You imply that the population number is the reason we shouldn't care, but then you say explicitly that it's the fact that we don't live there. Both seem nonsensical without further elaboration?
It's easy to understand why false news can distort your understanding of the world. If a journalist convinces you that X happened when actually it did not happen, you'll have a wrong belief which makes it harder to understand what's going on. What's more challenging to understand is the phenomenon called "sensationalism", where accurate news distorts your understanding of the world.
Crime coverage is usually the easiest starting point. You can, and some people do, continually scan the country for crimes. Then when such a crime happens, you publish an emotive article declaring that it happened. Crime is of course bad, so each of these articles will make sense on its own terms; poor innocent victims who've been hurt or killed by evil men deserve sympathy! But if you only ever publish content on crime from within that framing, your readers will inevitably start to conclude that it's the only framing, and crime policy should primarily be focused on protecting us innocent potential victims from the hordes of evil men who want to hurt us.
Hopefully that makes sense. If it does, then I'd encourage you to take that critical eye and turn it to the 404Media Flock coverage (https://www.404media.co/tag/flock/). When you scroll through, does it seem like they're carefully studying Flock to keep you informed on the policy landscape surrounding it? Or does it seem like they're searching for the most sensational Flock-related stories they can find?
That is a lot of words to not answer the question that was actually asked.
Why are you so insistent that no one should be interested in whether a town bans Flock cameras and how the proponents of those cameras react? Why are you so invested in convincing others they should not follow the news about this?
You’re trying to cast yourself in the role of educator here but I don’t think that’s what you’re doing here at all. How can you call it sensationalism when an article refers to a snubbed council member’s actions as a “crash out”, but you don’t call out the sensationalism of claiming that a county of 829 people with a very low crime rate needs to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year on surveillance cameras to keep them safe? Safe from what?
