Is there any excuse for intentional ignorance of current events?

'Awareness' is a loaded issue -- there's immediate shock news, after all, and then there's something that could be building or lingering for a while, that's not obviously a problem or concern but in retrospect turns out to be something that should have been at the forefront all along.

As a citizen, I always felt it was important to know at least something of what was going on, allowing for whatever oversimplifications or distortions could be occurring -- still do, and I do pay attention to particular issues or concerns I've had a long-standing interest in. But I wouldn't pretend to know everything, I certainly don't pretend to feel every calamity (lethal or not) deeply, and I'm just as interested in tuning out as tuning in.

Disillusionment with government and politics, and an all-encompassing (but probably completely false) sense of security are two possible things I can think of.

It's a big question.

But i don't think there is an inherent responsibility for people to "know" things, except maybe you'd lose the right to complain when people talk about things you don't know, maybe.

But again, are these valid reasons? You seem to think that the second isn't valid.

Yes, but it could be argued that actively avoiding the warnings and reports and arguments of various pressure groups *is* ignorance, is it not?

1. Information addiction is a bad thing, as is the addiction to anything consumable.
2. That which gets reported and discussed as "current events", and the way in which that stuff gets reported and discussed, may be pretty far away from what's really happening.
3. There may be more important things to concentrate on.

This is interesting.

yes: often I find myself actively avoiding reportage of various news stories because I'm so distrustful of the media/the sources, and have doubts about being any better informed after consuming the story. However, I also know that when a story DOES hook me in, I have a vague compulsion to track it through as many agencies as possible - I can't do this for everything because of a) information overload, b) time constraints.

I think awareness of current events is pretty crucial in principle, but actually harder than expected in practice.

Crucial to what, though ?

But where must be a line drawn, surely? There are a lot of information about which very much have no impact on any decisions that you have to ever make, are those pieces of information important to know?

That kind of forms the ill expressed second part of my post, it was really just an example of situations that may arise, when you have to make an opinion/judgement of something that you previously had no need to make, should you be expected to have known EVERYTHING just in case?

Essentially, I have found more enjoyable ways of wasting my time than reading one story after another about the world far beyond my range of influence. I wouldn't really call my process active avoidance so much as simply not seeking it out at all. If I do load up a news page for whatever reason, I tend to avoid 90% of the noise in favor of my own specific, usually local, interests - maybe that counts. I just don't care. When I did care, I think it was about 'feeling smart' much more than it ever was about a real concern for what was going on or the people and places involved.

But would you be able to recognize most news as being nothing new if you had never been a news junkie? I think learning about current events, esp. in relation to history, is essential to understanding the way the world works. The interplay between economics and politics affects all life on this planet. Most news is indeed not new, but I think plotting the rise and fall of economies and civilazations is, yeah, kind of important. And if you intentionally cut yourself off from all but what interests you, you run a high risk of never seeing the patterns, and a high risk of developing uninformed opinions on things that affect you directly.

Not that any of that really matters re: the thread question. If most people are cutting themselves off from the news for whatever reason, the only thing to ask is "why?"

People who choose not to know things get the glorious privelege of having all their decisions made for them.

I think it's good to find a source to keep up generally on what's happening - for me, it's NY Times (cursory skimming), Daily Show and ILX. .. A pretty shameful diet, I suppose.

Oh come on. What, did you just read the Illuminatus Trlogy? You can know stuff. You can't know everything, and sure at some point you have to base your opinions on assumptions, but there's nothing unrealistic about thinking you can be better informed.

Yes, you can. And if it's stopping you from, I dunno, recovering from cancer or finishing your novel, you should.

me too. You forgot "frustration."