←back to thread

757 points headalgorithm | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
_fat_santa ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
seneca ◴[] 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 #
CamperBob2 ◴[] 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 #
1. torstenvl ◴[] No.42953269[source]
"Objective surveys" by whom?
replies(1): >>42960195 #
2. Varriount ◴[] No.42960195[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 #
3. torstenvl ◴[] No.42999779[source]
This has literally zero bearing on the topic being discussed.