Information relevant to oneself, ie to the life and management of one's local and larger communities, are what will ultimately make the difference between a well-informed and enlightened citizenry able to make collective choices that result in positive outcomes, and people that base their choices on flimsy information and passing emotion.
News can be information, usually when it has a scientific and/or investigative component, and provides the person reading or watching it with a better/deeper understanding of an issue afterwards. Not all news are information however as running after readership and ratings often result in sensationalism and clickbaiting with zero or negative value. Information isn't just news either, and books, longform articles, documentaries, etc also provide very valuable inputs that help to understand how the world around us work and make better choices.
What I find disingenuous in the article shared here is that all news are treated as being basically of the empty / sensationalist / inflammatory kind. The author of the article seems also blissfully unaware that journalists provide an essential service in democracies, by scrutinizing public action as well as what is happening with the other parts of society (economic players, scientists, organizations of all kinds..). There can be no informed citizenry without ethical and well-functionning news sources. Trying to say one should seek such quality in news sources and leave aside the sensationalist partisan crap is sadly not the point the author makes, instead advocating for people to just ignore the news altogether.
Don't be naive. The citizenry doesn't make any significant choices. Western democracy is a sham. There are elections, yes, but voters are subject to large-scale manipulation, mainly through mass education and mass media. Not so much to determine who they cast their vote for, as to ensure compliance with the system itself, and its very limited set of choices. The range of acceptable opinions, and the matching political choices, are determined by the real rulers - presumably the billionaire class. Significant dissent on real issues is quickly crushed.
This is an overly cynical take. Ultimately all of the power in the US resides with the voters. Yes they are susceptible to manipulation, however they have the tools to resist the manipulation if they so choose.
It's a fallacy to think that because one person can't single-handedly change the world that change is impossible or that people in aggregate have no power. It is this fallacy that is at the center of trained helplessness.
It is the idea that if people want cleaner streets, they are incapable of sweeping them. If they want more supportive communities, they can't walk out their door and help someone.
To paraphrase, western democracies have problems, but the other systems are worse. If one accepts that democracy remains our best bet, the question becomes how to make democracy function better. This isn't just a question of what system of government, vote, decision, etc, but also of how well informed the citizenry is, and to what extent they feel empowered to be politically active. Billionaires do have an outsized power to influence in general, and in the US in particular (super PACs, etc), but other powers can act effectively against them (justice, press, NGOs and other forms of organized civic actions..). Switzerland has very frequent votes on a wide array of issues, giving citizens constant opportunities to act on the way their country / district / city operates.
At the local level a single voter can have a huge impact because there is very little participation at the smaller scale. A citizen that engages with their local rep or councilmember can effectively advocate for tangible improvements to their own life and their neighbors, and those actions (improving a public park, helping families get their children to pre-K, coaching a youth sports team, starting up an activities program for seniors etc) can provide far more genuine impact than any amount of "global" politics.
If you want the cynical angle, you can put time and money into a local politician and do way more manipulation to enrich yourself than anything large-scale.
News can be information, usually when it has a scientific and/or investigative component, and provides the person reading or watching it with a better/deeper understanding of an issue afterwards. Not all news are information however as running after readership and ratings often result in sensationalism and clickbaiting with zero or negative value. Information isn't just news either, and books, longform articles, documentaries, etc also provide very valuable inputs that help to understand how the world around us work and make better choices.
What I find disingenuous in the article shared here is that all news are treated as being basically of the empty / sensationalist / inflammatory kind. The author of the article seems also blissfully unaware that journalists provide an essential service in democracies, by scrutinizing public action as well as what is happening with the other parts of society (economic players, scientists, organizations of all kinds..). There can be no informed citizenry without ethical and well-functionning news sources. Trying to say one should seek such quality in news sources and leave aside the sensationalist partisan crap is sadly not the point the author makes, instead advocating for people to just ignore the news altogether.