This article reads like a call for better curation. There's too much information for everyone to be fully informed about everything. But (and here's where I differ) it's not acceptable to just remain ignorant about things I can't affect. If nothing else, I can (and should) react strategically to even the biggest and the most foregone trends.

Journalism is exactly the answer to a call for better curation. News networks, newspapers, blogs, documentary film-makers, and so on, should be providing the high-level view of what is important and nothing more in an age where attention is a scarce resource.

Unfortunately, there isn't (yet) a successful business model for journalism that rewards the content producer for being efficient. That is, newspapers don't get rewarded for not producing a paper on slow news days (or for being shorter in general). Likewise, TV channels cannot pride themselves on providing a twelve-minute newscast covering the same information as the competition.

On the contrary, all modern sources of information (news, facebook, and otherwise) get rewarded for attracting eyeballs as much as possible, so there is an incentive to do the exact opposite: there's no news today, so here's a kitty fashion show or some linkbait to get your blood boiling.