikely that these local injustices appear in the news that you consume: local news are on life support, and everything else has a scope that massively surpassed your locality, whatever that might be.

That's an issue which can be solved. Consume more location appropriate news. Social media (ironically, when considering what kind of media is bad for you) can also provide decent local news information.

Maybe even support your local news, if you find it valuable.