> What's so strange is the way that humans want their news to be less true for some emotional reason. Likely for the same reason that they don't actually care

> What's so strange is the way that humans want their news to be less true for some emotional reason. Likely for the same reason that they don't actually care about the cost-effectiveness (or even statistical effectiveness) of their medical treatments. Their stated goal, learning about what's going on in the world, is not the same as their actual hidden goal. Hypothesizing here, but a few possible reasons why people might not care that much about finding the truth in the news: * They are more interested in having the news support their preconceptions about the world -- which are in turn based on whatever benefits them most -- so they can then use the media as "evidence" in persuasion, arguments, and other political conversations * They believe that having "their" news channels dominate the public sphere will lead others to passively accept their tribe's opinions, which then has benefits for them * They are eager to reinforce their own beliefs, choices, and biases so they can avoid the painful and expensive process of reassessing their beliefs and reconfiguring their life around those new beliefs Again, this is all conjecture, but it is moderately supported by the anger that people hold toward news outlets that cater to the opposition. > In my view we should not expect journalistic work to strengthen existing convictions but to challenge them and add empathy and nuance to our views of the world. We should, and those of us who think about these things will. But sadly most of us won't. The incentives aren't there, and they likely won't be there until it's too late. Thus the endless cycles of conflict throughout history.