Obsessing over having the capability to make a decision-- and then simply ignoring that capability in standard practice, for a good percentage of the time--- Really, it just seems absurd to me.
It's a crutch, wierd, that lets people pretend they're underinformed instead of underequipped to process the information in front of them.
Humanity knows a lot of things, but individual people can only learn so much, especially on an amateur basis, so there is a vast and widening gulf between the average public understanding and the actual state of any given art. Nobody likes being average or a member of the outgroup, so we tell ourselves that we're really capable of fully understanding everything if only all the relevant facts were in front of us. 24-hour news networks, like academic journal paywalls and mystery cults, are a convenient psychological focusing point for our anxiety at not understanding things. They let us convince ourselves that we are simply not told the whole story, rather than that the whole story is bigger and more complex than we have time to appreciate before we get back to work, and that gives us some specific external factor to rail against. They are driven by two of the most basic principles in running a con: first, that the easiest person to con is always yourself, and secondly that the best way to get someone to believe something wholeheartedly, even in the face of countervailing evidence, is to let them think they're too smart to be conned into thinking the opposite. Thus anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and cable news audiences.
They're not selling news, man, and they couldn't if they wanted to. They're selling the fantasy that everyone watching is uniquely capable of recognizing that they're not selling news, and would understand everything if only they knew the truth.
The sum of all human knowledge? FUCK, that is conceited as shit to think you can contain that inside a single human mind. There's a reason why we have books, computers, and have created AIs. It's because of human *IN*capacity. Same reason we make advanced tools to conduct science with; Our eyes, ears, and other sensory organs are just not good enough on their own, and cannot be properly audited. Acknowledging that we are not perfect beings is important, and I would argue-- essential, to making a truly rational decision. Even then, I would say that being able to understand and cope with the notion that we make our decisions in at least some degree of ignorance, and include that in our decision making processes.
Take the researcher interviewed for that 2008 fluff article I linked-- He strenuously asserted that his work does not have all the answers, and that there is not enough information to make a fully informed conclusion on, concerning the subject of free will; Only that decision making processes in the brain can be reliably indicated at up to 7 seconds in advance. He outright warns that he does not know if the choices made in this manner can be consciously overruled or not, let alone how often such an over-ride might happen. He's being honest in his thinking and decision making. It is necessary for demonstrating that we actually DO have the capacity to make a decision, rather than just asserting that we do.
That is a big thing in my estimation, and quite possibly the biggest contribution scientific education is supposed to instill in people; Understanding one's own limitations and intrinsic capacity for bias, instead of accepting one's internal narrative as true-- and then applying that understanding to their work and thoughts. It is good and healthy to acknowledge "I don't know". It is good and healthy, and required IMO, to be able to determine "I cannot do this" when you try something, and it is outside your capacity.
The major error most make is in believing that they can come to acquire a capability later, after the fact. EG, I know I am no good at playing musical instruments. I have no natural talent, and am all thumbs with the things. Musical structure is not my problem; I sing beautifully, but I cannot play instruments. I have tried and failed many times to gain that capacity. This is fine, and I am fine with this. I have simply shown, QED, to myself something that is true about myself, and I am better for knowing it. There are people doing things at very high levels of mastery, that I can never hope to aspire to. I am content with being able to do the most that I *CAN* be able to accomplish, and the only way to know that is to push my boundaries, and accept when I hit impasses. (Like playing an instrument.) I acknowledge that I am a generalist, and so am not a substitute for a specialist in any vocation. But I also acknowledge that the old saying "A jack of all trades but master of none, is often better than a master of one." has a good deal of merit. Some trades are outside my reach, but the ones that are, I desire to have at least basic competence in. Being hamstrung by being overspecialized is not a position I want to find myself in. Instead, I want to be able to understand when and how I need to find a specialist, and how to determine if I am being bamboozled. I am not a physician, but I can perform life saving interventions, assess injury severity, and keep a patient calm until they can be properly treated, for instance-- instead of being paralyzed because "OH GOD, THE BLOOD" or whatever. It is part of my personal identity to see (and actually know) what I am and am not capable of doing; I test myself under controlled circumstances, to be prepared for uncontrolled ones. It's been a big benefit to my life so far.
RE: 24hr news
I don't pretend to know all the intricacies in all the politics brewing in all the world's nations-- That would require comprehensive education on far too many cultures and histories for me to capable of. However, the conspicuous lack of coverage of obviously very important current events-- such as say, the situation in Venezuela, or even something more domestically impacting, like the trade war with china, other than 10 second sound-bytes? That is something that is clearly deficient. When they instead jump straight to "Let's go to our social media correspondent, and see how our viewers think---" I immediately want to join the SlapAHo tribe, and administer a beatdown. No, the news outlets hire and retain investigative reporters and journalists, WHO'S FUCKING JOB is to research and present this information TO the public, so that they have at least some chance of making informed opinions on these events. Jumping straight to "Let's see what idiot bob thinks about this!" instead? Fuck that. That's not what you are there for.
I get your point that they aren't actually producing news anymore though. They are producing "entertainment", and making people think or feel that they on par with somebody that risked their life to gather on-site reporting and information about serious world events, and who has spent years interracting with foreign cultures to be able to accomplish that-- with their uninformed, intellectually in-bred opinions. Again, I question what actual "Use" that has. Investigative journalism, and informed discussion have value. But this shit?