5 ms·

The media "feeds" us stuff to be outraged about? You mean factually reporting the news? There is real and severe damage that is happening to our country and o

The media "feeds" us stuff to be outraged about? You mean factually reporting the news? There is real and severe damage that is happening to our country and our standing in the world. The regressive politics will have consequences. Even if you are a fan of Trump's policies, the White House is chaos, we essentially do not have a president. Imagine a real crisis hitting, and what this White House would do. It's incredible how insulting portions are at the population that they think the very real harm (this is not normal) is just some kind of media sensation. I think you are confusing the real current administration with a season of the apprentice that Trump hosted.

nodesocket 9y ago
The fact that you can't see that it's in the media's best interest (manily to stay in business) to push outrage and sensational headlines and enable constant outrage is surprising. Facebook also further reinforces the outrage (on both sides) again for huge profits. Outrage sells, and business is a booming.
- evgen 9y ago
  Maybe they are just not oblivious to the fact that there is a lot to be outraged about? Sometimes the outrage is not manufactured but simply a response to lies and criminal behavior in the halls of power.
- ordinaryradical 9y ago
  You're making it zero sum but it's not. It's possible to have a media that profits off outrage but to simultaneously have outrageous things happening to our the most important institutions. The media did not create deported children, paid off porn stars, and collusion with foreign governments. So let's not pretend this is on them entirely.
  - dictum 9y ago
    The media did not create the situations you listed, but it did create a lot of "get a load of this guy" pieces about him exactly when he wanted them most: when he was the kooky loudmouth unlikely to be nominated.
tzahola 9y ago
Ironically, your post perfectly illustrates his/her point.
saget 9y ago
You just proved his point. You replied as an outraged person that is angry about the Trump presidency. It's perfectly ok to go about your life without mentioning Trump in half of your conversations. For the average person, there's nothing that can really be done until the next election. You can be angry about Trump but don't go around thinking the only correct way to life is being outraged about it.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Give me a break. They didn’t bring up Trump, the person they’re responding to did. And it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that you can’t be outraged no matter what level of harm or danger or betrayal of your values is occurring, or that means you’re a media puppet. The better question is: why aren’t you outraged like so many others? And if the answer is that you don’t care or you agree with the policies in question, then perhaps the outraged people should justifiably ignore your condemnation of their outrage. It’s ridiculous for me to claim that all conservatives were only anti-Obama’s policies because the right-leaning media whipped them into a frenzy, and it’s just as unfair and intellectually dishonest to do that to the left today.
  - sciencesage 9y ago
    The person you're replying to never said you can't be outraged. They just said being outraged isn't the only valid course of action. They never even said they weren't outrage, he/she never gave an opinion on the president. Can we please stop it with these political comments made to provoke instead of discuss? If you want to vent your anger go post on reddit.
dang 9y ago
Please don't go into political battle mode on HN. If you do that, so will others, and then we'll have a big war, the people who don't want this will leave, and the site will go down the drain. If we're to keep HN as a place for relatively (emphasis on relatively) thoughtful discussion, we're all responsible not to let this happen. The political issues are important, of course. Arguably more important than other topics. That's one reason why the above is the case. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
rainbowmverse 9y ago
>> Imagine a real crisis hitting, and what this White House would do. Like, for example, the flu season becoming a crisis because key medical manufacturers were devastated by a hurricane and found limited support from a government that barely realizes Puerto Rico is part of the US, much less that its industries are so essential.

nodesocket 9y ago

The fact that you can't see that it's in the media's best interest (manily to stay in business) to push outrage and sensational headlines and enable constant outrage is surprising. Facebook also further reinforces the outrage (on both sides) again for huge profits. Outrage sells, and business is a booming.

evgen 9y ago
Maybe they are just not oblivious to the fact that there is a lot to be outraged about? Sometimes the outrage is not manufactured but simply a response to lies and criminal behavior in the halls of power.
ordinaryradical 9y ago
You're making it zero sum but it's not. It's possible to have a media that profits off outrage but to simultaneously have outrageous things happening to our the most important institutions. The media did not create deported children, paid off porn stars, and collusion with foreign governments. So let's not pretend this is on them entirely.
- dictum 9y ago
  The media did not create the situations you listed, but it did create a lot of "get a load of this guy" pieces about him exactly when he wanted them most: when he was the kooky loudmouth unlikely to be nominated.

tzahola 9y ago

Ironically, your post perfectly illustrates his/her point.

saget 9y ago

You just proved his point. You replied as an outraged person that is angry about the Trump presidency. It's perfectly ok to go about your life without mentioning Trump in half of your conversations. For the average person, there's nothing that can really be done until the next election. You can be angry about Trump but don't go around thinking the only correct way to life is being outraged about it.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Give me a break. They didn’t bring up Trump, the person they’re responding to did. And it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that you can’t be outraged no matter what level of harm or danger or betrayal of your values is occurring, or that means you’re a media puppet. The better question is: why aren’t you outraged like so many others? And if the answer is that you don’t care or you agree with the policies in question, then perhaps the outraged people should justifiably ignore your condemnation of their outrage. It’s ridiculous for me to claim that all conservatives were only anti-Obama’s policies because the right-leaning media whipped them into a frenzy, and it’s just as unfair and intellectually dishonest to do that to the left today.
- sciencesage 9y ago
  The person you're replying to never said you can't be outraged. They just said being outraged isn't the only valid course of action. They never even said they weren't outrage, he/she never gave an opinion on the president. Can we please stop it with these political comments made to provoke instead of discuss? If you want to vent your anger go post on reddit.

dang 9y ago

Please don't go into political battle mode on HN. If you do that, so will others, and then we'll have a big war, the people who don't want this will leave, and the site will go down the drain. If we're to keep HN as a place for relatively (emphasis on relatively) thoughtful discussion, we're all responsible not to let this happen. The political issues are important, of course. Arguably more important than other topics. That's one reason why the above is the case. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

rainbowmverse 9y ago

>> Imagine a real crisis hitting, and what this White House would do. Like, for example, the flu season becoming a crisis because key medical manufacturers were devastated by a hurricane and found limited support from a government that barely realizes Puerto Rico is part of the US, much less that its industries are so essential.