←back to thread

757 points headalgorithm | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
1. trimethylpurine ◴[] No.42956464[source]
>meticulously fact-based

Interesting...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...

I'm not picking on them specifically. If you'd said this about any news outlet, I wouldn't believe you.

replies(1): >>42958889 #
2. jquery ◴[] No.42958889[source]
If that's your standard, nobody is meticulously fact based. I stand by my statement, I didn't say they were perfect.
replies(1): >>42962051 #
3. trimethylpurine ◴[] No.42962051[source]
Exactly. No shortage of people leaving the industry because fact based isn't even the goal. Editors push for outrage. That's the point.