It's not how much news you consume but how you consume it.
If you read news from several sources, then you are less likely to be misguided than someone that reads way more news but from only one source.
For your example about Hillary and Trump, to me, that just affirms that keeping up with news (and history) is super important. The relationship between news and polls is not new. Dewey Defeats Truman [1] was one famous historical example where a newspaper got it very wrong despite using tried and true methods and more recently, FiveThirtyEight was an example when a statistician got it very right for a small period of time [2]. Backed with that knowledge, you are able to read a headline like "Hillary will prevail over Trump" with the right amount of context.
If you read news from several sources, then you are less likely to be misguided than someone that reads way more news but from only one source.
For your example about Hillary and Trump, to me, that just affirms that keeping up with news (and history) is super important. The relationship between news and polls is not new. Dewey Defeats Truman [1] was one famous historical example where a newspaper got it very wrong despite using tried and true methods and more recently, FiveThirtyEight was an example when a statistician got it very right for a small period of time [2]. Backed with that knowledge, you are able to read a headline like "Hillary will prevail over Trump" with the right amount of context.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight
I think one could argue that perhaps keeping up with news in order to understand news is too much work but that's an entirely different issue.