In his book Beyond Fear, security expert Bruce Schneier
writes:

“Slices of life with immediate visual impact get
magnified; those with no visual component, or that can't be immediately and
viscerally comprehended, get downplayed. Rarities and anomalies, like
terrorism, are endlessly discussed and debated, while common risks like
heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes, and suicide are minimized.

“The global reach of today's news further exacerbates this
problem. If a child is kidnapped in Salt Lake City during the summer,
mothers all over the country suddenly worry about the risk to their
children. If there are a few shark attacks in Florida — and a graphic movie
— suddenly every swimmer is worried. (More people are killed every year by
pigs than by sharks, which shows you how good we are at evaluating
risk.)”

One of the things I routinely tell people is that if it's in the news,
don't worry about it. By definition, “news” means that it hardly
ever happens. If a risk is in the news, then it's probably not worth
worrying about. When something is no longer reported — automobile deaths,
domestic violence — when it's so common that it's not news, then you should
start worrying.

(quoted in Crypto-Gram, May
2005)

Schneier points out that watching the news doesn't help us assess risk more
accurately. But this is just one case of our larger, erroneous assumption
that the news is important and relevant. Do you expect someone who reads
the New York Times every day to have a better grip on what's going on
around her? To be more engaged with society? If so, you don't realize quite
how irrelevant the news is.

The news is like broadcast sports: entertainment, not education.
Some people read the news and then debate other people who read similar news
about the meaning and implications of such news. The news serves as a
shared experience, something that is greatly useful in supporting
interaction between people and enabling them to socialize and learn. But
it's still entertainment. In fact, it functions much like professional
sports: for the players and coaches, knowing the range of teams, strategies,
and performance statistics is vital to doing their work; but for most people
it's just a prerequisite to sitting around at lunch, establishing an
allegiance around shared interests, and allowing us to explore our
connections with the people around us, an urge all humans have.

And that's what's really important: your connections with the people
around you. That's where you have power to effect change. Unless you're a
lobbyist or diplomat or close personal friend of Someone Very Important,
your influence over national policy is very, very tiny. Your influence on a
lover, friend, family member, coworker, or neighbor is much higher. Your
potential influence on a new friend, business partner, blog reader, or even
random passerby is also high. Knowledge that supports your relationships
with these people is relevant and important to you, but will never make it
onto TV because it's rarely thrilling, exotic, and novel.

This doesn't mean you're not allowed to care about what countries the US
invades. A lot of that far-away stuff will affect you and those you care
about, especially years and years down the line. But even in those cases,
having an impact requires a social force comprised of many individuals. And
the intimate bonds that foster loyalty and trust come from helping your
buddy fix his broken down car, or sharing a grill-out with friends, or
discussing an interesting book. Nothing fit to print, but damned
important.