No, just no. Maybe I'll sound like a curmudgeon, but that information is totally worthless, and for people like me, is exactly the kind of thing that makes me depressed. "Oh, hey, some random sports team recreated a pointless tribal warfare act! NSA? Who cares what they do, I've got nothing to hide." There are more important, more culturally relevant things to discuss, and one should not stoop to ignore them merely to "fit in." One should try to elevate discourse by ignoring the shallow, vapid happenings that happen to be in vogue (precisely what this article describes as being wrong with "news"!) and help to enlighten those around oneself.
Eating sweets makes people fat. You can eat what you want and live with the consequences, just the same as everyone else.
The lazy in me would actually like this in a weekly email.
1) Some news is important, purely for social (not informational) reasons. When you show up to the office, you want to know why everyone's talking about Miley Cyrus! And you need to know who won the Superbowl, even if you have no interest.
2) News does have explanatory power, but mostly in weekly mags like The Economist, New Yorker, etc., and occasionally in analysis pieces by the NYT. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But to my first point -- I would love a service that would "curate" the need-to-know headlines, to send to me every morning/afternoon. Where each headline had a numerical score or increasing importance (say, 1-5), and I could choose to subscribe to all headlines of 5, and all headlines 3-5 in tech, for example. The important thing being that this is not a simple daily digest, but that I'd only receive it when there was something newsworthy -- plenty of days, you'd receive nothing at all.