In fact, I don't think there's a single person on the entire planet who doesn't make that exact choice, with the only differences between individuals being which things go in which categories. And, I guess, how aware they are of the fact that that's what they do.
I think I'd need more context here. I want to say willfully ignorant.
However, I'm also someone who keeps up to date on local things, and casually keeps up to date on world stuff. I am in the know enough to be a well informed voter - but I also don't want to keep track of the daily death count in Ukraine or in Gaza or else I'd turn into a puddle of anxiety and not be able to leave my house. So I pick and choose what I'm going to be vocal on. I had to go to therapy to learn that I don't need to carry the weight of the world on my shoulders, so if that's your friend then I'd say it's a good reason.
I guess, innocence in the context of the question, I mean if a person just decides to learn about, listen to, goes out of their way to avoid learning about a thing but not others.
Such as avoiding global news and sticking with just local news.
Belangia helpfully adds: “A-gnoia means literally ‘not-knowing’; a-mathia means literally ‘not-learning.’ In addition to the type of amathia that is an inability to learn, there is another form that is an unwillingness to learn. … Robert Musii in an essay called On Stupidity, distinguished between two forms of stupidity, one he called ‘an honorable kind’ due to a lack of natural ability and another, much more sinister kind, that he called ‘intelligent stupidity.'”