6 ms·

I've been an avid news consumer since ~2016 and early on I remember getting very outraged at articles, tweets and other pieces of news I read. Over time I reali

I've been an avid news consumer since ~2016 and early on I remember getting very outraged at articles, tweets and other pieces of news I read. Over time I realized that these articles want you to be outraged, and that the outrage is a form of control. Over time though I picked up on these "outrage triggers" and that's helped me be much more objective about news I'm reading. I'll be reading an article and I can usually pick up the "tricks" writers use to generate outrage. I often find myself reading an article and go "oh look you want me to feel outraged right now". Nowdays when I try to be informed about a story I will read an NYT report, a CNN report, a Fox News or other right leaning report, and then maybe one from DailyWire of Bannon's War Room. Skimming every article I often see spots where the outlet is trying to outrage their readers. NYT will report something that will outrage the left and as you "go right" on the reports you will start to see outrage directed to the right.

mixmastamyk 2y ago
Twenty+ years ago an aunt of mine regularly called our local news on channel four the Channel Fear news.
jquery 2y ago
I’ve generally found that overtly biased outlets on the right aren’t a huge source of outrage for me because their spin is so blatant—once I notice the propaganda, it’s easy to tune out. The bigger frustration is knowing how many people take that coverage at face value. It’s not quite the same “outrage” the article describes, though. By contrast, the NYT often feels more subtle and therefore more effective at stoking that sense of constant agitation. They’re meticulously fact-based, but their editorial choices—what they highlight, the framing they use—can seem designed to provoke a reaction rather than just inform. It’s not only about the content of the stories; sometimes it’s also about how they present or prioritize them. If you haven’t encountered this firsthand, checking out “NYTimes pitch bot” on Bluesky can illustrate how their style can veer into outrage territory. It’s a satirical account, but it often points out the patterns in the Times’ headlines and story angles that might otherwise go unnoticed.
- seneca 2y ago
  You're absolutely correct, but you're missing an important detail. I'm assuming you're more aligned politically with the left. If you're not, I apologize for the assumption. To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities. It's very much a "fish in water" scenario. Trying to read articles from multiple sources can help, and questioning why you agree with one take over another. In the end, these are pretty sophisticated operations, and they know how to prey on their targets.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Subreddits are a great place to see the result of this . . . it's incredible how much utter shite and misinformation is just taken for granted as "the way things are" and how much the details of said misinformation depend on your political leanings. And of course everyone is convinced that they have the rational truth and it's the other guy who's the "low-information voter" being taken by the propaganda.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities. This isn't really a matter of subjective opinion, though. Objective surveys have consistently shown that Fox News viewers are worse-informed than people who don't pay attention to any conventional news sources. NYT readers are a long way up from there.
    - skissane 2y ago
      That’s not really comparing apples-to-apples though: a cable TV network aimed at the undereducated masses versus a prestigious broadsheet newspaper pitched at the educated classes There’s plenty of right-of-centre magazines and websites aimed at educated right-wingers: e.g. First Things, Commentary, The American Conservative, the Spectator
dimal 2y ago
I had to give up news altogether before I could notice this, but yeah, news exists for the sole purpose of creating outrage in order to generate ad impressions. When you get outraged by one story, you’re more likely to click on the next related headline. We’re destroying our society so we can make less than a penny per page.
- bjt 2y ago
  For anyone wanting to skip the outrage but still get news and analysis, I can't recommend the PBS News Hour highly enough. Today's episode, for example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/february-5-2025-pbs-news-hour-full-episode https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/february-5-2025-pbs-news-h...
- padolsey 2y ago
  > news exists for the sole purpose of creating outrage in order to generate ad impressions I like the idea of distinguishing news from journalism. If we say they're distinct, then yeh I think I can agree that news is–via weird unintentional evolution of incentives–an outrage machine, but true journalism is a wondrous and professional exercise of human scrutiny on centres of otherwise unchecked power. We need that.

mixmastamyk 2y ago

Twenty+ years ago an aunt of mine regularly called our local news on channel four the Channel Fear news.

jquery 2y ago

I’ve generally found that overtly biased outlets on the right aren’t a huge source of outrage for me because their spin is so blatant—once I notice the propaganda, it’s easy to tune out. The bigger frustration is knowing how many people take that coverage at face value. It’s not quite the same “outrage” the article describes, though. By contrast, the NYT often feels more subtle and therefore more effective at stoking that sense of constant agitation. They’re meticulously fact-based, but their editorial choices—what they highlight, the framing they use—can seem designed to provoke a reaction rather than just inform. It’s not only about the content of the stories; sometimes it’s also about how they present or prioritize them. If you haven’t encountered this firsthand, checking out “NYTimes pitch bot” on Bluesky can illustrate how their style can veer into outrage territory. It’s a satirical account, but it often points out the patterns in the Times’ headlines and story angles that might otherwise go unnoticed.

seneca 2y ago
You're absolutely correct, but you're missing an important detail. I'm assuming you're more aligned politically with the left. If you're not, I apologize for the assumption. To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities. It's very much a "fish in water" scenario. Trying to read articles from multiple sources can help, and questioning why you agree with one take over another. In the end, these are pretty sophisticated operations, and they know how to prey on their targets.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  Subreddits are a great place to see the result of this . . . it's incredible how much utter shite and misinformation is just taken for granted as "the way things are" and how much the details of said misinformation depend on your political leanings. And of course everyone is convinced that they have the rational truth and it's the other guy who's the "low-information voter" being taken by the propaganda.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities. This isn't really a matter of subjective opinion, though. Objective surveys have consistently shown that Fox News viewers are worse-informed than people who don't pay attention to any conventional news sources. NYT readers are a long way up from there.
  - skissane 2y ago
    That’s not really comparing apples-to-apples though: a cable TV network aimed at the undereducated masses versus a prestigious broadsheet newspaper pitched at the educated classes There’s plenty of right-of-centre magazines and websites aimed at educated right-wingers: e.g. First Things, Commentary, The American Conservative, the Spectator

dimal 2y ago

I had to give up news altogether before I could notice this, but yeah, news exists for the sole purpose of creating outrage in order to generate ad impressions. When you get outraged by one story, you’re more likely to click on the next related headline. We’re destroying our society so we can make less than a penny per page.

bjt 2y ago
For anyone wanting to skip the outrage but still get news and analysis, I can't recommend the PBS News Hour highly enough. Today's episode, for example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/february-5-2025-pbs-news-hour-full-episode https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/february-5-2025-pbs-news-h...
padolsey 2y ago
> news exists for the sole purpose of creating outrage in order to generate ad impressions I like the idea of distinguishing news from journalism. If we say they're distinct, then yeh I think I can agree that news is–via weird unintentional evolution of incentives–an outrage machine, but true journalism is a wondrous and professional exercise of human scrutiny on centres of otherwise unchecked power. We need that.