Not having my cable television hooked up, I was unaware of this overexposure. Just as I was only vaguely aware of other famous overexposures of our time.
It's important to be a well-informed citizen. But you can easily become an info-glutted citizen instead. One thing I experienced living in sub-Saharan Africa — I was never as well-informed about both U.S. news events and international affairs as then. Reason: I had no access to television, and pretty much my only source of news was the International Herald-Tribune, which I read twice a week.
The key was not just the newspaper (which was outstanding). It was the pace of receiving the information, which was nearly perfect. Rarely did I miss anything, and I could always follow what was going on, and usually the story had only progressed a little bit.
News stories unfold in real life much more slowly than our technology allows — and thus all that extra dead air (and newsprint) is filled with speculation, opinion, predictions, asides, excess detail, and repetition. Reading a daily newspaper like the IHT cover-to-cover once or twice a week gave the stories an organic feel that you don't get in today's news cycles because much of the filler wasn't there to confuse the issues.
Not only that, but the news cycles themselves have twisted our culture. Our government and news media end up collaborating with each other merely by trying to control and manipulate the images of the story during those rapid news cycles. But usually after two or three days all the BS washes out and you have a better idea of what happened.
Does that make sense?
I guess what I'm saying is the real news of the day usually is fairly light — it could be absorbed fairly quickly, and a longer reading (or viewing) cycle makes clear what is new and what isn't.
With a longer news cycle, you also don't find yourself reacting to every little thing as if it's more important than it really is. I guess what I'm saying, news can sometimes be better if it's a few days old.
Just a suggestion.