×

Way too much information

The human brain, in general, is pretty lazy. It’s a powerhouse of electrical signals and neural connections, constantly processing information, but it also loves to conserve energy wherever it can. That’s why you don’t memorize the color of every house you drive past, or think about how your teeth taste (although you probably are now — sorry).

The idea of information overload isn’t new. The term gained popularity in the 1960s among management and information scholars to describe how too much information makes it difficult to process complex issues and make effective decisions.

This is why, in nearly every area of life, we rely on trusted authorities — a doctor, a mechanic, a news source — to fill those gaps for us. None of us have the time or mental energy to process every detail we encounter. You might notice a house’s color, but you’re not stopping to consider who painted it, why they chose that shade, or how the paint was manufactured.

In short, our brains skip over irrelevant details and rarely scrutinize information that fits our worldview. If you see a sign that says “Water is wet,” you nod and move along. It’s only when something clashes with our expectations — like a sign claiming “Grass is purple” — that we pause to investigate.

Of course, we’re not just talking about the color of grass. We’re talking about how people process complex, often politically charged information.

Take, for example, the Big Beautiful Bill — the nickname given to a very real, very dense piece of legislation. At over 900 pages, it covers topics ranging from agriculture to student loans to Medicaid. Each section contains subsections, which reference other laws, programs and bureaucratic details.

Most of us — including many of the people writing about it — haven’t read the whole thing. And even if we did, understanding it would require prior knowledge of decades’ worth of policy history. It’s simply impractical for the average person to know it all. So, we rely on people we trust to summarize and explain what matters.

If you’re especially sharp, you might have considered the possibility that the Big Beautiful Bill is intentionally dense — designed to discourage scrutiny.

The federal government has a long-standing reputation — across decades, parties and ideologies — for burying important details in layers of bureaucratic jargon. And while people seem to struggle on many things today, there’s at least one simple truth most of us can agree on here: we rarely read the fine print.

This brings us to a recent Associated Press article we published on July 5, titled “Rural hospitals brace for financial hits or even closure under Republicans’ $1 trillion Medicaid cut.” The story drew heated reactions online, with commenters calling it fake news and fearmongering.

The thing is — if you read the article, it brings up a lot of interesting information. It quotes independent researchers, industry insiders and data about rural hospitals, which have long operated on razor-thin margins.

Hospital closures in rural America were already happening before this bill even entered public discussion. It’s not fearmongering for experts to speculate that changes to Medicaid could worsen that trend. But we get it — their opinion won’t necessarily change yours.

Here’s where this gets a bit more interesting. According to our Facebook analytics, that article received nearly 18,000 views and over 300 interactions. But only about 180 people actually clicked the link — a mere 1%. Of those, 75 were unique readers, with an average read time of 40 seconds. Meaning, the majority of people formed extremely strong opinions without reading much about the issue.

This isn’t new. Again, information overload was identified over 60 years ago, and for all of human history we’ve known it’s unreasonable to expect people to know everything. We don’t expect you to know how to grow penicillin in your kitchen, for example, even though it’s technically possible.

Our greater point is this: we want readers to be receptive to new information. Scrutinize it. Question it. Even disagree with it. That’s healthy. But we do hope that before condemning a source, you engage with the actual content. The Express doesn’t respond to most fiery comments on our social media — we know people need to vent — but when misinformation spreads, we do feel obligated to step in.

We know some readers are simply, factually wrong when they engage with us. And that’s fine — we don’t expect people to always know everything. But, what we do hope for, is a willingness to learn and engage in thoughtful conversation.

Ideally, readers would form opinions after fully processing the information, not just the headline.

Call us optimistic, but we believe it’s possible.

If you made it this far, thank you. Seriously — we appreciate readers like you. And if you’re reading this online, especially through our Facebook page, drop a comment that says “God Bless America.” It’ll be our little secret that you stuck around to the end.

Starting at $3.69/week.

Subscribe Today