I'm with the 'not interested' crowd.
Haven't watched the news for about 10 years or buy newspapers.
Same here. Moreover, I've never actively read newspapers or watched news broadcasts. I don't think I've got more jaded as I've got older, but I think perhaps 'why' has evolved over the years.
When I was little, I genuinely had no interest. John Craven's Newsround used to bore me, I wished they'd just hurry up and get on with Crackerjack. As I got older, that void was filled not with traditional news media but with actual social interaction and, yes of course, the Internet. With the Web and its precursors I found I could pull what I wanted rather than get pushed what someone else wanted to tell me.
These days, that's still the case. I get a constant feed of information from various sources - various trusted sources - and follow up from there. Friends send me links to things that they think might interest me, and I follow on Twitter some accounts whose stream contains useful information. About the only broadcast news I'm exposed to is the radio when I'm driving to / from work, which provides me with the headlines of the day in case there actually is anything I want to go and look into further.
This ad-hoc peer-driven system works well for me. It acts as an effective first tier bullshit filter. Which is good, because what I do see of the news either leaves me cold due to being vacuous non-stories, or makes me angry from the lies and misinformation.
Newspapers are especially good at this; running weaselly-worded non-stories that something "may" be the case, misinterpreting (accidentally or intentionally) research for the sake of a headline, or straight out making shit up. But this aside, even when it's trying to be factual, what do we get?
BONG! Here is the news.
Lead stories. Someone's been senselessly killed in a country it'd take you an hour to find on a map. A small child is still missing, police fear the worst.
Science news. Scientists might think that chilli powder may *flips coin* cure cancer. Actually reading the research paper shows that a trace element may have a mild effect on rats but they've not yet ruled out statistical error and you'd have to eat two kilos of Nagas a day to replicate the dosage, but none of this is mentioned in the news article.
Politics news. If something bad is happening, they'll run a story everyone's forgotten about from four years ago in order to divert attention from the real story. If nothing's happening then it'll be soundbites from one party blaming the other party for the state the country is in. And if something good is happening then it almost certainly won't concern me anyway as I'm not rich enough.
'Personality' news. Someone famous has done something that the rest of the world also manages to do on a daily basis without getting on the telly about it. Sometimes it'll be an affair, they're the best ones as they can run for weeks. There will be cries for his resignation, talk of fines or suspensions or tour cancellations, etc etc. Frankly I never really understood a) why an affair could or should affect your ability to talk shite in Parliament or kick a ball about and b) what business it is of anyone else other than the handful of people directly involved. But I digress.
Slow news day filler. Madeline McCann is still missing. Peter Sutcliffe hasn't been granted parole. Princess Diana is still dead. Look, here's some puppies.
Sport news. Aka, football news.
Weather. It's grey, cold and damp. Film at 11.
So you know what? No thanks. My life is better, richer and less stressful by not subjecting myself to biased opinion and conjecture as to what the rest of the world might be up to.
But, I'm usually abreast of what's going on almost by association anyway partly because you can never truly get away from things short of going and living in a tree, but also because my news feeds are simply better than the traditional ones. Via Twitter, Mono, STW, email, SMS, messenger et al I get direct news which is relevant to my interests almost immediately, certainly far faster than the TV or print can hope to deliver, but also accurately from people whose opinions and judgement I trust (or at least, whose biases I understand). I can then do my own research, cross-referencing multiple online sources, to learn more actual facts about any interesting stories.
It's the future, I've seen it.
I also get the feeling that people assume Twitter is entirely made up of Facebook style personal updates - there is that, of course, but there's also a wealth of information about topics that can interest you
This. I touched on this above, but it's a very good point. Twitter is what you make of it, if you think that it's full of comments like "JUST HAVIN A CRAP LOL" then the issue there isn't the media, it's that your friends are retards. Its immediacy and reach is pretty much unique, and I find it to be an invaluable resource (as well as a convenient way of keeping in touch with friends).