For a variety of reasons, until the summer of 2014, I did not own a smart phone. Even now, my phone is merely of average intelligence, but its IQ is slowly rising. As a result, I came upon news aggregate applications fairly recently.

As I began to navigate these unfamiliar waters, I noticed a disturbing pattern developing. Initially, I read a few articles from a variety of categories. I read about about mid-term elections, the latest movies, foreign wars and Kim Kardashian. If an article with a catchy title appeared, I would browse with mild interest. However, I soon became aware of the lack of diversity in my news feed. Increasingly, my phone assumed that I could not be satisfied until I read about Snooki’s most recent escapade or Taylor Swift’s most recent break-up.

At first, I became frustrated with my phone, anxious for more variety in the articles that appeared. Then, I realized that I was the one making these determinations. Each time I clicked on an article, the news app learned about my preferences. For each article I read about celebrities, my phone’s algorithm selected more articles with similar attributes.

It quickly became apparent that I needed to teach my phone what I truly wanted to read. The way to accomplish this is through my “clicks.” Each “click” became a vote.

I quickly became much more discriminating with my reading choices. Instead of falling victim to “click-bait,” I chose articles to improve my understanding of world events and to broaden my exposure to a variety of ideas.

Whether it be my phone’s news app, Facebook, or the BBC’s website, a click of my mouse or a tap with my thumb communicates important information. When we consume media, we are informing those producing media of our preferences and they respond accordingly. When the most read article on CNN involves the easiest way to “catch ‘em all” in Pokemon Go, CNN will produce more articles in that vein. When more people read the article, more people will see the advertisements. When more people see the advertisements, CNN earns more money in advertising revenue.

The incentive in place for news agencies is to make money by creating a product the public desires. It is my responsibility as a consumer to communicate to my news sources the types of media I want to read.

It strikes me as unfair to blame “the media” for “failing to tell us important stories.” After the terrorist attacks in Paris, I saw many Facebook posts complaining that the media failed to cover bombings in Baghdad and Lebanon that occurred on the same day. These consumers grumbled that we needed to hear more about these stories.

I admit that I felt an initial swell of sympathy for this concern. As an avid reader of world news, I love nothing better than an article about why the same country can be called either Myanmar or Burma or discussion of the historical causes for unrest in Somalia. These articles are not as readily apparent on Western news sources.

However, these huffy Facebook-ers fail to consider that these stories are present in the media. Journalist who have lived and worked in conflict zones around the world are passionate about communicating these issues to anyone who will listen. They write stories, they design interactive maps to explain the Syrian civil war and they share striking photos of current events.

This global view of the world is present in “the media.” However, more often than not, it is incumbent upon me to seek out these articles.

Stories are being written - stories of bombings in Baghdad, violence in Burundi, the accomplishments of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and the scrappy Chinese village thumbing its nose at Beijing. You can find all of these and countless others. Perhaps it will just take an a brave step into the “Africa” page on your favorite news site. There is a whole new corner of the world to explore - don’t miss out.

So, next time you have the opportunity, vote wisely. Every click counts.