I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Fix the News yet (https://fixthenews.com/). If you want a weekly boost of amazing news from around the world, sign up for this newsletter!
For example, did you know that in July 2025, 99.7% of new power capacity added in the US was from clean power (led by Texas)? The EU, US, and UK have committed to a $125 billion global fund to protect the Amazon? The US prison population is the lowest it's been since 1992? A new therapy has successfully cleared 100% of metastatic cancers in trial patients? 1 in 8 kids in Botswana were born with HIV in 2001, but that number has dropped to 1 in 100?
These headlines rarely make the mainstream, but they're the ones that bring me the most hope and joy. If you're looking for positive news, you will love Fix the News.
conscion · 36m ago
It think these "positive news" approaches are always falling prey to stated vs. revealed preference. People's revealed preference is that they want news about _actual_ events, which is why these positive news approaches always stay niche.
People stated reason for not liking news is the stress, attributing this to the negativity of the news. I think a larger issue is the frequency and transience of the updates, leading to oscillations in peoples understand of situations (similar to the car dealership example in the "Thinking in Systems" book).
Modern news networks are always pushing shallow views of new events (i.e. "BREAKING"). Unless someone explicitly follows up on a story, they were only exposed to the crisis and not the resolution of it. I'd love a network that was "yesterdays news" which waited to publish any news until a broader picture of the situation was understood.
qcnguy · 45m ago
The problem with this kind of initiative is that people don't agree on what positive news means. Your selection is very ideologically slanted. People on the right could interpret these news stories as negative. For example:
1. 99.7% of power capacity coming from "clean power" can be interpreted by people on the right as the grid getting more expensive and less reliable in order to solve a climate problem they don't think is real.
2. Countries committing to a global fund to protect the Amazon can be interpreted as using money critically needed at home to bribe South Americans into doing what they should already be doing themselves. If the people who actually live next to it don't care enough to protect it themselves then why should random people in Iowa or Ireland be forced to?
3. The US prison population being low is only a positive if crime is low. If people don't feel safe, then it can be interpreted as a result of not locking enough people up, and positive news would be hearing that the prison population is going up. This claim may not feel positive if you just saw the video of the murder of the Ukrainian lady on US public transport by a known-dangerous dude who just randomly stabbed her from behind for no reason.
A news feed that is only positive news for a conservative would obviously look very different to such a feed designed for liberals.
subsection1h · 1m ago
> The problem with this kind of initiative is that people don't agree on what positive news means.
A newsletter is problematic if it doesn't cater equally to people who believe that climate change is a hoax? Seriously?
buu700 · 4h ago
That's pretty neat. It sounds like a better version of Mark's idea from Peep Show:
Nancy: Bad news, bad news, bad news. Jesus, Jeremy, one bus crash. What about all the buses that made it safely to their destinations, huh?
Jeremy: Yeah! Yeah, this is such bullshit.
Mark: Yes, I suppose the news should just be a dispassionate list of all the events that have occurred the world over during the day. That would be good. Except of course, it would take forever!
jbaber · 3h ago
I can hear their voices in my head while reading that. Especially how Mark says "forever".
euroderf · 2h ago
I kinda miss bus plunge filler.
hulitu · 3h ago
> If you want a weekly boost of amazing news from around the world, sign up for this newsletter!
I'm surprised you just don't get it. People are sick of "amazing news".
habosa · 5h ago
If you want to keep a light pulse on national news without the clickbait and doomscrolling, I recommend https://text.npr.org
It’s text-only, no photos or videos. Updates only once or twice a day. No comments section or any other distractions.
That’s been my main change to my news diet. Deleting the NYTimes app and replacing it with that site has made me much happier.
I still read a lot of local news (San Francisco things that affect my life) but I just realize that national political news is not something I need to track 24/7
nsagent · 4h 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 · 4h 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.
qcnguy · 43m ago
You're assuming the left stays static. The left lost interest in economic issues after 1990 and shifted to cultural issues. The modern Democrats are not more right wing than they used to be unless you ignore all the issues they've taken up that wouldn't have been recognized by Bill Clinton era Democrats.
abeppu · 4h ago
> For that, I think The Economist is much better. It has more direct reporting, with seemingly less editorializing.
I appreciate The Economist, but I find that they do editorialize, they're just up front about it. They use the word "should" regularly. They have a pretty clear and consistent viewpoint advocating for classical liberalism, but they're honest and unashamed about having a stance.
heresie-dabord · 4h ago
> 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.
The Economist definitely has bias. All reality has a bias. You may not like some topics, that's fair. But to call a report "good journalism", it should exclude fabrications and baseless accusations. The latter are tools of propaganda.
pstuart · 1h ago
The last decade has brought us Trump, which has broken countless political (and other) norms -- that has made passive observation a lot more challenging.
I've listened to NPR for decades and the only thing I've noticed as far as "progressivism" is that the weekends include shows that speak to non-white audiences (Black and Latino).
I'm curious as to what you think was "too progressive".
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 · 4h ago
Sharing it because it hasn't been posted yet but CNN has a similar thing: https://lite.cnn.com
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 · 4h 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.
qcnguy · 42m 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.
gumboshoes · 3h 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 · 2h 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".
FollowingTheDao · 2h 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.
stopthebullshit · 2h 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.
andyjohnson0 · 5h 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.
chneu · 3h ago
You're describing rss feeds.
j_bum · 5h ago
I have cut out the vast majority of news and social media since the beginning of 2025.
My mental health is noticeably better, and I would readily attribute this to not being tuned in to the ongoings of the globe that I have zero control over. Instead, I have been more focused on my local life and community.
But I regularly feel guilty about not being keyed in to the flirtations with/forays into authoritarianism in my country.
emchammer · 5h ago
Apple’s Screen Time has been pretty good by me. I set Safari to an hour and News/Stocks to 15 minutes per day, only allowed after noon, and blocked on the weekend. I still click Give Me Another 15 Minutes but it’s annoying enough that it reminds me why it’s there.
zeta0134 · 5h ago
This is my strategy as well. There are some issues I care about enough to follow, mostly related to lgbtq+ topics and technical regulations affecting my industry. But for the larger political sphere and what I hesitantly refer to as "headlines that belong in tabloids" I actively do not care.
It'll take me about a day or two (per candidate) to get back up to speed when elections come around, so I can do my civic duty and vote. Beyond that I don't let it consume my life. I've got stuff to do, and not very much time left to do it.
ChrisMarshallNY · 5h ago
That's kind of my attitude.
I have a number of friends that are addicted to Outrage Pron (almost all media -mainstream or fringe- qualifies). They -literally- spend almost every waking hour, doomscrolling. One of them occasionally forwards videos to me, that are clearly edited for angst, but he takes as gospel. AI will make that kind of stuff much, much worse.
I had a friend tell me "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!" He thought it was a clever, brand new saying (Spoiler: It's not —I first heard it, in the 1970s).
I've found that I can get a lot done, when I pay attention to the things over which I have direct control.
0points · 4h ago
> "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"
Yea.. that outrage won't lead to any change. On the contrary, being in this state of distress eventually makes you unable to cope, breaking you down.
ModernMech · 4h ago
Being complacent also won't lead to any change. People need to be outraged but they also have to do something about it. You have to pick a lane -- if you're going to not do anything about it, then commit to not doing anything and bury your head. If you're going to get outraged, you can't just go into work every day like everything is normal, the cognitive dissonance will get you. Outrage needs an outlet.
lumost · 3h ago
Generic Outrage leads people to ignore the issues they do have control over. Local government bodies in the US are immensely powerful. You can call a city council rep and talk to them about concrete plans/actions which can happen in your community. Local reps can largely even block federal mandates by virtue that there are simply too many local bodies to sue for compliance.
Focus on what you can control. Consider that the goal of the outrage inducing media is to make you feel powerless, or direct attention at impossible battles.
quantummagic · 4h ago
> Outrage needs an outlet.
You've really let yourself off the hook there; that's way too easy to say. What exactly do you suggest, that would make an actually useful contribution to improving the situation?
JKCalhoun · 3h ago
You're right that optimism has a difficult job of looking for tangible, actionable things while nihilism can stretch out in a hammock and watch the world burn.
Historical situations like our own might be a good place to start to look for solutions.
quantummagic · 3h ago
> Historical situations like our own might be a good place to start to look for solutions.
If you have a suggestion about something practical, that can actually help, please speak up. Offering more platitudes is just way too easy; it feels good, maybe, but it's really just an admission that we don't have a good outlet for our outrage. Which is why so many of us spend our days venting online, because apparently (judging from the lack of concrete ideas offered) it's about as effective as anything else we could do.
JKCalhoun · 2h ago
I know little about history. I had hoped perhaps you did — or that you could seek out someone who does.
quantummagic · 2h ago
Why are you afraid to say "off with their heads"? Is it because you know that it's not actually useful advice that anyone can or will follow today? If you can't even bring yourself to utter it online, why should you expect anyone to take it as a serious suggestion?
I ask again, do you have any practical advice that people can follow today?
JKCalhoun · 1h ago
But "off with their heads" is just belling the cat. I would never suggest a thing I wasn't willing to do myself.
Your insistence that someone have a concrete, unassailable answer for you plays right into nihilism. Why don't you suggest something yourself? Or is "off with their heads" in fact your suggestion?
quantummagic · 26m ago
Because I don't believe there is anything to be done. You're the one who claimed history held the answers we needed. Why are you so reluctant to actually spell out your solution? If you are so positive about the future, please stop asking me to guess what part of history you're suggesting we emulate. Or just admit you have no idea what to do, and you're just spewing platitudes about avoiding nihilism.
waltbosz · 5h ago
> I'll take me about a day or two (per candidate) ...
I have so much trouble deciding on primary elections. There are often 5 primary candidates, and 10 seats to decide upon. And I've found no good tool to help evaluate their policy and record.
I want some sort of score board website that tracks their political and public behaviors towards various policies.
Esophagus4 · 4h ago
I’ve found sites like Balletopedia to be good starting points when I do my research.
Then I generally go to the candidates individual websites or see what their main talking points are. You don’t always get a sense for everything, but you kind of figure out who they are in general.
From an actual example of a candidate’s official Facebook page in my state, if you see them post something like “how come the MAINSTREAM media isn’t covering the BLACK on WHITE crime?!” you generally don’t need to do much research on them after that.
ModernMech · 4h ago
> But I regularly feel guilty about not being keyed in to the flirtations with/forays into authoritarianism in my country.
This really highlights that the threat of authoritarianism is really only a threat to certain people, which frankly is why authoritarianism happens.
Because if authoritarianism were an issue for you, you'd be reading the news. If POTUS were threatening to send troops into your streets to arrest people who look like you, that'd be something you'd want to be aware of yes? If he had a policy to detain people who look like you, and if he doesn't like your tattoos he'll send you to a foreign torture prison, you'd probably be very keen on paying attention to that kind of thing.
But since he's not threating you and yours specifically, you have the luxury of tuning out for your mental health while all that goes on. Until of course he comes for your ethnicity/religion/politics/profession. Although, I guess you won't know until that happens because you won't be reading the news.
Yeah, you know what I think I would have better mental health too if I could just tune out the daily missives from the abyss, but I need to stay on top of what words I'm not allowed to say at my job or else the government will target us for research defunding. Words like "equity" and anything that starts with the prefix "trans".
techpineapple · 4h ago
Yes, some people benefit more from watching the news than others and therefore choose to.
delfinom · 4h ago
Consuming a 24/7 feed of doomerism media does nothing for fighting authoritarianism. It simply just gives ad revenue to oligarchs.
If you want to do something, get involved in local politics and groups, stay off social media where Facebook like activism does nothing.
hnhg · 5h ago
I believe Hannah Arendt made the point that politicians lie not so much as to get away with the issue at hand but rather as a long term strategy to nullify any interest in politics overall in order to get away with absolute everything on their agenda. This might be the most recent iteration of this, aided by an often complicit media.
xnx · 4h ago
"Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous. The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil. When truth leaves us, when we let it slip away, when it is ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever monster screams the loudest." -Mon Mothma
lif · 1h ago
Rebel scum! /s
;)
chneu · 3h ago
Firehouse of falsehoods.
If everything is a lie then nothing can be true. It destroys the requirement to tell the truth, because everyone is lying.
toss1 · 4h ago
^^^ THIS! ^^^
The explicit goal of dezinformatsiya (coined by Stalin) is not to get people to believe the lies (an occasional bonus) —— the goal is to get people to GIVE UP on finding the truth.
Once people give up on finding the truth, dictators and despots can get away with anything because people literally do not even have the knowledge prerequisite to any opposing action; the people become a mere mass of compliant NPCs in the despot's regime.
OFC, if the news is genuinely crippling in a way that renders you incapable of any action, then by all means take care of that first.
But especially in these times of serious real threats, anxiety in response to those real threats is the exact expected healthy response!
More broadly, as a society in the US and EU, the threats have outpaced the speed of anxiety growth, a delay which allowed them to gain power. Anxiety overall is only now growing to the point where a backlash is forming that may restore small-d democratic norms and overtake a rapidly growing authoritarian regime.
Remaining ignorant is personally easier in the short term, but definitely helps an authoritarian regime gain and cement its power, so is likely to be regretted in the long term. Many under Hitler's regime lived out their lives in shame they had not done more to stop him when they could have.
jimkleiber · 4h ago
And I imagine avoiding political issues can show up also as avoiding issues or conflicts at work or in any group of people to which we belong.
I think so much of it is us feeling emotionally overwhelmed and running away. Anxiety can be really helpful if we engage with it, have the courage to address the fear. If we just always run, especially with social conflicts, the conflicts often don't go away, we just pretend they don't exist until they boil over.
rramadass · 3h ago
This is not limited to authoritarian regimes only; Disinformation is just one aspect of Propaganda and is equally effective (in the negative sense) in the so-called "free" democratic countries too. Everything is Propaganda in today's World; just the form of it varies with the ideology i.e. Democracy/Dictatorship/Socialism/Communism.
The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action.
"Differences in political regimes matter little; differences in social levels are more important; and most important is national self-awareness. Propaganda is a good deal less the political weapon of a regime (it is that also) than the effect of a technological society that embraces the entire man and tends to be a completely integrated society. Propaganda stops man from feeling that things in society are oppressive and persuades him to submit with good grace."
Propaganda employs encirclement on the individual by trying to surround man by all possible routes, in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or his needs through his conscious and his unconscious, and by assailing him in both his private and his public life.
Propaganda must be total in that utilizes all forms of media to draw the individual into the net of propaganda. Propaganda is designed to be continuous within the individual's life by filling the citizen's entire day. It is based on slow constant impregnation that functions over a long period of time exceeding the individual's capacities for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance.
Propaganda should no longer be viewed in terms of an orthodoxy but rather modern propaganda should be seen as an orthopraxy because it aims for participation not adherence. Participation can be active or passive: active if propaganda has been able to mobilize the individual for action; passive if the individual does not act directly but psychologically supports that action.
Propaganda is concerned with timeliness since an individual is only moved to action if he is pushed towards a timely one by propaganda. Once it becomes history it inevitably becomes neutral and indifferent to the individual who is sensitive primarily to current news. "Operational words" are used to penetrate an individual's indifference. However they lose their value as immediacy passes as old facts are replaced by new ones. The "current events man" is carried along the current of news and caught in the events of today, losing interest in the events of yesterday. The indifferent are apolitical and without opinion, therefore they are outside of propaganda's grasp. Incidentally, there are also the undecided, people whose opinions are vague, who form the majority of citizens within the collective. These citizens are the most susceptible to control of public opinion that is dictated by propaganda. Lastly, this part discusses propaganda and truth or the ability of propaganda to relay something as true based not on the accuracy of facts but of reality. Propaganda veils the truth with falsehoods even though lying is generally to be avoided.
Political vs. Sociological Propaganda:
Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration, or a pressure group with the intention of changing the behavior of the public. The themes and objectives of this type of propaganda are of a political nature. The goals are determined by the government, party, administration, or pressure group. The methods of political propaganda are calculated in a precise manner and its main criterion is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making various political acts acceptable to the people. There are two forms of political propaganda, tactical and strategic. Tactical political propaganda seeks to obtain immediate results within a given framework. Strategic political propaganda is not concerned with speed but rather it establishes the general line, the array of arguments, and the staging of campaigns.
Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where a society seeks to integrate the maximum number of individuals into itself by unifying its members' behavior according to a pattern, spreading its style of life abroad, and thus imposing itself on other groups. Essentially sociological propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the individual is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without realizing it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising, the movies, education, and magazines. "The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate, secondly that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life." This type of propaganda is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture or nation. This propaganda reinforces the individual's way of life and represents this way of life as best. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments of good and evil according to the order of the individual's way of life. Sociological propaganda does not result in action, however, it can prepare the ground for direct propaganda. From then on, the individual in the clutches of such sociological propaganda believes that those who live this way are on the side of the angels, and those who don't are bad.
"For propaganda to be effective the propagandee must have a certain store of ideas and a number of conditioned reflexes that can only be acquired through peace of mind springing from relative security. The establishment of a mode of common life—all this leads to the creation of a type of normal man conveniently leads all men toward that norm via a multitude of paths. Propaganda's intent is to integrate people into the normal pattern prevailing in society bring about conformance to way of life. To sum up: The creation of normalcy in our society can take one of two shapes. It can be the result of scientific, psycho-sociological analysis based on statistics—that is the American type of normalcy. It can be ideological and doctrinaire—that is the Communist type. But the results are identical: such normalcy necessarily gives rise to propaganda that can reduce the individual to the pattern most useful to society.
Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion".
Citizens are aware that political decisions affect everybody and governments cannot govern without the support, presence, pressure, or knowledge of the people. Yet the people are incapable of making long term policy so opinion must be created to follow the government because the government cannot be led by opinion. All of this describes the "Mass-Government" relationship characterized by people demanding what has already been decided, in order to appear as though the government is actually caring about what the people need.
An ideology provides society certain beliefs and no social group can exist without the foundation of these beliefs. Propaganda is the means by which an ideology can expand without force. An ideology is either fortified within a group or expanded beyond the borders of a group through propaganda. However, propaganda is less and less concerned with spreading the ideology nowadays as it is with becoming autonomous. The ideology is no longer the decisive factor of propaganda that must be obeyed by the propagandist. The propagandist cannot be constrained by the ideology of his State but must operate in service of the state and be able to manipulate the ideology as if it were an object. The ideology merely provides the content for the propagandist to build off since he is limited to what already is present within the group, nation, or society. The fundamental ideologies are nationalism, socialism, communism, and democracy.
Propaganda and Democracy:
Since democracy depends on public opinion, it is clear that propaganda must be involved. The relationship between democracy and propaganda evidently presents a conflict between the principles of democracy and the processes of propaganda. The individual is viewed as the cornerstone of a democracy which is a form of government that is made "for the people and by the people". However, as discussed in early chapters Ellul described the masses are incapable of making long-term foreign policy and the government needs to make these decisions in a timely manner. This is where propaganda comes into play and projects an artificial reality to the masses to satisfy their need to participate in government while the decisions are really made behind the scenes. This was also describe earlier as the "mass-government" relationship. Democratic regimes develop propaganda in line with its myths and prejudices. Propaganda stresses the superiority of a democratic society while intensifying the prejudices between democratic and oppressive.
toss1 · 3h ago
Yup. Key point:
>>[propaganda] functions over a long period of time exceeding the individual's capacities for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance
AnimalMuppet · 1h ago
I sometimes look at this in Bayesian terms. If I have an endless stream of lies coming at me, and I update my priors at all, then eventually the lies will overwhelm me and I will believe them.
The only way I can avoid this is to refuse to update my priors at all. But that means that I cannot learn.
Anonyneko · 27m ago
I had to tune out because most of the news in my region for the past several years are about the ongoing war. Even when you've made sure you're nowhere near it physically (provided that it doesn't expand into other countries), the constant reporting about it still does a number on your mental health...
stego-tech · 5h ago
I’ve reduced my news intake to broadly just AP News, with color commentary/opinion/perspectives coming from The Guardian and Al Jazeera as needed. For local news, it’s my NPR station (WBUR) and Universal Hub in RSS format.
The good news is I spend significantly less time doomscrolling (down, on average I’d say, over 90%). My anxiety levels are largely gone, and when they do spool up I’m equipped with the tools to interrupt or stop them.
The downside to this has been an increased reliance on my news intake by others who have abandoned it wholesale or only consume opinion pieces like the “nightly news”. It’s a markedly different kind of anxiety, because now I also have to be ready to teach these other people about things they really should be building habits for themselves - but if I bail out, they just rely on ChatGPT instead to explain complex topics while remaining bereft of nuance and historical contexts.
The current landscape sucks, because everyone is chasing bullshit KPIs (engagement metrics, attention economy, advertising revenue, etc) instead of just delivering high-quality journalism at rates the common man can’t afford to pass up (i.e., affordable). I do not blame people from noping out, but I remain angry that everyone basically abandoned RSS feeds and digestible news in lieu of clickbait, algorithms, and walled gardens.
Havoc · 5h ago
I'm much more interested in actively filtering it than cutting it. Think yahoo pipes except DIY and more sophisticated. That'll take time to build though.
In the near term I've found that asking an LLM with search/deep research to summarize news helps. Obviously zero shielding from bias, but at least its concise & all in one place
There is also kagi and newsminimalist for out of the box semi-filtered:
I made a self-censor app that simply scrubs feeds from certain controversial content.
squidgyhead · 5h ago
For those complaining about the news sites being sensationalist, why not just read Reuters? You will miss out on local news, but it's pretty reliable for international news.
HarHarVeryFunny · 4h ago
OK, maybe a bit like BBC TV News used to be years ago (no idea what it is like today), but presumably it's still disaster-orientated (earthquakes, fires, wars, etc), even if it cuts out the news of what Trump tweeted last night, or what the Hollywood starlets are wearing (which frankly is one of the less psychologically damaging things to be reading/seeing on a daily basis!)
richieb · 5h ago
I switched mostly to using an RSS reader to see the headlines, and then read what is interesting. Plus I follow several writers that I trust (eg. Heather Cox Richardson).
I don't want to get my news from social media.
qcnguy · 38m ago
HCR is social media. She posts to Substack, which has a feed, likes, recommendations and commenting.
chneu · 3h ago
Everyone is acting like rss feeds aren't still a thing.
Curate your news sources, people.
I use a self hosted commafeed. Super easy to setup and I also follow blogs along with my news sources.
wkat4242 · 2h ago
Commafeed looks nice. Can it also auto download a full article and strip any kind of formatting and ads? That's kinda what I'm looking for. And then have an LLM filter on top of that to filter out all the stuff I don't care about.
mherkender · 4h ago
Somewhere in the 2010s, social media turned news into spam. I guess it was a long time coming, I remember news commercials in the 90s fear-baiting constantly, demanding you tune in at 11pm to find out more.
I recommend Wikipedia frontpage, maybe Wikinews. It has to come from a nonprofit at this point.
HarHarVeryFunny · 5h ago
I remember that for years following 9/11 I would compulsively refresh Drudge every 1/2 hr expecting some other horror to unfold, and eventually just deleted the bookmark to prevent myself from doing that.
Nowadays I get my daily news from a quick scan of the headlines on Google news, as well as Drudge (from Google search history - no bookmark!), but of course it's mostly sensationalist and partisan garbage, and only minimally informative about actual events/developments of interest. I only click through a very small number of headlines.
djoldman · 4h ago
News is entertainment.
The vast majority of news consumption is for feeling amusement, outrage, tribal-solidarity, etc. It almost never leads to a change in action by the consumer.
Non-entertainment news: articles that change future actions, e.g. trade publications related to one's career/job.
Need information to vote? Wait 4 weeks before the election and then go to one of the many websites that track candidates' quotes to determine as best one can what their positions are on the issues you care about. For example: https://www.ontheissues.org/
Entertainment is fine and dandy! But don't make the mistake of thinking it's productive or better/nobler than alternatives just because "journalism."
I use an RSS-alike app (Tapestry) to subscribe to a select few news sources I actually want to hear about, with NPR and 404 Media and ProPublica and Wired (which has gotten shockingly good in the last couple of years), and a couple of comics I like (my daily Calvin & Hobbes), a select few Mastodon feeds, and a couple of Reddit groups for specific interests (like Meshtastic radios).
It’s not that I don’t ever look at the “full” news anymore, but that I severely limit how much time I spend doing that. It’s been great for my mental health.
androng · 4h ago
I used to watch "China Insights" on YouTube and "ClearValue Tax" on YouTube for updates on the Fed and realized that I was only just clicking and watching all the negative headlines with individual stories that I could do absolutely nothing about so now I made a website https://toolong.link to convert those to articles and spend time watching comedy videos instead.
wkat4242 · 4h ago
I've been thinking of running all the news headlines through a (local) AI to filter out stuff that is actually important, aiming for about 1% of headines or so.
the_snooze · 4h ago
I like to take a tiered approach, placing way more importance on news 1s of miles away from me than 100s or 1000s of miles away from me. If there's a water main break or police activity or interesting new construction happening near me, that's the news that matters. What happens on the opposite end of the country has little bearing on my day-to-day life, so why give it a disproportionate amount of attention? It's trivia for all intents and purposes.
qgin · 4h ago
If you can turn off whatever news you’re consuming and not ever notice any effect in your life or in the life of anyone you know that would make you think “wow, something must have happened”, then you’re just consuming that news as entertainment.
wkat4242 · 2h ago
Don't we all do that? 99% of the news has no impact on my life.. Especially American services try to make things sensational "BREAKING NEWS!!!" but really 99% is a nothingburger.
bigstrat2003 · 4h ago
I used to read the newspaper every morning over breakfast as a teenager. At one point I noticed that it just made me angry at the stuff going on in the world, but without me actually being able to do anything about it. So I stopped consuming the news. It's been 25 years now and I have zero regrets about this. On occasion I miss something I would like to know about, but in general I will find out about any truly important news out from other people.
And that was before the current age of yellow journalism. The news is 10x worse now than it was then; I strongly recommend that everyone unplugs from it for the sake of their own mental health.
tootie · 4h ago
Do you vote and do you consider yourself and informed voter? Do you not even consume local news? I understand the desire to protect yourself from anxiety but surely you have to acknowledge there's a downside to being willfully ignorant and detached from civic life.
hulitu · 2h ago
> but surely you have to acknowledge there's a downside to being willfully ignorant and detached from civic life.
There is none. Cortuption goes on as ussual either you vote or you don't.
tootie · 1h ago
Such an absolutely facile take and certainly a favored one by people who want to pretend there is nothing they can do so they have an excuse to do nothing. Societies problems are as much your responsibility as any other individual.
everdrive · 5h ago
My social circle has shrank to almost nothing, and I go to work and pursue my hobbies. It's not clear to me that knowing about world or political events has much impact. To the extent that I'm well informed, it mostly just allows me to have political conversations in my head, with no one, sometimes my wife, and very occasionally a fried or two. And there's no reason to think that those political conversations are doing anything positive for the relationships. (I don't lean into politics with people since it can be so divisive, but if people are so inclined, it can be fun intellectually.
I don't generally feel like there's much in the news that either discusses anything I care about. Or, to the extent that issues I care about are discussed, they come at it from such a strange angle that the discourse is mostly frustrating, or disappointing. (quick example, I heard a piece on NPR about how people are turning to LLMs for therapy. The commentator's solution? We NEED robust LLMs that are trained in psychology datasets and have the right guardrails for psychology.) For the rest of the HN crowd, imagine any news story from a mainstream outlet about issues of privacy or security. The commentary is completely worthless, except perhaps for informing you about where some of the general public may be on the issue.
In other words, for me personally, it's not sure that following politics has very much real utility value. I can just research a candidate when I go to vote. The only direct referendums I can vote on are town-level and have nothing to do with national matters. I donate to a few causes I like, and otherwise I have effectively zero say in how these things turn out. This means I'd be far better off reading a book, doing chores, or thinking about how I can improve the quality of my life than paying attention to the news whatsoever.
notpachet · 4h ago
> In other words, for me personally, it's not sure that following politics has very much real utility value.
This sort of privilege must be nice. Until it runs out.
> otherwise I have effectively zero say in how these things turn out
Textbook complacency. There are a ton of things you can do to try and make a positive impact. Don't use our eyeballs here to whitewash the fact that you're comfortable in your life and don't want to be bothered with the fact that the world is literally on fire.
everdrive · 4h ago
What sort of things are you doing to advance your political views currently?
notpachet · 1h ago
I didn't say "advance my political views", I said make a positive impact. Help people in your community. Give your extra time and resources to aid others who need it. Not rocket science.
everdrive · 49m ago
I agree with you, and I think that helping people around you, volunteering, and generally just being a good neighbor are some of the biggest impacts individuals can make. I'm not sure that heavily engaging with the news really helps you here. We might just be speaking from different frames of reference. If I say "disengage from the news" and someone hears "put your head in the sand and give up," then I agree that's not a great move. On the other hand, if someone is glued to an outrage feed, and "disengagement" still means that they have a good general sense of what's going on, then I'd say that's a positive move.
sherburt3 · 3h ago
Picking fights with strangers on social media apparently...
fluidcruft · 4h ago
I agree that there's this intense reality of powerlessness that makes wasting time on anything that isn't personally interesting pointless. And that journalists are atrocious and pushing narratives and their own careers nowadays (not that I should have expected it to ever have been different) but it's a difficult thing to unsee--that the "news" is being driven by power and agendas and is entirely unreliable. And you're right voting is all the control we ultimately have but what even is that. I live in a state that is gerrymandered to hell to ensure supermajority, where even the partisan State Supreme court has repeatedly declared the maps the Legislature and Governor approves to be un(state)constitutional and... there's nothing that anyone can do about it.
But even if that wasn't the case how can you research candidate positions without knowing the political context you want them to represent you within? And even then frankly they've all proved themselves to be spineless liars who say anything to get elected and onto the graft money train so who gives a shit. So then you're left just electing people based on character ethics optics. I really don't know what the answer is, but the nationalization of everything seems extremely disenfranchising. Every little thing becomes a referendum about some national topic and hyperpolarized purity test. Just Ugh. Throw everyone out.
everdrive · 4h ago
>And you're right voting is all the control we ultimately have
I don't fully agree; there other paths, but they involve becoming _more_ politically active; calling & writing your congressman, joining political movements, volunteering, canvasing, etc. I think my argument is that if you're just sitting at home and getting outraged -- but not willing to spend the real time and effort to do the actual work of supporting a political cause, then your outage has no value in your life.
In other words, it's much more about tying your stress and outage to real, practical action. Most of us are just scrolling and fretting, but not doing anything. We either need to do real, practical things, or stop getting strung out for no reason.
>But even if that wasn't the case how can you research candidate positions without knowing the political context you want them to represent you within?
This is true, but you can just do a couple of days of research when it's time to vote. Given how representative democracy works, a candidate's stated view is sort of only going to directionally affect things, and I don't need expert-level knowledge to pick between two candidates. My decision for who to vote for just never requires much real precision.
I don't want to make this too political, but suppose that Gavin Newsom and J.D. Vance were the next candidates for president. Would I really need to pay close attention to politics for the next few years to figure out which one of them I considered to be the 'least bad' option? To my point above, that decision just does not have a lot of precision with regard to my views, and does not require any real expertise on my end. I could 100% check out between now and then, review the political platforms for each candidate (and maybe a few opinion pieces) over an afternoon, and be informed _enough_ to make a decision.
Again, voting is sort of the "bare minimum" when it comes to political participation. So I'm definitely not arguing that people should not become more involved; only that we should carefully consider whether our involvement is tied to any real positive outcomes. (and that's both personally, but also politically. A great deal of personal stress could potentially be a great tradeoff for a really important political outcome.)
fluidcruft · 3h ago
I don't know. Personally I'm just extremely disillusioned about both parties so even picking between Vance and Newsom doesn't even registe as picking the best of two evils. They both seem useless and out of touch with reality.
To be fair, I know the least about Newsom, having never lived anywhere near California and well California doesn't exactly have any better a reputation than Florida or Texas do in my book. So I'll have to tune in late 2027 if he gets the nod. Assuming Democrats survive 2026 because frankly the party is at death's door and I don't know how Newsom is new growth. We already rejected one Californian.
dragonwriter · 2h ago
> To be fair, I know the least about Newsom, having never lived anywhere near California and well California doesn't exactly have any better a reputation than Florida or Texas do in my book. So I'll have to tune in late 2027 if he gets the nod
Unless he is running without significant primary competition, he wouldn’t get the nod, even effectively, until sometime in 2028, probably sometime in spring, so you can’t really start doing something in late 2027 based on whether thwt happens.
fluidcruft · 19m ago
No, the game begins in earnest late 2027.
everdrive · 3h ago
Well, I don't disagree with you, but I think that your statements follow my point: is years of political information necessary to render a judgement on these two? I don't really think so. Conversely, if you were going to write policy papers for political organizations, you'd need some real expertise.
righthand · 2h ago
How is the Democrat party at death’s door? Because it hasn’t circled around a single ideology like the Republicans have?
Two years ago people were saying Republicans were on their way out because of the circling around Trump.
The fact that Democrats are not consolidated is a feature not a bug.
dragonwriter · 2h ago
The Democratic Party is at death’s door because it is an opposition party in what is consolidating into a fascist dictatorship, but that’s probably not what the upthread poster is getting at.
fluidcruft · 2h ago
To be fair I checked out of the news so for all I know Democrats are now thriving.
andyjohnson0 · 4h ago
This is me over the last year or two. Anxiety and creeping horror, interrupted sleep and low mood. Ukraine, Gaza, Trump, authoritarianism everywhere...
I try to avoid online news sources, because there's an infinite amount to doomscroll. I use leechblock [1] in firefox to introduce just enough friction to visiting a news site, without hard-blocking them. Because sometimes I still need to know what's going on.
I check the ten minute news summary on BBC Radio 4 as I'm driving to work. Its time-bounded, and pretty reliable imo - although I lean towards a Guardian perspective. Sometimes I hang around for the big interview afterwards, other times I go back to music on a usb stick. Or just drive.
I have tuned the news out as much as possible, as soon as I've realized it's mostly show biz.
The News, like any other media, is in the business of producing content and being watched/read/listened to, as much as possible. Not in the business of keeping me informed about what's going on in the world (that's relevant to me).
I don't want to bury my head in the sand. I do read/watch/listen to some of it. Usually weeklies, like The Economist, and I have a daily digest newsletter that dedupes and sends me local news from the day before. Between that and what I hear on the grapevine / from my friends, I trust that I am informed enough.
ferociouskite56 · 4h ago
When I was false imprisoned in the psych ward, I had anxiety for not being able to read RSS news.
kelsey98765431 · 3h ago
how much money did they get out of your insurance? paradoxically people who have less coverage are safer in that circumstance (they let you put in 72 hours vs 72 days)
ferociouskite56 · 1h ago
Around $1,500/day, totaling $550,000. I reported to Medicaid CMS that it's discriminatory False Claims Act fraud because I never hallucinated, self harmed, nor was violent. I never signed anything saying I would pay.
nytesky · 4h ago
I have two questions:
1) I thought most people got their “news” from social media (x, BlueSky, TikTok). TikTok esp does not really give link backs as well.
2) was this part of the “flood the zone” strategy, to get people to just be overwhelmed and not pay attention?
mettamage · 3h ago
I just use Hacker News, unironically
znpy · 5h ago
I cut down my “news intake” significantly as well… most stuff that’s happening is outside my control anyway. If there’s something major (eg: another pandemic) the news will reach me anyway.
pch00 · 5h ago
Slightly ironically, I stopped reading the Guardian a few years ago for this very reason!
wkat4242 · 3h ago
It's also a bit too unserious for me these days. There's always this stupid bs stuff like "my partner and I stopped having sex for 3 months and it improved our lives". That kind of crap belongs in Cosmopolitan not in a decent paper. They still have insightful stories at times but it's hard to wade through all the crap.
I stopped supporting them during the Brexit negotiations because I was sick of hearing those entitled conservatives complain that they couldn't get from us (EU) what they knew they could never have because it was just the rules.
But I recently came back to it after seeing a link to it somewhere but it seems such a hollow shell of what it was now.
dazc · 5h ago
'People are doing/not doing a thing...' says 'The News'.
aaomidi · 4h ago
As an American, British, German, etc citizen our taxes are funding a genocide.
But we are here giving self help guides on how to tune out the sounds of dying kids instead of demanding consequences from our government.
hagbard_c · 4h ago
People are not so much tuning out the news as they are tuning out the narrative pushed by the likes of the Guardian et al. The old Soviet riff about there not being any truth (правда or 'Pravda' , the newspaper of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in the News (известия or 'Izvestia', the newspaper of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union) nor was there any news in the Truth holds true for most of the legacy news outlets out there. The clear bias shown by the Guardian and similar outlets has made them close to useless as a source of news.
There are plenty of alternatives now which are not under control of the legacy publishers. Most of these are just as biased as legacy publications so following 'alternative news sources' is not a panacea for getting closer to the truth. You need to follow a number of outlets with different - and often opposing - biases to get a wider picture. RSS feed readers do wonders here but it still can take quite a bit of time and effort to separate 'news' from 'narrative' no matter the source.
mschuster91 · 5h ago
Ignorance is bliss, eh? But don't come and pull off the "we didn't know anything" excuse that the Germans used in droves after 1945.
And no, that's not exclusive to Trump and what ICE has been up to, vanishing people into deportation camps. Climate change, the increasing frequency of pandemics, PFAS/forever chemicals, the list of stuff being swept under the rug instead of being acted against grows longer by the day.
Bender · 4h ago
excuse that the Germans used in droves after 1945
That was a thing. One of my family members had to round up an entire town of German citizens and march them through the death camps as none of them believed it was a real thing. They got to see and smell it for themselves. Some were still in disbelief that their own soldiers committed such horrific acts.
In the US the closest thing to keep an eye on would be the FEMA camps. Most are in very remote locations. If Russian and Chinese start to vanish those are the first places I would look and there are many such camps. By that point the internet would likely be entirely censored and people would have to authenticate with a centralized service to use the internet at all. I would expect those implementing such services to be members here so one can only hope they chime in when the planning starts. I would expect this to eventually be a MitM agent that runs on phones and computers to monitor pre-encrypted content to report on suspicious words and phrases. It might be silently deployed to all cell phones much like the past CarrierIQ but as a helpful AI this time. The PC versions would probably get inserted quietly in OS updates under the guise of a helpful AI as well. Those working on it may not even realize it's intended purposes. I would be curious to see how they sneak it into Linux and BSD.
petesergeant · 4h ago
> But don't come and pull off the "we didn't know anything" excuse that the Germans used in droves after 1945.
I have met quite a large number of people who seem to think living in a state of constant outrage is somehow making a difference. I give the money I can to the charities and causes I care about, and I’m entirely unclear on how being perpetually hyper-fixated on the latest horrors would add to that. Either do something, or don’t, but obsessively reading the news doesn’t cause any change to occur.
giuliomagnifico · 5h ago
In my opinion, it's not ignorance but fear and anxiety. When you have too much information, even conflicting, the human brain rejects all.
It's like when you watch an ad for an insect repellent: if they show you all those disgusting insects, the ad disgusts you so much that you avoid the product. It's a phenomenon known in psychology.
Now the trend is the same with news and media.
mrangle · 4h ago
Reads like the very news feeds have been giving people mental health issues for decades and decades.
Perhaps fewer and fewer people believe let alone like to have your patter as their internal monologue.
Which amounts to an agreement to have your extremist / alarmist voice forever in their heads lest climate change leads to the H word. I think that I have that about right, if your post is to be believed.
lazide · 5h ago
The issue is, what else do you expect people to do?
They will destroy their own lives if all they worry about is the bigger stuff. There is no clear path from what an individual can practically do, to addressing those bigger things either.
For example, politically - anyone trying to do the actual effective thing in this situation is going to be thrown in jail, often with praise and finger wagging by the nominal folks in charge of those who it would be benefitting.
And since everyone would rather yell and scream back and forth at each other rather than actually do anything that matters, what else is going to happen?
That goes for pretty much every one of these hot button topics. People can only control what they can actually control, and at some point, those things are in bad enough shape that they require 100% of a persons attention. Or more.
This is 'California politics' by the way - and it's spread everywhere. Nothing is good, everything is bad, no one can do anything that actually benefits them, etc, etc.
mschuster91 · 2h ago
> The issue is, what else do you expect people to do?
At the very least, vote for politicians actually taking the myriad of issues seriously. Millions of Americans couldn't be bothered to do even that bare minimum in 2024, despite knowing what shitshow the first Trump term was. And no, voter suppression isn't an excuse, the Democrats lost more votes from 2020-2024 than Trump gained.
And it's not just the federal elections where votes and engagement can and do make a difference. The book bans? Passed by school boards (crazy enough these are a thing in the first place, most other countries run that through regular civilian administration). That nutjob sheriff Arpaio? Voted and confirmed by locals. You get the point - the far-right has done local legwork and voting for decades.
And finally: stay informed about what is going on, so when Uncle John goes off on his usual tirades at family gatherings after a few beers, you can recognize what the lies are and call the lies out.
lazide · 1h ago
There are zero politicians in the last 10 years (that I could see) that were actually taking the issue seriously. Some a little more seriously yes, but there is zero chance what Democrats have been doing would solve any of the problems that have been mentioned.
And notably, they also couldn't defend the constitution when it came time.
So it's a choice between 'delusional-we're-doing-good-everything-is-fine' and 'delusional-lets-not-look-up-and-blame-everyone-else'. The first group continuing to apply pressure in this non-working direction just made the second group inevitable.
Pretending people aren't people, and don't have their own reasons why they voted the way they did is exactly what led to the current situation. It's the pendulum swinging. Now we'll get 'people can only be their worst (except me), punish them, regardless of the evidence'.
Or as the old quote goes - "Democracy is the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it - good and hard."
mschuster91 · 29m ago
I'd classify Sanders as one of the reasonable ones, as well as AOC. The problem with the Democrats is that they - especially on the local level - don't have that many young people running for them, so it's mostly old people...
alexjplant · 5h ago
This is really rich coming from The Guardian, a publication that, while not nearly on the same level of degeneracy as the usual rags, is hardly a bastion of factual reporting [1] (and, to be clear, I'm talking about factuality, not political bias, but downvote anyhow I guess). The last story I read from them was linked from here on HN and riddled with bad facts in a naked attempt to support the author's narrative. News flash (pun intended): if something is dire enough to be newsworthy then it doesn't need editorial embellishment. It's the metaphorical equivalent of a reporter making airplane noises while zooming a spoon of food around their readership's head like they're a hungry baby.
If you want hard hitting public interest pieces then ProPublica [2] and Democracy Now! [3] are both far better choices. I can't say that they'll make you feel better about the wacky world we live in but at least they treat you like an adult.
A democracy is only as effective as its people are educated.
When people are not well educated, they have more trouble than they should discerning real from fake, objectivity from bias, quality from trash. (Obviously there is some subjectivity here, but there is also some ground truth, and I'm talking about the latter.)
The result is that they're more likely to click, read, believe, and share pieces that are sensationalist and low in quality. Consequently, the media companies that write that kind of stuff get all the views and most of the revenue, which they use reinvest to grow and write more of what they're writing. This also incentivizes other media companies to go the same route, and the ones that don't remain largely irrelevant. It also normalizes sensationalist low-quality writing.
To wit: SimilarWeb says the Daily Mail gets 230 million views/month. ProPublica gets 3 million and Democracy Now gets 1.5 million.
I have no idea how a society gets itself out of this downward spiral, besides better educating its people. Or restricting its people's ability to decide what rises to the top (which ofc has its own obvious downsides).
mrangle · 4h ago
>A democracy is only as effective as its people are educated
I missed that part of the Western Constitutions. It is likely missing because it is a false and self-serving axiom, as well as flirting with being the opposite of democracy. Mostly, it is totalitarian regimes that invoke education as being necessary for their citizens.
Is it only democracy and not a downward spiral when democracy moves in the direction that you prefer?
You might have to accept that democracy works, and that if nothing else democracy is the individual freedom to decide on what is true.
The second that you start restricting that freedom of information and individual decisions pertaining to it, impacting elections for example, you can no longer appeal to democracy.
Personally I think that more subjects are deceptive than either they or you likely know. But I'm not so debased as to call for restrictions on your information. You're free to believe in and seek out your deceptions, as a matter of democracy.
csallen · 4h ago
You are somehow confusing education with indoctrination.
The goal of education is to give people (ideally at a young age) valuable knowledge, critical thinking skills, and the ability to question and make independent judgments. There's nothing anti-democratic about that. Quite the opposite. And all evidence suggests this is far more common in democracies than it is in totalitarian regimes.
The goal of indoctrination is to instill a fixed set of beliefs or loyalties and to discourage doubt or alternative perspectives. Totalitarian regimes do this to create obedience and ideological conformity. And although many competing parties in democratic countries would like to do the same for their cause, that doesn't make it the definition of education.
cma · 5h ago
Mediabiasfactcheck is run by someone on the Council of Foreign Relations, The Guardian is typically left of their worldview FWIW
Mediabiasfactcheck rates Foreign Affairs, a publication of the council on foreign relations, as the least biased, with no mention of their owner's connection.
mrspuratic · 5h ago
The Guardian also doesn't double down on factual errors (or mistakes), they correct or retract. I may be biased since that publication is the only news source I voluntarily support.
alexjplant · 5h ago
This is not true. From their site [1]:
> Dave Van Zandt is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence-based reporting. Though not a journalist, Dave has maintained a lifelong interest in politics and media bias. He originally pursued a Communications degree in college before ultimately earning a degree in Physiology. Since then, he has worked in the healthcare industry (Occupational Rehabilitation) while continuing to study media, language, and bias independently.
The guy you're talking about (from Wikipedia):
> Van Zandt was born in 1953 in Montgomery, New Jersey, and raised in New Jersey along with his three siblings. He graduated from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology. In 1981, he earned a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School, where he served as managing editor for the Yale Law Journal. He earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the London School of Economics.
Unless Dave leads a double life as both a physical therapist and treasurer of the bar foundation these are two different people.
For example, did you know that in July 2025, 99.7% of new power capacity added in the US was from clean power (led by Texas)? The EU, US, and UK have committed to a $125 billion global fund to protect the Amazon? The US prison population is the lowest it's been since 1992? A new therapy has successfully cleared 100% of metastatic cancers in trial patients? 1 in 8 kids in Botswana were born with HIV in 2001, but that number has dropped to 1 in 100?
These headlines rarely make the mainstream, but they're the ones that bring me the most hope and joy. If you're looking for positive news, you will love Fix the News.
People stated reason for not liking news is the stress, attributing this to the negativity of the news. I think a larger issue is the frequency and transience of the updates, leading to oscillations in peoples understand of situations (similar to the car dealership example in the "Thinking in Systems" book).
Modern news networks are always pushing shallow views of new events (i.e. "BREAKING"). Unless someone explicitly follows up on a story, they were only exposed to the crisis and not the resolution of it. I'd love a network that was "yesterdays news" which waited to publish any news until a broader picture of the situation was understood.
1. 99.7% of power capacity coming from "clean power" can be interpreted by people on the right as the grid getting more expensive and less reliable in order to solve a climate problem they don't think is real.
2. Countries committing to a global fund to protect the Amazon can be interpreted as using money critically needed at home to bribe South Americans into doing what they should already be doing themselves. If the people who actually live next to it don't care enough to protect it themselves then why should random people in Iowa or Ireland be forced to?
3. The US prison population being low is only a positive if crime is low. If people don't feel safe, then it can be interpreted as a result of not locking enough people up, and positive news would be hearing that the prison population is going up. This claim may not feel positive if you just saw the video of the murder of the Ukrainian lady on US public transport by a known-dangerous dude who just randomly stabbed her from behind for no reason.
A news feed that is only positive news for a conservative would obviously look very different to such a feed designed for liberals.
A newsletter is problematic if it doesn't cater equally to people who believe that climate change is a hoax? Seriously?
Nancy: Bad news, bad news, bad news. Jesus, Jeremy, one bus crash. What about all the buses that made it safely to their destinations, huh?
Jeremy: Yeah! Yeah, this is such bullshit.
Mark: Yes, I suppose the news should just be a dispassionate list of all the events that have occurred the world over during the day. That would be good. Except of course, it would take forever!
I'm surprised you just don't get it. People are sick of "amazing news".
It’s text-only, no photos or videos. Updates only once or twice a day. No comments section or any other distractions.
That’s been my main change to my news diet. Deleting the NYTimes app and replacing it with that site has made me much happier.
I still read a lot of local news (San Francisco things that affect my life) but I just realize that national political news is not something I need to track 24/7
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.
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.
I appreciate The Economist, but I find that they do editorialize, they're just up front about it. They use the word "should" regularly. They have a pretty clear and consistent viewpoint advocating for classical liberalism, but they're honest and unashamed about having a stance.
The Economist definitely has bias. All reality has a bias. You may not like some topics, that's fair. But to call a report "good journalism", it should exclude fabrications and baseless accusations. The latter are tools of propaganda.
I've listened to NPR for decades and the only thing I've noticed as far as "progressivism" is that the weekends include shows that speak to non-white audiences (Black and Latino).
I'm curious as to what you think was "too progressive".
https://www.cbc.ca/lite/
https://www.svt.se/text-tv/100
The FT post-dates the original pink 'un sporting newspaper, but was also, and still is, commonly referred to as "the pink 'un".
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.
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.
Ofc NPR may not be reliable, or even exist, soon due to Trump's retaliatory budget cuts. But meanwhile, nicw to have. Thanks again.
My mental health is noticeably better, and I would readily attribute this to not being tuned in to the ongoings of the globe that I have zero control over. Instead, I have been more focused on my local life and community.
But I regularly feel guilty about not being keyed in to the flirtations with/forays into authoritarianism in my country.
It'll take me about a day or two (per candidate) to get back up to speed when elections come around, so I can do my civic duty and vote. Beyond that I don't let it consume my life. I've got stuff to do, and not very much time left to do it.
I have a number of friends that are addicted to Outrage Pron (almost all media -mainstream or fringe- qualifies). They -literally- spend almost every waking hour, doomscrolling. One of them occasionally forwards videos to me, that are clearly edited for angst, but he takes as gospel. AI will make that kind of stuff much, much worse.
I had a friend tell me "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!" He thought it was a clever, brand new saying (Spoiler: It's not —I first heard it, in the 1970s).
I've found that I can get a lot done, when I pay attention to the things over which I have direct control.
Yea.. that outrage won't lead to any change. On the contrary, being in this state of distress eventually makes you unable to cope, breaking you down.
Focus on what you can control. Consider that the goal of the outrage inducing media is to make you feel powerless, or direct attention at impossible battles.
You've really let yourself off the hook there; that's way too easy to say. What exactly do you suggest, that would make an actually useful contribution to improving the situation?
Historical situations like our own might be a good place to start to look for solutions.
If you have a suggestion about something practical, that can actually help, please speak up. Offering more platitudes is just way too easy; it feels good, maybe, but it's really just an admission that we don't have a good outlet for our outrage. Which is why so many of us spend our days venting online, because apparently (judging from the lack of concrete ideas offered) it's about as effective as anything else we could do.
I ask again, do you have any practical advice that people can follow today?
Your insistence that someone have a concrete, unassailable answer for you plays right into nihilism. Why don't you suggest something yourself? Or is "off with their heads" in fact your suggestion?
I have so much trouble deciding on primary elections. There are often 5 primary candidates, and 10 seats to decide upon. And I've found no good tool to help evaluate their policy and record.
I want some sort of score board website that tracks their political and public behaviors towards various policies.
Then I generally go to the candidates individual websites or see what their main talking points are. You don’t always get a sense for everything, but you kind of figure out who they are in general.
From an actual example of a candidate’s official Facebook page in my state, if you see them post something like “how come the MAINSTREAM media isn’t covering the BLACK on WHITE crime?!” you generally don’t need to do much research on them after that.
This really highlights that the threat of authoritarianism is really only a threat to certain people, which frankly is why authoritarianism happens.
Because if authoritarianism were an issue for you, you'd be reading the news. If POTUS were threatening to send troops into your streets to arrest people who look like you, that'd be something you'd want to be aware of yes? If he had a policy to detain people who look like you, and if he doesn't like your tattoos he'll send you to a foreign torture prison, you'd probably be very keen on paying attention to that kind of thing.
But since he's not threating you and yours specifically, you have the luxury of tuning out for your mental health while all that goes on. Until of course he comes for your ethnicity/religion/politics/profession. Although, I guess you won't know until that happens because you won't be reading the news.
Yeah, you know what I think I would have better mental health too if I could just tune out the daily missives from the abyss, but I need to stay on top of what words I'm not allowed to say at my job or else the government will target us for research defunding. Words like "equity" and anything that starts with the prefix "trans".
If you want to do something, get involved in local politics and groups, stay off social media where Facebook like activism does nothing.
If everything is a lie then nothing can be true. It destroys the requirement to tell the truth, because everyone is lying.
The explicit goal of dezinformatsiya (coined by Stalin) is not to get people to believe the lies (an occasional bonus) —— the goal is to get people to GIVE UP on finding the truth.
Once people give up on finding the truth, dictators and despots can get away with anything because people literally do not even have the knowledge prerequisite to any opposing action; the people become a mere mass of compliant NPCs in the despot's regime.
OFC, if the news is genuinely crippling in a way that renders you incapable of any action, then by all means take care of that first.
But especially in these times of serious real threats, anxiety in response to those real threats is the exact expected healthy response!
More broadly, as a society in the US and EU, the threats have outpaced the speed of anxiety growth, a delay which allowed them to gain power. Anxiety overall is only now growing to the point where a backlash is forming that may restore small-d democratic norms and overtake a rapidly growing authoritarian regime.
Remaining ignorant is personally easier in the short term, but definitely helps an authoritarian regime gain and cement its power, so is likely to be regretted in the long term. Many under Hitler's regime lived out their lives in shame they had not done more to stop him when they could have.
I think so much of it is us feeling emotionally overwhelmed and running away. Anxiety can be really helpful if we engage with it, have the courage to address the fear. If we just always run, especially with social conflicts, the conflicts often don't go away, we just pretend they don't exist until they boil over.
See Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes by Jacques Ellul - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M...
Excerpts:
The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action.
"Differences in political regimes matter little; differences in social levels are more important; and most important is national self-awareness. Propaganda is a good deal less the political weapon of a regime (it is that also) than the effect of a technological society that embraces the entire man and tends to be a completely integrated society. Propaganda stops man from feeling that things in society are oppressive and persuades him to submit with good grace."
Propaganda employs encirclement on the individual by trying to surround man by all possible routes, in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or his needs through his conscious and his unconscious, and by assailing him in both his private and his public life.
Propaganda must be total in that utilizes all forms of media to draw the individual into the net of propaganda. Propaganda is designed to be continuous within the individual's life by filling the citizen's entire day. It is based on slow constant impregnation that functions over a long period of time exceeding the individual's capacities for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance.
Propaganda should no longer be viewed in terms of an orthodoxy but rather modern propaganda should be seen as an orthopraxy because it aims for participation not adherence. Participation can be active or passive: active if propaganda has been able to mobilize the individual for action; passive if the individual does not act directly but psychologically supports that action.
Propaganda is concerned with timeliness since an individual is only moved to action if he is pushed towards a timely one by propaganda. Once it becomes history it inevitably becomes neutral and indifferent to the individual who is sensitive primarily to current news. "Operational words" are used to penetrate an individual's indifference. However they lose their value as immediacy passes as old facts are replaced by new ones. The "current events man" is carried along the current of news and caught in the events of today, losing interest in the events of yesterday. The indifferent are apolitical and without opinion, therefore they are outside of propaganda's grasp. Incidentally, there are also the undecided, people whose opinions are vague, who form the majority of citizens within the collective. These citizens are the most susceptible to control of public opinion that is dictated by propaganda. Lastly, this part discusses propaganda and truth or the ability of propaganda to relay something as true based not on the accuracy of facts but of reality. Propaganda veils the truth with falsehoods even though lying is generally to be avoided.
Political vs. Sociological Propaganda:
Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration, or a pressure group with the intention of changing the behavior of the public. The themes and objectives of this type of propaganda are of a political nature. The goals are determined by the government, party, administration, or pressure group. The methods of political propaganda are calculated in a precise manner and its main criterion is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making various political acts acceptable to the people. There are two forms of political propaganda, tactical and strategic. Tactical political propaganda seeks to obtain immediate results within a given framework. Strategic political propaganda is not concerned with speed but rather it establishes the general line, the array of arguments, and the staging of campaigns.
Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where a society seeks to integrate the maximum number of individuals into itself by unifying its members' behavior according to a pattern, spreading its style of life abroad, and thus imposing itself on other groups. Essentially sociological propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the individual is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without realizing it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising, the movies, education, and magazines. "The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate, secondly that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life." This type of propaganda is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture or nation. This propaganda reinforces the individual's way of life and represents this way of life as best. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments of good and evil according to the order of the individual's way of life. Sociological propaganda does not result in action, however, it can prepare the ground for direct propaganda. From then on, the individual in the clutches of such sociological propaganda believes that those who live this way are on the side of the angels, and those who don't are bad.
"For propaganda to be effective the propagandee must have a certain store of ideas and a number of conditioned reflexes that can only be acquired through peace of mind springing from relative security. The establishment of a mode of common life—all this leads to the creation of a type of normal man conveniently leads all men toward that norm via a multitude of paths. Propaganda's intent is to integrate people into the normal pattern prevailing in society bring about conformance to way of life. To sum up: The creation of normalcy in our society can take one of two shapes. It can be the result of scientific, psycho-sociological analysis based on statistics—that is the American type of normalcy. It can be ideological and doctrinaire—that is the Communist type. But the results are identical: such normalcy necessarily gives rise to propaganda that can reduce the individual to the pattern most useful to society.
Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion".
Citizens are aware that political decisions affect everybody and governments cannot govern without the support, presence, pressure, or knowledge of the people. Yet the people are incapable of making long term policy so opinion must be created to follow the government because the government cannot be led by opinion. All of this describes the "Mass-Government" relationship characterized by people demanding what has already been decided, in order to appear as though the government is actually caring about what the people need.
An ideology provides society certain beliefs and no social group can exist without the foundation of these beliefs. Propaganda is the means by which an ideology can expand without force. An ideology is either fortified within a group or expanded beyond the borders of a group through propaganda. However, propaganda is less and less concerned with spreading the ideology nowadays as it is with becoming autonomous. The ideology is no longer the decisive factor of propaganda that must be obeyed by the propagandist. The propagandist cannot be constrained by the ideology of his State but must operate in service of the state and be able to manipulate the ideology as if it were an object. The ideology merely provides the content for the propagandist to build off since he is limited to what already is present within the group, nation, or society. The fundamental ideologies are nationalism, socialism, communism, and democracy.
Propaganda and Democracy:
Since democracy depends on public opinion, it is clear that propaganda must be involved. The relationship between democracy and propaganda evidently presents a conflict between the principles of democracy and the processes of propaganda. The individual is viewed as the cornerstone of a democracy which is a form of government that is made "for the people and by the people". However, as discussed in early chapters Ellul described the masses are incapable of making long-term foreign policy and the government needs to make these decisions in a timely manner. This is where propaganda comes into play and projects an artificial reality to the masses to satisfy their need to participate in government while the decisions are really made behind the scenes. This was also describe earlier as the "mass-government" relationship. Democratic regimes develop propaganda in line with its myths and prejudices. Propaganda stresses the superiority of a democratic society while intensifying the prejudices between democratic and oppressive.
>>[propaganda] functions over a long period of time exceeding the individual's capacities for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance
The only way I can avoid this is to refuse to update my priors at all. But that means that I cannot learn.
The good news is I spend significantly less time doomscrolling (down, on average I’d say, over 90%). My anxiety levels are largely gone, and when they do spool up I’m equipped with the tools to interrupt or stop them.
The downside to this has been an increased reliance on my news intake by others who have abandoned it wholesale or only consume opinion pieces like the “nightly news”. It’s a markedly different kind of anxiety, because now I also have to be ready to teach these other people about things they really should be building habits for themselves - but if I bail out, they just rely on ChatGPT instead to explain complex topics while remaining bereft of nuance and historical contexts.
The current landscape sucks, because everyone is chasing bullshit KPIs (engagement metrics, attention economy, advertising revenue, etc) instead of just delivering high-quality journalism at rates the common man can’t afford to pass up (i.e., affordable). I do not blame people from noping out, but I remain angry that everyone basically abandoned RSS feeds and digestible news in lieu of clickbait, algorithms, and walled gardens.
In the near term I've found that asking an LLM with search/deep research to summarize news helps. Obviously zero shielding from bias, but at least its concise & all in one place
There is also kagi and newsminimalist for out of the box semi-filtered:
https://www.newsminimalist.com/
https://kite.kagi.com/
Thanks to atom/rss, it's a evening job at most.
I made a self-censor app that simply scrubs feeds from certain controversial content.
I don't want to get my news from social media.
Curate your news sources, people.
I use a self hosted commafeed. Super easy to setup and I also follow blogs along with my news sources.
I recommend Wikipedia frontpage, maybe Wikinews. It has to come from a nonprofit at this point.
Nowadays I get my daily news from a quick scan of the headlines on Google news, as well as Drudge (from Google search history - no bookmark!), but of course it's mostly sensationalist and partisan garbage, and only minimally informative about actual events/developments of interest. I only click through a very small number of headlines.
The vast majority of news consumption is for feeling amusement, outrage, tribal-solidarity, etc. It almost never leads to a change in action by the consumer.
Non-entertainment news: articles that change future actions, e.g. trade publications related to one's career/job.
Need information to vote? Wait 4 weeks before the election and then go to one of the many websites that track candidates' quotes to determine as best one can what their positions are on the issues you care about. For example: https://www.ontheissues.org/
Entertainment is fine and dandy! But don't make the mistake of thinking it's productive or better/nobler than alternatives just because "journalism."
It’s not that I don’t ever look at the “full” news anymore, but that I severely limit how much time I spend doing that. It’s been great for my mental health.
And that was before the current age of yellow journalism. The news is 10x worse now than it was then; I strongly recommend that everyone unplugs from it for the sake of their own mental health.
There is none. Cortuption goes on as ussual either you vote or you don't.
I don't generally feel like there's much in the news that either discusses anything I care about. Or, to the extent that issues I care about are discussed, they come at it from such a strange angle that the discourse is mostly frustrating, or disappointing. (quick example, I heard a piece on NPR about how people are turning to LLMs for therapy. The commentator's solution? We NEED robust LLMs that are trained in psychology datasets and have the right guardrails for psychology.) For the rest of the HN crowd, imagine any news story from a mainstream outlet about issues of privacy or security. The commentary is completely worthless, except perhaps for informing you about where some of the general public may be on the issue.
In other words, for me personally, it's not sure that following politics has very much real utility value. I can just research a candidate when I go to vote. The only direct referendums I can vote on are town-level and have nothing to do with national matters. I donate to a few causes I like, and otherwise I have effectively zero say in how these things turn out. This means I'd be far better off reading a book, doing chores, or thinking about how I can improve the quality of my life than paying attention to the news whatsoever.
This sort of privilege must be nice. Until it runs out.
> otherwise I have effectively zero say in how these things turn out
Textbook complacency. There are a ton of things you can do to try and make a positive impact. Don't use our eyeballs here to whitewash the fact that you're comfortable in your life and don't want to be bothered with the fact that the world is literally on fire.
But even if that wasn't the case how can you research candidate positions without knowing the political context you want them to represent you within? And even then frankly they've all proved themselves to be spineless liars who say anything to get elected and onto the graft money train so who gives a shit. So then you're left just electing people based on character ethics optics. I really don't know what the answer is, but the nationalization of everything seems extremely disenfranchising. Every little thing becomes a referendum about some national topic and hyperpolarized purity test. Just Ugh. Throw everyone out.
I don't fully agree; there other paths, but they involve becoming _more_ politically active; calling & writing your congressman, joining political movements, volunteering, canvasing, etc. I think my argument is that if you're just sitting at home and getting outraged -- but not willing to spend the real time and effort to do the actual work of supporting a political cause, then your outage has no value in your life.
In other words, it's much more about tying your stress and outage to real, practical action. Most of us are just scrolling and fretting, but not doing anything. We either need to do real, practical things, or stop getting strung out for no reason.
>But even if that wasn't the case how can you research candidate positions without knowing the political context you want them to represent you within?
This is true, but you can just do a couple of days of research when it's time to vote. Given how representative democracy works, a candidate's stated view is sort of only going to directionally affect things, and I don't need expert-level knowledge to pick between two candidates. My decision for who to vote for just never requires much real precision.
I don't want to make this too political, but suppose that Gavin Newsom and J.D. Vance were the next candidates for president. Would I really need to pay close attention to politics for the next few years to figure out which one of them I considered to be the 'least bad' option? To my point above, that decision just does not have a lot of precision with regard to my views, and does not require any real expertise on my end. I could 100% check out between now and then, review the political platforms for each candidate (and maybe a few opinion pieces) over an afternoon, and be informed _enough_ to make a decision.
Again, voting is sort of the "bare minimum" when it comes to political participation. So I'm definitely not arguing that people should not become more involved; only that we should carefully consider whether our involvement is tied to any real positive outcomes. (and that's both personally, but also politically. A great deal of personal stress could potentially be a great tradeoff for a really important political outcome.)
To be fair, I know the least about Newsom, having never lived anywhere near California and well California doesn't exactly have any better a reputation than Florida or Texas do in my book. So I'll have to tune in late 2027 if he gets the nod. Assuming Democrats survive 2026 because frankly the party is at death's door and I don't know how Newsom is new growth. We already rejected one Californian.
Unless he is running without significant primary competition, he wouldn’t get the nod, even effectively, until sometime in 2028, probably sometime in spring, so you can’t really start doing something in late 2027 based on whether thwt happens.
Two years ago people were saying Republicans were on their way out because of the circling around Trump.
The fact that Democrats are not consolidated is a feature not a bug.
I try to avoid online news sources, because there's an infinite amount to doomscroll. I use leechblock [1] in firefox to introduce just enough friction to visiting a news site, without hard-blocking them. Because sometimes I still need to know what's going on.
I check the ten minute news summary on BBC Radio 4 as I'm driving to work. Its time-bounded, and pretty reliable imo - although I lean towards a Guardian perspective. Sometimes I hang around for the big interview afterwards, other times I go back to music on a usb stick. Or just drive.
[1] https://github.com/proginosko/LeechBlock
Also available for chrome and edge
it helps
The News, like any other media, is in the business of producing content and being watched/read/listened to, as much as possible. Not in the business of keeping me informed about what's going on in the world (that's relevant to me).
I don't want to bury my head in the sand. I do read/watch/listen to some of it. Usually weeklies, like The Economist, and I have a daily digest newsletter that dedupes and sends me local news from the day before. Between that and what I hear on the grapevine / from my friends, I trust that I am informed enough.
1) I thought most people got their “news” from social media (x, BlueSky, TikTok). TikTok esp does not really give link backs as well.
2) was this part of the “flood the zone” strategy, to get people to just be overwhelmed and not pay attention?
I stopped supporting them during the Brexit negotiations because I was sick of hearing those entitled conservatives complain that they couldn't get from us (EU) what they knew they could never have because it was just the rules.
But I recently came back to it after seeing a link to it somewhere but it seems such a hollow shell of what it was now.
But we are here giving self help guides on how to tune out the sounds of dying kids instead of demanding consequences from our government.
There are plenty of alternatives now which are not under control of the legacy publishers. Most of these are just as biased as legacy publications so following 'alternative news sources' is not a panacea for getting closer to the truth. You need to follow a number of outlets with different - and often opposing - biases to get a wider picture. RSS feed readers do wonders here but it still can take quite a bit of time and effort to separate 'news' from 'narrative' no matter the source.
And no, that's not exclusive to Trump and what ICE has been up to, vanishing people into deportation camps. Climate change, the increasing frequency of pandemics, PFAS/forever chemicals, the list of stuff being swept under the rug instead of being acted against grows longer by the day.
That was a thing. One of my family members had to round up an entire town of German citizens and march them through the death camps as none of them believed it was a real thing. They got to see and smell it for themselves. Some were still in disbelief that their own soldiers committed such horrific acts.
In the US the closest thing to keep an eye on would be the FEMA camps. Most are in very remote locations. If Russian and Chinese start to vanish those are the first places I would look and there are many such camps. By that point the internet would likely be entirely censored and people would have to authenticate with a centralized service to use the internet at all. I would expect those implementing such services to be members here so one can only hope they chime in when the planning starts. I would expect this to eventually be a MitM agent that runs on phones and computers to monitor pre-encrypted content to report on suspicious words and phrases. It might be silently deployed to all cell phones much like the past CarrierIQ but as a helpful AI this time. The PC versions would probably get inserted quietly in OS updates under the guise of a helpful AI as well. Those working on it may not even realize it's intended purposes. I would be curious to see how they sneak it into Linux and BSD.
I have met quite a large number of people who seem to think living in a state of constant outrage is somehow making a difference. I give the money I can to the charities and causes I care about, and I’m entirely unclear on how being perpetually hyper-fixated on the latest horrors would add to that. Either do something, or don’t, but obsessively reading the news doesn’t cause any change to occur.
It's like when you watch an ad for an insect repellent: if they show you all those disgusting insects, the ad disgusts you so much that you avoid the product. It's a phenomenon known in psychology.
Now the trend is the same with news and media.
Perhaps fewer and fewer people believe let alone like to have your patter as their internal monologue.
Which amounts to an agreement to have your extremist / alarmist voice forever in their heads lest climate change leads to the H word. I think that I have that about right, if your post is to be believed.
They will destroy their own lives if all they worry about is the bigger stuff. There is no clear path from what an individual can practically do, to addressing those bigger things either.
For example, politically - anyone trying to do the actual effective thing in this situation is going to be thrown in jail, often with praise and finger wagging by the nominal folks in charge of those who it would be benefitting.
And since everyone would rather yell and scream back and forth at each other rather than actually do anything that matters, what else is going to happen?
That goes for pretty much every one of these hot button topics. People can only control what they can actually control, and at some point, those things are in bad enough shape that they require 100% of a persons attention. Or more.
This is 'California politics' by the way - and it's spread everywhere. Nothing is good, everything is bad, no one can do anything that actually benefits them, etc, etc.
At the very least, vote for politicians actually taking the myriad of issues seriously. Millions of Americans couldn't be bothered to do even that bare minimum in 2024, despite knowing what shitshow the first Trump term was. And no, voter suppression isn't an excuse, the Democrats lost more votes from 2020-2024 than Trump gained.
And it's not just the federal elections where votes and engagement can and do make a difference. The book bans? Passed by school boards (crazy enough these are a thing in the first place, most other countries run that through regular civilian administration). That nutjob sheriff Arpaio? Voted and confirmed by locals. You get the point - the far-right has done local legwork and voting for decades.
And finally: stay informed about what is going on, so when Uncle John goes off on his usual tirades at family gatherings after a few beers, you can recognize what the lies are and call the lies out.
And notably, they also couldn't defend the constitution when it came time.
So it's a choice between 'delusional-we're-doing-good-everything-is-fine' and 'delusional-lets-not-look-up-and-blame-everyone-else'. The first group continuing to apply pressure in this non-working direction just made the second group inevitable.
Pretending people aren't people, and don't have their own reasons why they voted the way they did is exactly what led to the current situation. It's the pendulum swinging. Now we'll get 'people can only be their worst (except me), punish them, regardless of the evidence'.
Or as the old quote goes - "Democracy is the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it - good and hard."
If you want hard hitting public interest pieces then ProPublica [2] and Democracy Now! [3] are both far better choices. I can't say that they'll make you feel better about the wacky world we live in but at least they treat you like an adult.
[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
[2] https://www.propublica.org/
[3] https://www.democracynow.org/
When people are not well educated, they have more trouble than they should discerning real from fake, objectivity from bias, quality from trash. (Obviously there is some subjectivity here, but there is also some ground truth, and I'm talking about the latter.)
The result is that they're more likely to click, read, believe, and share pieces that are sensationalist and low in quality. Consequently, the media companies that write that kind of stuff get all the views and most of the revenue, which they use reinvest to grow and write more of what they're writing. This also incentivizes other media companies to go the same route, and the ones that don't remain largely irrelevant. It also normalizes sensationalist low-quality writing.
To wit: SimilarWeb says the Daily Mail gets 230 million views/month. ProPublica gets 3 million and Democracy Now gets 1.5 million.
I have no idea how a society gets itself out of this downward spiral, besides better educating its people. Or restricting its people's ability to decide what rises to the top (which ofc has its own obvious downsides).
I missed that part of the Western Constitutions. It is likely missing because it is a false and self-serving axiom, as well as flirting with being the opposite of democracy. Mostly, it is totalitarian regimes that invoke education as being necessary for their citizens.
Is it only democracy and not a downward spiral when democracy moves in the direction that you prefer?
You might have to accept that democracy works, and that if nothing else democracy is the individual freedom to decide on what is true.
The second that you start restricting that freedom of information and individual decisions pertaining to it, impacting elections for example, you can no longer appeal to democracy.
Personally I think that more subjects are deceptive than either they or you likely know. But I'm not so debased as to call for restrictions on your information. You're free to believe in and seek out your deceptions, as a matter of democracy.
The goal of education is to give people (ideally at a young age) valuable knowledge, critical thinking skills, and the ability to question and make independent judgments. There's nothing anti-democratic about that. Quite the opposite. And all evidence suggests this is far more common in democracies than it is in totalitarian regimes.
The goal of indoctrination is to instill a fixed set of beliefs or loyalties and to discourage doubt or alternative perspectives. Totalitarian regimes do this to create obedience and ideological conformity. And although many competing parties in democratic countries would like to do the same for their cause, that doesn't make it the definition of education.
Mediabiasfactcheck rates Foreign Affairs, a publication of the council on foreign relations, as the least biased, with no mention of their owner's connection.
> Dave Van Zandt is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence-based reporting. Though not a journalist, Dave has maintained a lifelong interest in politics and media bias. He originally pursued a Communications degree in college before ultimately earning a degree in Physiology. Since then, he has worked in the healthcare industry (Occupational Rehabilitation) while continuing to study media, language, and bias independently.
The guy you're talking about (from Wikipedia):
> Van Zandt was born in 1953 in Montgomery, New Jersey, and raised in New Jersey along with his three siblings. He graduated from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology. In 1981, he earned a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School, where he served as managing editor for the Yale Law Journal. He earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the London School of Economics.
Unless Dave leads a double life as both a physical therapist and treasurer of the bar foundation these are two different people.
[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Van_Zandt
GP: Don't trust what the LLMs tell you.