The stuff behind the news

I am not the most informed person when it comes to current events. Considering I'm someone very interested in journalism, this probably isn't a good thing. However, I can't help but be fairly impatient in the learning process. Because, when I try to sit down and read a newspaper on a hot topic-- the crisis in the housing market or the engagement of US troops overseas-- I often find myself needing to search back... and back... and back... to gain the information I need to really understand the issues. But there just aren't enough hours in the day for me to trace the Middle East conflict back to its origins by myself. That would require backpedaling through multiple decades, not just the papers of the past few weeks, or even back to September 11, 2001.
I feel like this isn't just an issue in newspapers and current events. Often, when people are sharing stories from their lives with others, they assume that their listeners know the whole story. But usually, people aren't fully informed on the histories of people they're talking to. Understanding of others' issues has a tendency to be shallow because people assume greater depth of others' knowledge than is actually true. This seems to come up in the book we're reading for English, Reading Lolita in Tehran. Many of the revolutionaries assume knowledge about America. They make assertions that America is a "decadent" and morally corrupt place with a completely deplorable culture, but they don't really provide evidence that is convincing. Readers who are familiar with American culture are left frustrated by, for example, claims made by Nafisi's students that demonstrate disrespect for American culture and disregard for the reality.
Apparently, at least in terms of news, I'm not the only one who has realized the need for more background information. ProPublica, which does investigative journalism, and students at NYU, are working together on explainer.net, which will provide background information in prominent issues. For example, the latest post addresses 3 questions about Wikileaks. I think many people should be made aware of this website, for it is surely something that could help a huge number of people to become informed. Though it would be more convenient for newspapers to take care of conveying background information, there's just not enough space.
People should continue to attempt to give people background information the way Explainer.net has, in all areas of life. Doing so would be a step away from widespread ignorance. A nice side benefit may also be that people would be more willing to read and follow news if they know something about it.