Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.

All printed papers in the US that I’m aware of serve corporate political interests so I lost you there. Then you have magazines that are aligned with various think tanks and lobbyists. The truth isn’t somewhere in the middle of all this, it’s with totally independent journalists on new media like Rumble.

It doesn't have to be printed in the US. The Guardian is backed by a non-profit and there's a US (digital) edition plus a printed weekly international edition.

There are some left if you look. The Texas Tribune[0] is a bright spot for issues related to Texas; a state that has been doing trumpism before trump ever became a thing--but with less calls for succession these days.

[0] https://www.texastribune.org/about/

This take seems to me to be a classic case of the US tendency to irrational suspicion as first described in the Hofstadter essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

I'm not American but I do subscribe to The Atlantic, which seems to be owned by some kind of philanthropic trust with a do-gooding billionaire at the helm. As a European, that's plenty good enough for me. Financial incentives are important but they're not everything. We also sometimes need to trust in the good faith of professionals who take their jobs seriously. In this case journalists. Journalism is itself a corporate body of sorts, i.e. a guild. Its mission is to seek truth, just as the medical guild's mission is to heal. Personally, I choose to take both groups of professionals at their word.

A subscription to The Atlantic is a great deal, by the way. The volume of content is manageably low and the quality is consistently excellent.

The guardian openly states on their website that they are anti-trump. So going to posit they may be less that neutral.

From the banner on their home page:

"From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, billionaire owners control much of the information that reaches the public. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy"

also

"After Trump remarked that “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” The Guardian blasted out a defiant fundraising email stating, “Trump, we don’t want to be your friend” and urging readers to contribute a year-end gift."

Atlantic is owned by Steve Job's ex wife, Laurene Powell Jobs. She is openly anti-trump.

Not saying its not a good paper, just saying you are not going to get neutral news from them.

Then you are not aware of all printed papers. As someone outside the USA, my local university library already stocks two - Harper's Magazine and The New York Review of Books (not related to the NYT book section at all). They both have an independent editorial board and decades of dedication to journalism.

If you read carefully, that's not anti-Trump, that's nuanced. A newspaper isn't supposed to be friends with politicians - it's supposed to report on them critically and truthfully.

The Guardian is the worst example you could come up with, it is openly politically militant and its opinion pages headlines are hysterical.

An owner of a newspaper doesn't have to destroy the journalistic independence of the newspaper's editors.

> totally independent

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Individuals don't have to tell you where their money comes from. They might even be easier to influence/buy than the people inside the big news institutions.

And the Editor in Chief is Jeffery Goldberg, of Iraq WMD conspiracy theory fame. I’m not saying they don’t publish good pieces, but seriously, talk about not a reliable source.

It's the British style, but it doesn't make it bad journalism. You don't have to read or like it (or the opinion pieces), but their members clearly do. I was responding to the topic of "serving corporate political interests".

The Guardian is not the example I would have chosen. They are among the most politically biased publications you could have chosen. Simply being backed a by a non-profit doesn’t mean they can’t be pushing an agenda.

They are truthful not neutral. You don't have to like or read them. That's journalism and free speech.

And someone’s ex doesn’t have to call them shitty either.

But oh boy does it happen.

By your logic, everyone who has an ex talks shit. It does happen, but it doesn't make valid reasoning.

I’m saying if you don’t seriously consider that someone is talking shit about their ex when talking to someone, until proven otherwise, you’ll be easy to fool eh?

The claim I was commenting on was "you are not going to get neutral news from them." Neither Powell Jobs nor The Atlantic is an ex of Trump.

I don't think the point is high value publications lack agendas or bias, but that they're targeted at an audience with much more respect; i.e. they'll try to convince you will argument and evidence, not outright lie or gaslight you. If you combine as few as 2 or 3 sources - intentionally looking for alternative views and angles - you will have a much more balanced understanding. You're still allowed to land on strong, passionate positions, just don't start there because you've been manipulated by a social media echo chamber.

With the overwhelming trends towards winner takes all, regulatory capture (or elimination) and western oligarchs this seems like a valuable perspective. Some of the balance we need is on the other side of the scale from the power; I'd like to subscribe to a paper that always stakes out oppo the current ruling party & power.

I would agree with you if you can point to a similar post being made by them when Biden was elected.

You claimed that Guardian's banners state that they are anti-Trump. They don't. Game over.

And when Biden was elected, I'm pretty sure he didn't say “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” hence I'm pretty sure the banners were also different.

Friend, I'm not sure I follow you. My claim is still they are anti--trump based purely on their statements. You may attempt to twist their words however you like but taken at face value, they are clearly anti-trump. Their banner literally states: "This is what we're up against"

"If you are not for us, you are against us." Or how exactly does "we don't want to be Trump's friend" become "we are anti-Trump"?

This is an weird take considering:

- trump's previous failure as president

- his history of rape, fraud, and other crimes

- knowing what we now know about his first weeks of his lawless second term, and things are only getting worse

Friend, I am not really sure what you are arguing. There website fundraising banner literally says they are against Trump, Musk and the rest. I'm not the one saying it, they are. If you disagree, your argument is with the Guardians editors.

Truthful doesn't mean unbiased. Different people who agree on the facts but have different values may come to different conclusions about what is or isn't newsworthy and worth mentioning.

A newspaper is supposed to be neutral, if you think Trumps prior behavior absolves them of neutrality then they are not a newspaper they are an opinion paper. Which is fine, as long as everyone acknowledges the slant. Not really sure why you are upset that I want my news to be neutral

Last I am going to post on this, but its fascinating the pushback even on this site against what I wrote. Everything I wrote is literally from the Guardian's site. People are insistent though, not that they did not post it but that I am still somehow wrong and that my posting it is evidence of some sort of bias. We have become so echo chambered that we demand that others ignore the evidence of their own eyes. Some even arguing that it's right for news to be biased as long as its against Trump.

I want all news sources to be honest, that lack of neutrality is exactly what led us to the current situation where there isn't a single trust worthy news source. You cant go anywhere just to get the facts. You want another Trump, a biased media is exactly how you get it.

Mostly by observing the sacrifices they make for their coverage, especially over several years. There’s always an element of trust, that’s life. I’d direct anyone to Seymour Hersh, Glenn Greenwald, and Matt Taibbi for example.

So close…

They are political opponents though, correct?

Wait, so I can’t get neutral news about cancer from an oncologist?

Is your oncologist leading a controversial campaign against another set of oncologists with opposing views?

No, he just says cancer is bad. But apparently everything needs “both sides” treatment these days.