I'm sorry but there just isn't any comparison. Have you ever read news about something you are an expert at? It's just laughable inaccurate.
News is entertainment, not information. If you want information, read a book written by an expert at the field.
Like it or not, engagement with civic society requires a person to be more current on what is going on in their towns, state and country than a book publishing schedule allows.
Besides, there's a lot of room in between experts' books and passively consuming whatever the top headlines are on any given day. You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.
In the voting booth, almost nobody will actually consider the candidates based on their individual merits or plans, regardless of team. The number of voters that dare to split the ticket is well below 10%, outright proving that there's little consideration of 'important issues' ; people pick a side and stick with it.
Complaining about needs needs to put effort into finding good sources of informations sounds about the same to me as if a colleague was complaining about having to read the documentation and latest release digests of software they use. That's the job.
Fortunately news media are committed to keeping the public informed up to the minute with the latest poll results so that everyone will know who seems to be winning or losing the imaginary horse race.
Occasional updates will also be provided regarding a candidate's appearance, family, hobbies, pets, and any scandals or rumors thereof. Pundits will also be invited to comment on these topics, as well as who they are betting on.
I'll track headlines every few days. I listen to a few in-depth podcasts. An hour on a substantial topic is useful.
I try to be aware of weather and local elections. That last is becoming stunningly difficult, FWIW.
Otherwise, news has a useful lifetime of < 24h in most instances. Philosophy, technology, history, culture ... are far more durable. Spend your time on those instead.
The tendency for public broadcasters to replace ever more long-form content and discussion with Yet Another News Show Hyping The Cycle Yet More ... is among the reasons I've curtailed even most of my public-broadcasting diet.
For a time there was a weekly programme which would cover 3--4 stories in depth with background, and do so well. It had been on a bit of a fade for some years and began what I suspect is its final implosion about a year ago. That had been a useful option for me --- an hour a week, substance, most of the hype and uncertainty had already resolved. Unfortunately it seems I'm now shopping for a replacement, though I'm not entirely sure I want one.
>The US has an important election coming up in a few months. Regardless of which part of the political spectrum a person is on there are issues most will care about a great deal that will be extremely impacted by the outcomes of the elections.
It's going to happen anyways whether you watch TV or not.
>You don't have to choose between infotainment news & a complete vacuum of knowledge about current affairs.
Yes you do.
Can you give an example?
I'm inclined to prefer the book-readers too, but the way this is phrased sets up a bit of a false dichotomy.
Lots of stuff that's happening now and is of interest won't make it into books for a while. And there is something moderately interesting (and educational) about following along, thinking about where the world will go and why, and seeing if you turn out to be right a few days/weeks later.
For a while, my entire daily news consumption was just listening to the FT News Briefing [1] during my commute. It's about 10 minutes, and -- most days -- it was just the right amount of news.
Can you give an example?
