Most active commenters
  • CamperBob2(3)

←back to thread

Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

(www.scientificamerican.com)
757 points headalgorithm | 24 comments | 05 Feb 25 14:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.719s | source | bottom
Show context
_fat_santa ◴[05 Feb 25 15:45 UTC] No.42950157[source]▶
I've been an avid news consumer since ~2016 and early on I remember getting very outraged at articles, tweets and other pieces of news I read. Over time I realized that these articles want you to be outraged, and that the outrage is a form of control.

Over time though I picked up on these "outrage triggers" and that's helped me be much more objective about news I'm reading. I'll be reading an article and I can usually pick up the "tricks" writers use to generate outrage. I often find myself reading an article and go "oh look you want me to feel outraged right now".

Nowdays when I try to be informed about a story I will read an NYT report, a CNN report, a Fox News or other right leaning report, and then maybe one from DailyWire of Bannon's War Room. Skimming every article I often see spots where the outlet is trying to outrage their readers. NYT will report something that will outrage the left and as you "go right" on the reports you will start to see outrage directed to the right.

replies(3): >>42950764 #>>42951216 #>>42952701 #
jquery ◴[05 Feb 25 16:45 UTC] No.42951216[source]▶
I’ve generally found that overtly biased outlets on the right aren’t a huge source of outrage for me because their spin is so blatant—once I notice the propaganda, it’s easy to tune out. The bigger frustration is knowing how many people take that coverage at face value. It’s not quite the same “outrage” the article describes, though.

By contrast, the NYT often feels more subtle and therefore more effective at stoking that sense of constant agitation. They’re meticulously fact-based, but their editorial choices—what they highlight, the framing they use—can seem designed to provoke a reaction rather than just inform. It’s not only about the content of the stories; sometimes it’s also about how they present or prioritize them. If you haven’t encountered this firsthand, checking out “NYTimes pitch bot” on Bluesky can illustrate how their style can veer into outrage territory. It’s a satirical account, but it often points out the patterns in the Times’ headlines and story angles that might otherwise go unnoticed.

replies(5): >>42951604 #>>42952098 #>>42952541 #>>42956464 #>>42961536 #
1. seneca ◴[05 Feb 25 17:05 UTC] No.42951604[source]▶
You're absolutely correct, but you're missing an important detail.

I'm assuming you're more aligned politically with the left. If you're not, I apologize for the assumption. To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities.

It's very much a "fish in water" scenario. Trying to read articles from multiple sources can help, and questioning why you agree with one take over another. In the end, these are pretty sophisticated operations, and they know how to prey on their targets.

replies(3): >>42951728 #>>42952222 #>>42955138 #
2. psunavy03 ◴[05 Feb 25 17:12 UTC] No.42951728[source]▶
Subreddits are a great place to see the result of this . . . it's incredible how much utter shite and misinformation is just taken for granted as "the way things are" and how much the details of said misinformation depend on your political leanings.

And of course everyone is convinced that they have the rational truth and it's the other guy who's the "low-information voter" being taken by the propaganda.

3. CamperBob2 ◴[05 Feb 25 17:43 UTC] No.42952222[source]▶
To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities.

This isn't really a matter of subjective opinion, though. Objective surveys have consistently shown that Fox News viewers are worse-informed than people who don't pay attention to any conventional news sources. NYT readers are a long way up from there.

replies(4): >>42952962 #>>42953269 #>>42953453 #>>42955694 #
4. skissane ◴[05 Feb 25 18:29 UTC] No.42952962[source]▶
That’s not really comparing apples-to-apples though: a cable TV network aimed at the undereducated masses versus a prestigious broadsheet newspaper pitched at the educated classes

There’s plenty of right-of-centre magazines and websites aimed at educated right-wingers: e.g. First Things, Commentary, The American Conservative, the Spectator

replies(2): >>42953741 #>>42953919 #
5. torstenvl ◴[05 Feb 25 18:49 UTC] No.42953269[source]▶
"Objective surveys" by whom?
replies(1): >>42960195 #
6. dekhn ◴[05 Feb 25 19:04 UTC] No.42953453[source]▶
By the way, I read Fox News as a comparison for NYT. Reading the comments on Fox News articles is a very weird experience. You'll get this mixture of comments from "I support Trump but this particular idea is terrible" to "We must do everything Trump says to bring about the next revolution" to what appears to be blatant propaganda/manipulation from foreign agents and literal outright racism and sexism. What you don't see is nuanced communication, while in the NY Times, comments are often from knowledgeable people who have experience communicating online, can make good arguments, and back up their ideas with facts.

If the fox news comments in any way represent true opinions of trump supporters, then our country is truly screwed.

replies(1): >>42953707 #
7. CamperBob2 ◴[05 Feb 25 19:22 UTC] No.42953707{3}[source]▶
Honestly, I think most Trump supporters are never heard from online. They're just people who go about their daily lives without putting a lot of thought into politics. They checked the box on their ballot corresponding to a name they'd heard a lot lately.

I suspect they will have good reasons to pay more attention next time, if there is a next time.

replies(1): >>42958164 #
8. CamperBob2 ◴[05 Feb 25 19:24 UTC] No.42953741{3}[source]▶
Fair point, but it was the OP who first mentioned Fox News and the NYT in the same sentence.
replies(1): >>42954674 #
9. lazyeye ◴[05 Feb 25 19:36 UTC] No.42953919{3}[source]▶
I read a book on the history of the NYT. They would market themselves to advertisers with "our readers have the highest disposable income of aby news source in America". It's an interesting reflection on the modern Democrat party and politics in general, that the NYT now leans left.
10. skissane ◴[05 Feb 25 20:30 UTC] No.42954674{4}[source]▶
Right, but I think their point was that they are both biased just in opposite directions, and bringing the orthogonal difference in target audience education level into it is arguably confusing things

Maybe a better demonstration of their point might be comparing NYT/WaPo to the WSJ

11. hansonkd ◴[05 Feb 25 21:07 UTC] No.42955138[source]▶
> NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you

After this past election cycle I don't see how people can make that comment with a straight face.

Media in general is very right leaning. Some like CNN and NYT are maybe slightly more left than far right fox news, but there aren't many "left leaning" mass market news sources that are essentially felating one party for millions of people.

NYT and CNN, etc are all very critical of democrats when there is a controversy. This is stark contrast to fox news which essentially is willful ignorance of anything bad republicans / trump has done.

The "normalization" of Trump's corruption by media in general should be enough to see which way they lean.

Its just that if anybody is slightly less than full blown fox news conservative they get labeled as left leaning by everyone in the media so there is some idea of "balance" but conservative media (fox news, conservative podcasts, etc) are overwhelmingly mass market and the majority.

replies(3): >>42955813 #>>42957696 #>>42958139 #
12. macrocosmos ◴[05 Feb 25 21:47 UTC] No.42955694[source]▶
Objective surveys.
13. sandspar ◴[05 Feb 25 21:55 UTC] No.42955813[source]▶
Interesting to be around for the birth of a false fact like "the media is right leaning". Overnight you see people start parroting something that's clearly untrue.
replies(1): >>42956263 #
14. hansonkd ◴[05 Feb 25 22:30 UTC] No.42956263{3}[source]▶
> clearly untrue

Maybe you haven't been paying attention the past 5 years, but there has been a dramatic shift to the right in media. Companies change ownership and the new owners take advantage of the historical left leaning nature of the media.

The magic trick fox news and conservatives has pulled is by being so far right that center/slightly right parties look far left. The normalization of the MAGA movement is evidence of this right leaning media machine.

Look at who owns the "left leaning" media companies. CNN is owned by conservatives.

Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson audience dwarf most other channels these days. fox news has almost 3-4 times the viewership of CNN which is the preferred example of a "left leaning" network to balance them.

The rights constant raging against mainstream media is an attempt to distract from the fact that mainstream media is in fact conservative.

15. claar ◴[06 Feb 25 01:09 UTC] No.42957696[source]▶
"media is in general is very right leaning"

Wow. You don't need to be very right leaning to feel the complete opposite. I'm simply amazed someone could feel that way, as nearly all media is very left-leaning (to my perspective).

replies(1): >>42959466 #
16. vaccineai ◴[06 Feb 25 02:08 UTC] No.42958139[source]▶
You have many misunderstandings that you should probably have right first before continuing

CNN leans pretty far left, but not as left as MSNBC

NYT leans pretty far left, similarly to CNN

Reddit leans very far left, so does Facebook and Instagram

Media in general is very left leaning. For example, Youtube, Disney, Netflix are the biggest online video content house, and they all lean heavily left. Even Max leans slightly left. There is no right leaning online content house. And all contents are moving to online.

replies(1): >>42958928 #
17. vaccineai ◴[06 Feb 25 02:11 UTC] No.42958164{4}[source]▶
Trump supporters watch Fox News, and listens to Joe Rogan. They are pretty in tune with the current politics, but they just don't try to go online and fight against the left.
replies(1): >>42958456 #
18. ◴[06 Feb 25 02:54 UTC] No.42958456{5}[source]▶
19. jquery ◴[06 Feb 25 04:02 UTC] No.42958928{3}[source]▶
What you're calling "left" is center-right in the rest of the developed world. None of those are left leaning. They are all pro-corporate, pro-capitalist, anti-worker "infinite growth forever" media. Some of the journalists who work for them are left, but the owners are largely conservative and force them to cover Democratic scandals just as much as Republican ones, while Fox News and other conservative media outlets just outright ignore Republican scandals entirely.

If mainstream media in America was left, Bernie would have just finished up his second term.

replies(1): >>42966513 #
20. dboreham ◴[06 Feb 25 05:50 UTC] No.42959466{3}[source]▶
Your perspective may be miscalibrated. Organizations earning all their income from large corporations are unlikely to propagate socialism.
replies(1): >>42960980 #
21. Varriount ◴[06 Feb 25 08:09 UTC] No.42960195{3}[source]▶
Ad Fontes' media bias chart [1] and it's methodology [2] are about as objective as you can be with something as subjective as bias and factuality.

1 - https://adfontesmedia.com/

2 - https://adfontesmedia.com/methodology/

There are a couple other groups out there too:

- https://www.allsides.com/media-bias

- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

replies(1): >>42999779 #
22. weberer ◴[06 Feb 25 10:28 UTC] No.42960980{4}[source]▶
And there's the core of issue. If you use vague terms like "left" and "right", then different people in the discussion will be using different definitions. You're using them to mean socialism vs capitalism, whereas others mean Democrats vs Republicans. Some are even using liberal vs conservative. Occasionally, I've seen it as authoritarian vs libertarian, even though that should be an orthogonal axis. If you're going to commit to the logical sin of the false dichotomy, at least say what you mean.
23. claar ◴[06 Feb 25 21:07 UTC] No.42966513{4}[source]▶
"pro-corporate" and "pro-capitalist" have nothing to do with left vs right in the definition those in my circle would use.

If these are the topics that you feel define the "right", it's no wonder society is confused how this administration was elected.

24. torstenvl ◴[10 Feb 25 13:10 UTC] No.42999779{4}[source]▶
This has literally zero bearing on the topic being discussed.