Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is what news is supposed to be though! To expect otherwise is the problem. Just because something isn't immediately actionable or entertaining that day in some measurable outcome is a poor test of "value" too, and would eliminate many other things people consider of "value". Where do you think the value of news comes from, if not helping people take better actions to navigate their lives? >Continuing my previou…
The list of things that can affect me and many others and appear in the news is pretty much limitless; new legislation, interest rate changes, changes to my school district, tax rate adjustments, rebanding of my property, changes to what animals are allowed on a leash in local parks, road or business closures, the list goes on and on. We do not exist in a vacuum of one and decisions of others will from time to time a…
100% agree. As I said, many things can have an impact on you, but that doesn't mean they are worth paying attention to proactively unless you are even slightly likely to do something about them.
>All of these things can be actionable, and all of them require paying attention to a news source of some kind to take that action in time.
Again, 100% agree, assuming you might actually take action. I think most people are not honest with themselves about what might actually lead to action.
My point is not that news cant be actionable, but that for most people it rarely is. People would be better served if they curate their news consumption based on what may actually be relevant and likely to lead to action, and gasp perhaps spend some more time actually taking actions.
If you feel you already do that, then great. Based on my experience, the vast majority of people don't. They spend dozens of hours following local elections for states they will never visit, building "informed opinions" about protests while never attending one themselves. They track stocks they don't own and will never buy and read crime exposes for locations they will never visit.