5 ms·

If you want to keep a light pulse on national news without the clickbait and doomscrolling, I recommend https://text.npr.org https://text.npr.org It’s text-onl

• falcor84 1y ago
  A bit ironic that their news for today offer another means of reducing anxiety - https://text.npr.org/nx-s1-5529325 https://text.npr.org/nx-s1-5529325
• andyjohnson0 1y ago
  Thanks. I'm not a USian but thats a nice summary to have. I might whip up a quick greasemonkey script to strip out the links so it's just a set of simple summaries. Ofc NPR may not be reliable, or even exist, soon due to Trump's retaliatory budget cuts. But meanwhile, nicw to have. Thanks again.
• petesergeant 1y ago
  I’ve been using The Economist’s “The World in Brief”, which sounds like much the same thing. I’m six weeks in to the news diet, and am much less angry all the time.
  • HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
    I used to read the UK Financial Times ("the pink 'un") as a source of world news rather than fincancial news - it was always a lot more sober and objective.
    • gumboshoes 1y ago
      I thought the "pink 'un" was a horse racing paper or odds sheet? I get the color of the paper is the same.
      • HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
        I see there is a sporting / football newspaper (or former newspaper - now web site) also called the pink 'un, and apparently there had also been a green 'un focusing on horse racing, but growing up in the UK I had never head of these. The FT post-dates the original pink 'un sporting newspaper, but was also, and still is, commonly referred to as "the pink 'un".
    • qcnguy 1y ago
      The FT isn't objective. It doesn't even pretend it's objective these days. It literally flew the EU flag outside its offices for years after the UK left, and its editorial line was exactly what you'd expect.
      • teamonkey 1y ago
        The FT has a bias towards Finance of course, but it is read by people who make financial decisions based on world economic events and these people need it to represent reality. The reason they were pro-EU is that there were no realistic arguments where Brexit would benefit The UK’s businesses, finance sector or economy as a whole.
        • qcnguy 1y ago
          In the past, yes, the FT was like that. But not for a long time. It's like thinking professional economists all read The Economist. I know professional investors, a few of them read the WSJ but not yet met one who cared about what the FT think. Mostly they get info from more specialized publications. They were pro-EU for ideological reasons. Leaving had no effect on the British economy, which isn't what they predicted.
          • teamonkey 1y ago
            > Leaving had no effect on the British economy I think this statement contradicts reality somewhat.
            • qcnguy 1y ago
              Look up the data for yourself. Imports/exports glitched briefly then went right back to their prior levels and trends. There's no observable Brexit impact in economic performance: Britain has continued to roughly follow its neighbours in terms of GDP growth etc.
          • HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
            The UK has suffered massively due to Brexit - many industries such as construction and hospitality (hotels, restaurants) are still heavily understaffed due to the fallout of foreigners leaving.
  • FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    But maybe you should be angry? Anger is a great motivator for people to change governments and policies. Maybe the real source of anxiety is people have justified anger but no where to direct the anger to affect change? Maybe it is better to keep reading the news and organize people to make it so we do not have any bad news to report.
• 0points 1y ago
  In a similar vein, text TV news has been repopularized in Sweden lately. https://www.svt.se/text-tv/100 https://www.svt.se/text-tv/100
• fluidcruft 1y ago
  I prefer GroundNews and in particular the blindspot. I gave up on NPR around 2022 because it was pushing extremely biased takes. I say this as someone whose news came primarily via NPR from ~1993-2022. I just can't stand them anymore. If there's a way to tie literally everything to some stupid social movement, that's all they can do nowadays. The best thing our local NPR station does is run BBC very early in the morning.
• rogerkirkness 1y ago
  Sharing it because it hasn't been posted yet but CNN has a similar thing: https://lite.cnn.com https://lite.cnn.com
  • 1over137 1y ago
    So does CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/lite/ https://www.cbc.ca/lite/
• nsagent 1y ago
  I was previously a long time listener and donator to NPR (similarly for NYT), but their progressive bias for the last decade has seriously degraded the quality of their reporting. I remember when their articles and radio coverage was much more balanced. For that, I think The Economist is much better. It has more direct reporting, with seemingly less editorializing. Try their news in brief to keep up. I think the main reason I've pulled back from the consuming mainstream media is directly tied with the change in reporting style rather than the news fundamentally being more depressing or anxiety-inducing. For example, I was listening to Left Right and Center until a few weeks ago when Sarah Isgur departed. The show really should have been called Left Left and Center, because if anything Sarah Isgur was more center leaning while Steve Inskeep is definitely quite progressive. Now the show feels even more lopsided. It's as if journalists are so entrenched with their point of view that they can't see the wider landscape. I truly wonder if social media has clouded journalists' perception as well, which might be contributing to this phenomenon. I really do want balanced coverage. I want to know what each side of the political debate actually thinks, from their own mouth. It turns out that a lot of the people I was indoctrinated to vilify, were in fact people who believed differently than I did, but certainly weren't so toxic as to be simply pilloried for their beliefs. That approach is tiresome and I've lost hope that such reporting will return. That's why I've given up.
  • margalabargala 1y ago
    What I've observed is similar to what you describe, but in my view the cause is different. NPR's reporting is much the same as it has always been; what's happened is there has been a huge shift to the far right the last decade, and reporting on where the right used to be now looks like left leaning bias. The same is not true of the left. What's labeled "progressive" really isn't; the left has moved right too. 15 years ago, the US was on the verge of passing universal healthcare. That's not even on the radar today. Media orcs have not all kept up with these changes. Something that was "left right and center in 2015, would look as though it was mostly leftist today, because the ground has moved.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
• chneu 1y ago
  You're describing rss feeds.
• stopthebullshit 1y ago
  You missed the point. Part of the anxiety is the bias of the media and their attempts to get attention by sensationalizing the news, and often by lying. Having the lies in text without photos does not fix the issue. Edit: if you find yourself disagree, then it's because of your political position. I did not see it was NPR when posting this. replace NPR with Fox News and then read my comment again, see how you feel.
  • johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >if you find yourself disagree, then it's because of your political position How does your political leanings affect how you react to clickbait? NPR makes clickbait, Fox makes clickbait. Images make it easier but text can still be effective. I don't see the spin here. Yes, news across the spectrum is lying more and more. Or at least severly downplaying some heinous events. That shouldn't be a partisan stance.
• johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >No comments section or any other distractions. I think in this age of information wars where my country's administration is unironically posting memes about their policy: it's almost as important to be informed of the "pulse" people have towards news as it is to understand the news itself. In a increasingly post-truth society, being informed of reality isn't enough.