The holidays are over. It’s back to business, back to whatever matters were at hand before an extended Christmas and New Year’s break.

At the federal level in Washington D.C., one of those matters is the trial of President Trump in the U.S. Senate for two impeachment articles that were passed last month by the House of Representatives.

My purpose for bringing it up is not to make a statement about whether or not to remove the president from office. I (like almost everyone) have not heard the specifics firsthand.

The point I want to make is that I and millions of others would like to hear more from both sides. A huge amount of time has already been spent on the formal inquiry into what exactly took place regarding diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Ukraine. Now the general public is waiting.

That puts the worldwide news media in an unusual situation. There’s a dramatic imbalance between supply and demand when it comes to information.

The demand for news about what will happen to the House’s articles of impeachment is likely to grow as the days go by. We’re less than two weeks away from when Phil the groundhog from Pennsylvania might or might not see his shadow.

Lots of us would like a little more insight into the national political scene as well.

The 2020 Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are not very much more into the future than Groundhog’s Day. The citizens of New Hampshire’s Dixville Notch, who are known for casting the very first election ballots nationwide, should be as updated as possible as to when and how impeachment is being considered.

We’ve already seen worldwide news media responses to the public interest. It’s been treated as a high priority, as something that includes a sense of urgency.

Reporters have looked into some new topics related to federal government, such as U.S. diplomatic activity in Venezuela and the total dollar amount of the president’s travel expenses.

When sources are reluctant to reveal information, one of the most effective responses a reporter can make is to allude to the power of imagination.

In other words, when certain things are left unsaid and the public just has to infer as to what might be the case, there’s a vast assortment of conclusions that could be reached. Nearly every time some of the things people have the capacity to imagine will be far worse than the truth.

There’s a feeling among some people that public curiousity is at times morbid. It’s true that tabloid journalism has been that way on occasion, like when there’s anything out of the ordinary happening with the British Royal Family.

Many other times the curiousness is simply human nature. When something seems unusual, it’s never instinctive to just ignore it, walk away from it, or treat it like it’s not even there.

Instead we’ll check it out. The desire to know is strong, and it gets stronger when it’s not immediately satisfied. Things are basically supposed to make sense.

Time will tell in upcoming days how the whole process will unfold. Meanwhile life goes on; all the winter weather patterns, daytime routines, appointments and much more. The happenings on Capitol Hill are important enough, however, to make people pause for some short updates.

Fortunately people still care. We’re seeing that it hasn’t fundamentally changed since the 1990s. That’s good because it means millions of people want to be informed and actively engaged.

Political special interests are just as active as ever. If people have an apathy so great that it makes them unwilling to concern themselves, those special interests will be more than happy to capture a stronger share of attention from lawmakers.

The 2020 impeachment process proves the value of reading a daily newspaper. It shows how it’s often worthwhile to build a nightly news broadcast into the standard routine. Everyone’s viewpoint counts, especially if a large percentage of the general public chooses to be informed.