[majgr]

Living in Poland ruled by trumpists for 8 years I have these experiences:

- Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.

- It is better to not use social media. You never know if you are discussing with normal person, a political party troll, or Russian troll.

- It is not worth discussing with „switched-on” people. They are getting high doses of emotional content, they are made to feel like victims, facts does not matter at all. Political beliefs are intermingled with religious beliefs.

- emotional content is being treated with higher priority by brain, so it is better to stay away from it, or it will ruin your evening.

- people are getting addicted to emotions and victimization, so after public broadcaster has been freed from it, around 5% people switched to private tv station to get their daily doses.

- social media feels like a new kind of virus, we all need to get sick and develop some immunity to it.

- in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.

[0xEF]

You nailed it. For ages, we've known that we can be hacked by anything that solicits an emotional response from us. People who set their sights on abusing that power have only gotten better at doing it, so much so that often the victim of the manipulation has no idea they've been manipulated.

There is still an alarming number of people out there who do not seem aware that this is even possible, let alone actively being done on almost all media fronts.

I think acknowledging this makes my outrage fatigue worse, because I am also forced to admit that it can (and does) happen to me, despite being aware of it. This renders me automatically suspicious of any news being reported from any source, regardless of liberal or conservative bias. So, on top of being outraged, there's layers of paranoia which is tiring in and of itself, especially now that it seems more justified.

[prox]

That’s also an alarm bell right there. If the answer to the question “Does this article/headline want me to feel anything?” is Yes, than it’s emotional bait. If its “boring” than it’s probably more neutral.

Emotional reactivity is the psychological name I believe. High reactivity means more anxiety, stress and sometimes sign of a disorder.

[wvh]

I'm going to commit a netiquette faux-pas and, as a fellow European, simply wholeheartedly acknowledge all you just said, from politics to media to psychology and neurology.

I don't know if the internet is just mirroring the general state of society, or if it contributes negatively to it, but talking specifically about the net, this dystopia really isn't what I had envisioned in the '90s. Even rats in cages being subjected to psychological torture are better behaved than this.

[Bhilai]

> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.

I struggle with this. It's incredibly challenging to find reliable, unbiased news sources these days, especially with the perceived slant of many major outlets. It's discouraging when even subscriptions to reputable publications like the NYT and WSJ leave you feeling like you're not getting the full story. It's also concerning when editorial content undermines the perceived objectivity of the news reporting, specially with WSJ. So what are people reading?

[michaelmdresser]

I’ve been sticking to the weekly edition of The Economist for years to stay informed while escaping the news cycle. The US coverage is remarkably good. The weekly cadence mean I’m often a week behind the news, but to me that’s a feature. The editorial pieces (those expressing “the opinion of the newspaper”) are kept separate as “Leaders” and I read them last, if it all; I usually read each issue back-to-front following a tip from HN years ago.

For US-interested people, I’d also like to recommend Checks and Balance, a podcast by some of The Economist’s US reporters.

[culi]

Focus on investigative journalism. Places that do their own research. You'll likely get less big picture stuff but the tradeoff is worth it

ProPublica is a good example: https://www.propublica.org/

[anyonecancode]

Focus on outlets that prioritize reporting. You can't find a "neutral" outlet -- all human beings have biases, and that gets magnified once we're talking about collective human endeavors such as newspapers, magazines, etc. But we can at least avoid solipsism ("the view that the self is the only reality") by grounding ourselves in outside, shared reality. That's what reporting is -- actually being at a place in real life, talking to actual people involved. Sure, the transmission of those observations will inevitably be shaped by the human reporter's own biases, but you're still getting access to shared reality. Even if the opinions aren't ones you share, you can at least see what they're based on and so have some ability to make your own evaluation on if the implicit conclusions the reporter is drawing match up with the base facts they are sharing.

[StableAlkyne]

> So what are people reading?

I've been liking AllSides. They aggregate news from all parts of the spectrum, so you get stuff ranging from Jacobin / Daily Beast all the way to Fox News / Breitbart (I'm not commenting on the truthfulness of or recommending any of these sources, just using them as an example of how wide ranging the sources being pulled from are)

For each headline, they pick a left, center, and right source and show that headline. They also show various headlines either side misses along with which side of the media is covering it. And other stuff, but mostly I just care about the news.

It helps with avoiding echochambers. One side's doomerism usually ends up being what another side's cheering. Given the current political climate that's been especially helpful to my stress levels.

[jajko]

Don't have a specific advise, but generally I don't consume nor trust news articles about given country, from given country. So I read about my central European homeland from neighboring news, or BBC/Guardian for example.

Its more difficult with US since every fart affects rest of the world, sometimes massively, but some sort of averaging in my mind does it for me. Or at least I think it does, what is truly objective is a goal worthy of maybe academic discussions, I don't think individual can easily even get to it and realize 'this is it'.

[xocnad]

There is no such thing as an unbiased new source. Rpoerting only articles with pure fact there is still selection bias in what topics are covered and what facts are presented. Giving equal coverage across articles and within results in both sides reporting which can seriously tilt the article.

Choose reputable sources and read with an understanding of the corespondent's perspective as well as the publication's. Diversify your choices to not isolate yourself.

[mihaaly]

Almost every story has sides. Multiple at a time. Depending on people and their cultural background involved or observing. Ask one people about a story, and might say completely different things than another. This is just the nature of humanity, nothing novelty was said here.

Choose something where they at least try.

My long time favorite is The Economist. They have writers there committed to a certain kind of message, true, like everywhere, putting on a glass supporting their preconceptions, yet the overall tone is somewhat analytical, at least trying to look behind and around, trying to use multiple viewpoints. If they miss some, you might add yours pretty easily (on your own or from other sources), and so you will be empowered by better vintage point at the matter than without their help. That's much more than nothing, at least compared to the vast majority (I believe).

I am sure there are even better alternatives where the being emotional first and professionally outraged all the time is frowned upon too. Definitely avoid bbc.co.uk despite their facade of being in depth and balanced. They actually say nothing more than repetition of the events mixed with lots of emotions nowadays, even their selection of topics are outrage oriented.

[jandrese]

So many once great media outlets were bought by billionaires and now all have the same editorial slant. It's extremely frustrating. In there modern world where would Woodward and Bernstein work? Propublica? Even where there is a will to do that kind of work the funding is even harder to secure. The reporters have to pick and choose their stories.

[otterley]

I don't think there's a single source of news that is going to satisfy a need for full context. I read both for balance, and add The Economist to the mix for even more context.

[BurningFrog]

I'm pretty happy with WSJ.

I have no problem separating the news from the editorials.

That said, there is not enough money in news these days to have anything like the quality and volume of 1-3 decades ago.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

https://ground.news/

No affiliation other than being a customer.

They aggregate stories and report on who's reporting on the story and how, detailing bias and factuality. They do international stories and probably also stories in your local area (in the US, perhaps less likely elsewhere).

[Karrot_Kream]

Frankly I find the NYT fine. Does it have its deficiencies? Sure. But journalists are but human and subject to their biases. Much better to listen to an NYT journalist than some hysterical X poster. WSJ and NYT have recently had social media outrage aimed against them and I think that's the point: the very folks who are most emotional about the media are angry that NYT isn't as emotional as they are.

[troyvit]

Yeah I agree with this. Local news sources work as a good filter, only bringing national stories that have a local effect, plus you get more local news, plus your subscription goes to a news room of probably no more than a few dozen people who live in the same area as you depending on what city or state you're in.

[intermerda]

What do you mean by an “unbiased news source? What dimension does it not have a bias against?

If you are talking about political ideologies, reality has a well-known liberal bias. So you have to choose one or the other.

There was a comment recently about how Gemini won’t tell you some Chili recipe from Obama because that might see political. So Google seems to be heading towards politically neutral direction. Contrast that with many years ago when a Google image search would bring up Trump’s image when you searched for “idiot”.

[myrmidon]

Out of curiosity-- does "trumpists" mean PiS? Are the "trumpists" still in power? What is the current trend (toward trumpists or away?).

> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.

This is excellent advise. I'm worrying that post-paper news have a really strong incentive nowadays to drive outrage, and that the current level of reporting we see online is the new normal.

[Tade0]

They've lost majority in the 2023 elections.

The current president (serving his second term) is a big fan of Trump though.

[clydethefrog]

Good list, especially the last one.

See also social acceleration [1], from German sociologist and political scientist Hartmut Rosa. Rosa argues that this current culture leads to a crisis in democratic self-determination, as the current quick demands of modern society often conflict with the slower, more reflective processes that democracy requires. The pressure to respond quickly can make democratic governance appear dysfunctional, as governments find it increasingly difficult to react to the complex issues of today within tight time constraints.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_acceleration

[jrm4]

> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.

But, definitely understand what you are getting into here: Paraphrasing Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who notes that if you'd like to be cured of reading newspapers, read last years' newspapers.

I think they're good for understanding "what people are talking about these days" as well as any statements that are literal facts, but anything in-between will be pretty fraught with the same issues as e.g. social media.

[graemep]

I would add consume less news in general. It has the same problems as social media, just less acute. Its better to spend that time reading more in-depth things such as books.

[mib32]

I’m getting outrage just by reading this comment.

edit: it makes me curious about how that works!

[madeofpalk]

> - It is better to not use social media. You never know if you are discussing with normal person, a political party troll, or Russian troll.

Completely valid, but there is a middleground of very deliberately curating your social media:

- Avoid using services that are engineered for outrage and views

- be ruthless with who you follow and block (someone trying to drum up some unimportant javascript outrage? get them off your feed)

- for twitter-likes, mute phrases from your timeline like crazy (included in my muted words is plainly trump, kamala, elon, gop, democrats, doge, dei, covid, etc)

- always be skeptical that everyone else online is some PSYOP effort, even those that share views you politically align with

It is possible to use social media, but you must have agency over it and not allow it to just happen to you. That's why I'm much more enthusastic about decentralised/open and non-commercial social networks because they currently give users much more control.

[skeeter2020]

Don't disagree with you, but I'll counter with 2 big issues:

1. the services themselves continually change, and are incentivized to get much more manipulative, and much, much worse. I used to use LinkedIn as an employment network, and now it's a full-on social media hub (though weirdly positive in a very phony way...) even HN has changed for the worse (despite the efforts of dang)

2. won't someone think of the kids? in seriousness though, they're struggling to build agency over themselves; how can they be expected to control social media, and to pile on, it's the only world they've ever known?

[ovalanche]

Can you give some examples of decentralized/open and non-commercial networks? I would be very interested to use such platforms but I don’t know of them (nor do the people in my life, unfortunately)!

In agreement with all your points above.

[dieselgate]

Good points about how to better use social media but I don’t personally think the benefits outweigh the downsides

[lostmsu]

This is too complicated. There's a much shorter working plan:

- fact check exceptional claims

- report factual failures to the source

- if the source doesn't apologize publicly in the same channel, permanently remove it from trusted sources

edit: ok, after the rage comment I realized that one more item is missing: discarding sources with systematic reporting bias (when it is obvious they aren't reporting things that you care about that are happening)

[myrmidon]

Factual correctness is a different dimension from how "outrage-inducing" news are. Those are orthogonal.

Consider: "Illegal immigrants strike again, having raped 2 teenagers already this year"

is outrage-inducing regardless of factual correctness.

[mistermann]

Rare is the individual who does not make numerous errors while engaging in fact checking, in no small part because of our cultural norms of cognition.

[koolba]

> in the end, there are more reasonable people, but democracies needs to develop better constitutional/law systems, with very short feedback loop. It is very important to have fast reaction on breaking the law by ruling regime.

What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA? There’s plenty of situations where judges issue injunctions that are in effect until the case is resolved.

[btreecat]

Lack of enforcement mechanisms, captured courts, feckless political stooges, gullible public.

E.g.

Virginia governor illegally purged voters within a certain time window. Courts said "yeah that was illegal, you need to stop" VA attorney gen said "no I don't." And while the court of appeals agreed with the lower court "yeah simple violation of the law. Reinstate revoked registration." The VA supreme court was like "nah fam, let's let the governor do his thing and we can figure this all out after the election." And everyone kinda stopped talking about it.

As a poll worker I had multiple people who had voter ID cards come in last November but required filling out paperwork to re-register them and have them cast a provisional ballot. Feels like they were connected as I hadn't dealt with that in the near dozen elections I've worked prior.

[pjc50]

> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA?

Once the same party controls the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court, the powers are no longer meaningfully separate. Which is now the case.

(state powers are still separate; I'm guessing we'll see action from state AGs against sudden Federal actions which have disadvantaged their state)

Also, as Musk has figured out, the simple power of fait accompli. If you don't comply with a court order, someone has to make you. All of whom are Federal employees. Who are on the OPM payroll. Which he controls.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...

Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.

https://www.rawstory.com/morning-joe-today-2671089005/

This is why we need reinforcement of the governmental structures and guardrails. The good faith handshake approach is broken, as we can see through current events. It is not resilient against a malicious executive.

[vharuck]

Separation is a good idea, but the implementation in the US needs some work. As majgr said, the feedback loop needs to be short. It's good that policy takes a while to change, because that allows debates, public comments, investigative reporting, etc. But the checks on power need to be fast, because if a president goes outside the legal framework, there's no debate or anything for as long as it takes to file a court case.

IANAL, but I believe that a judge can only order an injunction if a suit is filed by somebody who can show they have been out will be harmed by the action. It'd be nice if judges could be proactive for procedural or Constitutional violations.

[michaelt]

> What’s wrong with the separation of powers in the USA?

From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't look like it's working very well for you.

I'm not just talking about Trump - the "separation of powers" seems like a recipe for government shutdowns, pork-barrel spending to buy support, a politicised justice system, and being unable to hold politicians to account for failing to deliver their promises.

[wonderwonder]

"It is not worth discussing with „switched-on” people. They are getting high doses of emotional content, they are made to feel like victims, facts does not matter at all. Political beliefs are intermingled with religious beliefs."

This is fascinating to watch in the current environment. People are decent in real life for the most part but on social media its as if all manner of restraint are removed. Post anything disagreeing with the overall narrative of the site and its like a scene out of World War Z. Just attacked by crowds of people actively calling for your death. Never seen anything like it.

On X they will insult your intelligence or pull the "we tried to tell you and this is what you get you [insert explicative here]. On Reddit they will quite openly hope someone murders you.

Social media has truly insidious powers and I don't think people realize they are under its spell until its too late.

[pjc50]

> Social media has truly insidious powers and I don't think people realize they are under its spell until its too late.

Which is why there's now the disastrous government-by-meme plan directed at fighting the people a social media site's owner spends his time fighting with on social media. Plus a few crank theories of his own.

[skeeter2020]

you don't even need to compare the same IRL people with social media. Tuck them behind a car windshield/windscreen and any social relationship is dead.

Sincerely,

A bike rider who commutes in traffic with the same people he works with every day.

[nervousvarun]

FAAFO is a real thing that influences human behavior.

We learn it as kids on the playground.

There is almost zero FAAFO with discussions on the internet.

And each passing year, there is less playground.

[lazide]

The constitution (any constitution) and laws are just words on paper. They only matter when the people in the system make it matter. And larger society is part of that system.

Having a system which incentivizes people to not allow this to happen certainly helps - but corruption is inevitable and requires constant work to correct.

[m_fayer]

This is a wonderful list and I’m going to hold onto it, thank you.

I love the concept of a “switched on” person and I’ve been struggling to define and name this myself. They’re all across the political spectrum and often outside its binaries, but they all bring an agitated personalized combativeness to the slightest of provocations. They’re deeply enmeshed in, whatever it is. I’m starting to see them as, almost, mentally ill. But I’m still developing my understanding and approach here. So thanks for the food for thought.

[delfinom]

Sadly I don't know if a high value newspaper exists anymore.

Wapo and NYtimes have slowly evolved into elitists papers. That over focus on some issues and completely ignore others.

[_7acn]

What do you mean by “trumpists” precisely? In Poland, two centrist parties take turns in power. One uses more conservative and pro-American rhetoric, while the other is more liberal and pro-European. However, if you focus on what these parties actually do, there is no fundamental difference between them. Both raise taxes, expand bureaucracy, and limit freedom. And neither of them represents Polish interests.

And yet, people supporting one or the other party are furious at each other. It’s like a battle between warring tribes.

[throwaway290]

How do they limit freedom and what kind? Is it like blocking websites and police searches or like "you can't drink booze outside"?

[bbzealot]

Account created two weeks ago, posting pretty much only right-wing propaganda comments.

A bit suspicious...

[CrimsonRain]

Are you sure these high value professionals are fair? I saw this story the other day; don't have much idea about Poland. So verify yourself.

https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/02/03/polish-billionaire-of...

[magicalhippo]

You know what you can do? Subscribe to multiple papers, from both sides. Then you can do some comparison to see when things are reported differently.

When I grew up we had at least two papers, sometimes three. One was leaning left, other leaning right.

These days it's what Ground News[1] is trying to do from what I can gather, though haven't tried them as they don't cover the news in my country.

[1]: https://ground.news/

[majgr]

I think it is fair, because professionals do not use cheap tricks, but at least they are trying to distance themselves when writing a report. I like discussions when Sławomir Sierakowski (from Krytyka Polityczna) is present, because he always have some new ideas, new ways to describe reality. Although, I do not follow Krytyka Polityczna.

[notTooFarGone]

but what about THIS anecdote????!

[purplezooey]

Digging up a tiny, poorly funded left-wing publication as a whipping post doesn't support the point you are making.

[user3939382]

> Get subscription of high value newspaper or magazine. Professionals work there, so you will get real facts, worthy opinions and less emotions.

All printed papers in the US that I’m aware of serve corporate political interests so I lost you there. Then you have magazines that are aligned with various think tanks and lobbyists. The truth isn’t somewhere in the middle of all this, it’s with totally independent journalists on new media like Rumble.

[croissants]

> totally independent

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Individuals don't have to tell you where their money comes from. They might even be easier to influence/buy than the people inside the big news institutions.

[1659447091]

There are some left if you look. The Texas Tribune[0] is a bright spot for issues related to Texas; a state that has been doing trumpism before trump ever became a thing--but with less calls for succession these days.

[0] https://www.texastribune.org/about/

[skeeter2020]

I don't think the point is high value publications lack agendas or bias, but that they're targeted at an audience with much more respect; i.e. they'll try to convince you will argument and evidence, not outright lie or gaslight you. If you combine as few as 2 or 3 sources - intentionally looking for alternative views and angles - you will have a much more balanced understanding. You're still allowed to land on strong, passionate positions, just don't start there because you've been manipulated by a social media echo chamber.

[tuukkah]

It doesn't have to be printed in the US. The Guardian is backed by a non-profit and there's a US (digital) edition plus a printed weekly international edition.

[bluebarbet]

This take seems to me to be a classic case of the US tendency to irrational suspicion as first described in the Hofstadter essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

I'm not American but I do subscribe to The Atlantic, which seems to be owned by some kind of philanthropic trust with a do-gooding billionaire at the helm. As a European, that's plenty good enough for me. Financial incentives are important but they're not everything. We also sometimes need to trust in the good faith of professionals who take their jobs seriously. In this case journalists. Journalism is itself a corporate body of sorts, i.e. a guild. Its mission is to seek truth, just as the medical guild's mission is to heal. Personally, I choose to take both groups of professionals at their word.

A subscription to The Atlantic is a great deal, by the way. The volume of content is manageably low and the quality is consistently excellent.

[clydethefrog]

Then you are not aware of all printed papers. As someone outside the USA, my local university library already stocks two - Harper's Magazine and The New York Review of Books (not related to the NYT book section at all). They both have an independent editorial board and decades of dedication to journalism.