Too much of anything is bad’ is a common saying we have all grown up reciting right through school to our day-to-day living. We do not know who first said it. However, we know who has said a few variations of it.
For example, the legendary American writer, humorist, and essayist Mark Twain is quoted to have once said; ‘Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whiskey is barely enough.’
Similarly, American novelist, short story writer, and playwright Edna Ferber reportedly once said, ‘Perhaps too much of everything is as bad as too little.’
We have all had our personal experiences with ‘too much of anything’ or ‘too little of anything’ – whether it is food, alcohol, dancing, love, name it! We have thus learned that moderation is best in most situations, whether we are indulging, supplying, or consuming.
But that is about things we can touch and feel. What about things of a general nature, like information, like news, or what looks like news? Is too much information/news bad?
Can it endanger our lives and the democracy we live in or aspire to live in? Or does too much information/news instead make us more knowledgeable, more discerning, more critical, etc?
Today, we live in the information age. Wherever and whenever one turns, there is a flood of information in multiple formats – print, audio, video, or all rolled into one. It comes straight into our palm through smart mobile phones on social media or through the old/ legacy media.
So, how does ‘too much’ information in this information age of internet, social media, et al affect us, and how do we respond to mitigate its impact? These are the questions US professors, Susan A. Nolan and Michael Kimball, tried to peel back in their essay, ‘Critical Ignoring: A Strategy for Information Overload’ (November 23, 2025). I received mine courtesy of the American Press Institute (API) weekly newsletter, ‘Need to Know’.
The authors observe that, particularly during elections [in the USA – and same in Uganda], the public tends to be bombarded with a lot of information through various mediums to the extent that often times they are unable to tell what information is correct from what is disinformation or misinformation.
Flooding the public with information as a political strategy is credited to US President Donald Trump’s media strategist, Steve Bannon, who reportedly said: ‘All we have to do is flood the zone…Every day we hit [the media] with three things. They’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all of our stuff done, bang, bang, bang.’
The impact? ‘Flooding the zone might work as a political strategy, but it takes a psychological toll on media consumers. For example, polls show that 65 percent of US adults have felt the need to reduce their media consumption because of information overload and ensuing feelings of fatigue.
Moreover, experimental research has found that a habit of closely following political news is a chronic stressor, often leading to negative emotions.’ Do you see the same in Uganda’s ongoing 2026 general election campaigns? Are you fatigued by too much political information? Have you ‘switched off ‘as a result?
Well, to cope with the information overload, people tend to adopt what is termed as ‘critical ignoring’.
This is ‘a type of deliberate ignorance, which refers to the conscious choice to ignore information even when the costs of obtaining it are small or nonexistent. So, as you scroll through the news on a social media feed, you can-and should-make choices about what to ignore.’
The authors share a few clues to help us decide what information to ignore and what to consume, namely: One, content that is polarizing.
Two, does it appeal to intuition or common sense? Three, it has no sources or the sources are not credible. Four, information that seems to be released as a distraction. Five, it involves unsupported accusations, particularly of a political opponent. Just ignore these. Six, it promotes the threat of a bogeyman or a scapegoat.
Important caution: ‘Don’t ignore everything. The idea of critical ignoring is to strategically decide not to consume certain content. But this is not meant to be in service of blissful ignorance of the world around us; rather, it’s meant to protect our cognitive resources for when it really matters.’