4 ms·

I feel like a big reason for the divide is the filter bubbles[1] the public has trapped themselves in. I wanted to force myself to read news from both sides of

I feel like a big reason for the divide is the filter bubbles[1] the public has trapped themselves in. I wanted to force myself to read news from both sides of the divide rather than simply NPR, which was my go-to source for several years. In spite of RSS readers being essentially dead, there are still RSS feeds available. So I mashed up feeds from 10 left and right leaning sources each and created Smash the Bubble[2], mostly for personal consumption. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble [2]https://smashthebubble.com/ https://smashthebubble.com/

projektfu 6y ago
I have tried to do the same, signing up for the Flip Side newsletter, among other things. I think it’s still hard for me, an over-educated progressive, to understand the American right. Here are the problems: 1. Reality is often only reported in “liberal” news sources. A lot of information is censored on right wing sources. 2. Both types of news sources editorialize in the headline. Sometimes it’s hard to know they even refer to the same story. 3. People trying to achieve balance in reporting often relocate players onto the wrong team. For example, the Mueller report is not a “left wing” document and balance is not achieved by putting Mueller against a Trump surrogate. 4. “Liberal” sources already include plenty of right wing opinions. For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. 5. News stories found only in right wing sources are usually mendacious. For example, reporting about the Michigan ballot glitch without mentioning that it was human error and corrected before reporting the results. Fundamentally, it’s not that we have differing information, it’s that we only accept information that confirms our world view. I can read dozens of articles written from the point of view that universal health care will destroy the country and not one will ever resonate with me. It’s just too silly to me.
- putlake 6y ago
  > For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. I used to think that too but it's not true. Example: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-together-leslie-marshall https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-to...
  - MajorBee 6y ago
    I just took a peak at the comments underneath the article — saying it was wild would be an understatement.
- VyperCard 6y ago
  Indeed I feel the same.
noir_lord 6y ago
I do this over in the UK, I read a selection of newspapers with different agenda's and if a story catches my interest I go look at wikipedia if it has an article, if it's a "Science says"/"Study says" I go look at the abstract of the study. It's really hard to get a balance look at the news when everything has it's own slant but it's worth the effort I think to understand the nuance.
pferde 6y ago
Looks like a read-worthy site. Are you planning to add a RSS feed to it?
watwut 6y ago
I am liberal who do read conservative newspapers regularly. The amount of lies in conservative papers is astonishing. Not bias, not choosing topics, but flat out lies. I think that they see their role to push for their side and have zero ideological commitment to any semblance of anything else. Do you get sleepy Biden in clear stage of dementia, again and again. Note that I an not claiming journals should be objective. They can't. Just that there are more lines to cross. And frankly, liberal journals do go out of their way to extend empathy to "other side" more often.
esosac 6y ago
nice website friend. it'd be nice if i could see which domain you're taking the article from without having to hover over the link

projektfu 6y ago

I have tried to do the same, signing up for the Flip Side newsletter, among other things. I think it’s still hard for me, an over-educated progressive, to understand the American right. Here are the problems: 1. Reality is often only reported in “liberal” news sources. A lot of information is censored on right wing sources. 2. Both types of news sources editorialize in the headline. Sometimes it’s hard to know they even refer to the same story. 3. People trying to achieve balance in reporting often relocate players onto the wrong team. For example, the Mueller report is not a “left wing” document and balance is not achieved by putting Mueller against a Trump surrogate. 4. “Liberal” sources already include plenty of right wing opinions. For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. 5. News stories found only in right wing sources are usually mendacious. For example, reporting about the Michigan ballot glitch without mentioning that it was human error and corrected before reporting the results. Fundamentally, it’s not that we have differing information, it’s that we only accept information that confirms our world view. I can read dozens of articles written from the point of view that universal health care will destroy the country and not one will ever resonate with me. It’s just too silly to me.

putlake 6y ago
> For example, David Brooks and Ross Douthat write for the New York Times. There’s no equivalent among the Wall St Journal columnists or Fox News hosts. I used to think that too but it's not true. Example: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-together-leslie-marshall https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/president-elect-joe-biden-to...
- MajorBee 6y ago
  I just took a peak at the comments underneath the article — saying it was wild would be an understatement.
VyperCard 6y ago
Indeed I feel the same.

noir_lord 6y ago

I do this over in the UK, I read a selection of newspapers with different agenda's and if a story catches my interest I go look at wikipedia if it has an article, if it's a "Science says"/"Study says" I go look at the abstract of the study. It's really hard to get a balance look at the news when everything has it's own slant but it's worth the effort I think to understand the nuance.

pferde 6y ago

Looks like a read-worthy site. Are you planning to add a RSS feed to it?

watwut 6y ago

I am liberal who do read conservative newspapers regularly. The amount of lies in conservative papers is astonishing. Not bias, not choosing topics, but flat out lies. I think that they see their role to push for their side and have zero ideological commitment to any semblance of anything else. Do you get sleepy Biden in clear stage of dementia, again and again. Note that I an not claiming journals should be objective. They can't. Just that there are more lines to cross. And frankly, liberal journals do go out of their way to extend empathy to "other side" more often.

esosac 6y ago

nice website friend. it'd be nice if i could see which domain you're taking the article from without having to hover over the link