3 ms·

You can to learn to read the headlines without investing an emotional response in reaction to them. This makes it much easier. Look at it like more being curi

by platz 6y ago

You can to learn to read the headlines without investing an emotional response in reaction to them. This makes it much easier. Look at it like more being curious about what kind of a world we must be in, rather than what you are supposed to feel about it (rather, what they want you to feel about it). Also when you can plainly identify the calls to emotional action in the headlines, then you're free to ignore it; and can just take away what actual content may or may not be there.

shostack 6y ago
You can also read Reddit post headlines, particularly in /r/politics, and train yourself to ignore the ones where the headline is a statement and not actual news. Unsurprisingly, this tends to consistently come from certain fairly biased publications that appear to disproportionately surface to the top there lately (I'm looking at you Common Dreams). Cutting out all the fluff and focusing on news helped me save time and stress.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  /r/politics is basically the liberal version of /r/conservative. I go to /r/conservative to laugh at how bat shit insane they are. Then I go to /r/politics and I see the same gaslighting tactics deployed. It's really unnecessary and depressing tbh. So tribal. My personal persuasion is much closer to liberal than conservative fwiw.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
I would be careful with that. It's a common practice to lie[0] in a headline, then correct it in the article. This makes headlines have negative informational value - you're literally more wrong about the world after scrolling quickly through a news page than you would be if you didn't. -- [0] - Usually by omission or exaggeration, not by outright stating false facts.
- platz 6y ago
  Sure, well I didn't mean to imply to only read headlines; definitely dig in on stuff that seems worthy of interest. Also, that's exactly why I added the clause "or may not be there" :) That's part of the skill when reading headlines - training to see it as a dirty filter and seeing if there are any glints in the dirt that are interesting enough to follow up on. point taken, however

by platz 6y ago

shostack 6y ago

You can also read Reddit post headlines, particularly in /r/politics, and train yourself to ignore the ones where the headline is a statement and not actual news. Unsurprisingly, this tends to consistently come from certain fairly biased publications that appear to disproportionately surface to the top there lately (I'm looking at you Common Dreams). Cutting out all the fluff and focusing on news helped me save time and stress.

rorykoehler 6y ago
/r/politics is basically the liberal version of /r/conservative. I go to /r/conservative to laugh at how bat shit insane they are. Then I go to /r/politics and I see the same gaslighting tactics deployed. It's really unnecessary and depressing tbh. So tribal. My personal persuasion is much closer to liberal than conservative fwiw.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I would be careful with that. It's a common practice to lie[0] in a headline, then correct it in the article. This makes headlines have negative informational value - you're literally more wrong about the world after scrolling quickly through a news page than you would be if you didn't. -- [0] - Usually by omission or exaggeration, not by outright stating false facts.

platz 6y ago
Sure, well I didn't mean to imply to only read headlines; definitely dig in on stuff that seems worthy of interest. Also, that's exactly why I added the clause "or may not be there" :) That's part of the skill when reading headlines - training to see it as a dirty filter and seeing if there are any glints in the dirt that are interesting enough to follow up on. point taken, however