Rising Impact of the News on Mental Health

[MaybeMaybeNot]

I try to ignore the news. We no longer have news sources. Mostly everything is manipulation. Opinion and speculation parade as facts. News articles drip with bias. So much information shared on social media is simply untrue. So, when you read the comments, what you are seeing is not a reflection of who the commentator is as a person; it is a result of the rabid manipulation machines fiercely at work on them and on you. 

I know someone who told me how important he thought it was stay informed and worked to keep on top of the news. Then I see what he shares on social media. A simple Google search shows he is reposting blatant lies. He is not the only one I know like that.  I just stay off Facebook and unfollow people who share politicially infused elsewhere.  

Edited August 13 by MaybeMaybeNot

[pubic_assistance]

10 hours ago, MaybeMaybeNot said:

We no longer have news sources. Mostly everything is manipulation. Opinion and speculation parade as facts. News articles drip with bias. So much information shared on social media is simply untrue.

ABSOLUTELY 💯  Yet SO many people INSIST they KNOW the FACTS as they spew Corporate Media propaganda they heard on CNN (left) or FOX (right). 

I avoid American based news sources altogether. Its almost never factual. 

Edited August 13 by pubic_assistance
grammar

[NipLuvr212]

OR...

We have deeply felt value systems which transcend the every day chatter of the news - we are secure in our beliefs, seek like minded people, and treasure the people who share the fact that there are people out there simply working to reduce human suffering and make this world a better place

Sure I carefully curate my sources of information - not because I fear opposing views, but rather because I can distinguish between what is helpful in my life and what is not

Make good choices.

[pubic_assistance]

On 8/13/2025 at 9:35 AM, NipLuvr212 said:

OR...

We have deeply felt value systems which transcend the every day chatter of the news - we are secure in our beliefs, seek like minded people, and treasure the people who share the fact that there are people out there simply working to reduce human suffering and make this world a better place

Sure I carefully curate my sources of information - not because I fear opposing views, but rather because I can distinguish between what is helpful in my life and what is not

Make good choices.

Although at face these seem worthy goals...what you are ACTUALLY doing is living in an echo chamber and falling prey to emotional manipulation by a media that has absolutely no goal of solving the very problems of which you care about.  The goal is to cause friction and distract the general public from the theft of our liberties and the wealth of the middle class.

Edited August 14 by pubic_assistance
grammar

[+ KensingtonHomo]

On 8/14/2025 at 8:36 AM, pubic_assistance said:

Although at face these seem worthy goals...what you are ACTUALLY doing is living in an echo chamber and falling prey to emotional manipulation by a media that has absolutely no goal of solving the very problems of which you care about.  The goal is to cause friction and distract the general public from the theft of our liberties and the wealth of the middle class.

Oddly like you @pubic_assistance I generally read and consume media from outside the US for the same reasons you states. However, you’re assuming that @NipLuvr212 has created an echo chamber because he said he uses his values to guide his consumption. He may value news with little editorial interference. Or he may value reading a paper like the Financial Times like I do. I do not agree with the pro-capitalist editorial stance of FT, but their reporting is very good. The same could be said of the Wall Street Journal. 

For American sources, I tend to trust AP and Reuters for just the facts or breaking news as they tend not to editorialize. Then I read the Guardian, Le Monde, and FT. And I follow commentators who analysis I trust and who make clear that “X” is a fact about which the have “Y” opinion. 

[JulianLondon]

So few unbiased news sources these days.

Agree with the above on AP and Reuters.

France 24 TV News is excellent and The Times of London still remains reasonably impartial in my opinion. 

[Km411]

Adding to some those mentioned here, BBC World News and Ground News (a news aggregator that measures bias).

[NipLuvr212]

15 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

Oddly like you @pubic_assistance I generally read and consume media from outside the US for the same reasons you states. However, you’re assuming that @NipLuvr212 has created an echo chamber because he said he uses his values to guide his consumption. He may value news with little editorial interference. Or he may value reading a paper like the Financial Times like I do. I do not agree with the pro-capitalist editorial stance of FT, but their reporting is very good. The same could be said of the Wall Street Journal. 

For American sources, I tend to trust AP and Reuters for just the facts or breaking news as they tend not to editorialize. Then I read the Guardian, Le Monde, and FT. And I follow commentators who analysis I trust and who make clear that “X” is a fact about which the have “Y” opinion. 

First, thank you for speaking truth to power here.

It is always peculiar to me when people who (despite their protestations to the contrary) buy into the narratives of the mainstream criticize others for living in an "echo chamber" when we from time to time seek comfort from voices who reflect our own values. We are confronted 24/7/365 by voices controlled by those who seek to replicate dominant narratives, so if i spend some time surrounded by those from whom I derive some comfort and reassurance, i plead happily guilty.

Added to all that, I am indeed an activist who seeks to reduce human suffering on oou endangered planet. Hard to believe that provokes adversarial responses. So my echo chamber is not only a source of comfort, but it also a source of strength for me and my like-minded friends.

Make good choices, be kind, be good, fight against those who seek to bully and intimidate.

[+ Cash4Trash]

This site rated all news sources by bias. 3 of the most reliable facts only sites are USANews, NPR and the Wall Street Journal.

Research your favorite news sources using new Media Bias Chart - Boing Boing

BOINGBOING.NET

---

Find out the bias and reliability of your favorite news sources using the updated Media Bias Chart published by Ad Fontes Media.

 

Edited August 17 by Cash4Trash

[+ PhileasFogg]

1 hour ago, NipLuvr212 said:

 We are confronted 24/7/365 by voices controlled by those who seek to replicate dominant narratives, so if i spend some time surrounded by those from whom I derive some comfort and reassurance, i plead happily guilty.

 

I think there’s many who believe the “mainstream” is the dominant narrative.   Isn’t that why it’s the “mainstream”.  If something requires replication to be heard, it’s clearly not a dominant narrative.

But back to my earlier comments - perspective is a choice.

[NipLuvr212]

1 hour ago, PhileasFogg said:

I think there’s many who believe the “mainstream” is the dominant narrative.   Isn’t that why it’s the “mainstream”.  If something requires replication to be heard, it’s clearly not a dominant narrative.

But back to my earlier comments - perspective is a choice.

Not exactly - but kinda - and not to get too creepily academic here in this space, but the dominance of a ruling class's ideas and values (the "mainstream", the "dominant") over the rest of society is achieved not through force but through the subtle influence of culture ... it's the process where the worldview of the powerful becomes the accepted and normalized perspective for everyone, shaping beliefs, values, and behaviors.

[+ PhileasFogg]

3 hours ago, NipLuvr212 said:

Not exactly - but kinda - and not to get too creepily academic here in this space, but the dominance of a ruling class's ideas and values (the "mainstream", the "dominant") over the rest of society is achieved not through force but through the subtle influence of culture ... it's the process where the worldview of the powerful becomes the accepted and normalized perspective for everyone, shaping beliefs, values, and behaviors.

Absolutely.  And that’s a sword that cuts both ways.   I suspect that half of society thinks they’re out of the mainstream for 20 yrs and then the other half the next 20.   The pendulum always swings one way or the other, but spends more time in the middle than on the extremes 

[NipLuvr212]

2 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

Absolutely.  And that’s a sword that cuts both ways.   I suspect that half of society thinks they’re out of the mainstream for 20 yrs and then the other half the next 20.   The pendulum always swings one way or the other, but spends more time in the middle than on the extremes 

You speak the truth (and I'm trying to bring this wonderful discussion back around to the original topic in some way without devaluing what we are talking about here...)

The only thing I would add (and this additional is essential to my own mental health during these taxing times) is that there is always a strain of thought that seeks to unleash energies that are liberatory - in opposition to the mainstream - and therein we can find kernels of hope that change remains something we can fight for and, at the very least, hope for and envision.

Maybe we call these energies "radical"? Well, being called a "radical", an "outsider", "marginal", hell, even "deviant" suits me just fine these days!

[+ PhileasFogg]

On 8/17/2025 at 4:25 PM, NipLuvr212 said:

You speak the truth (and I'm trying to bring this wonderful discussion back around to the original topic in some way without devaluing what we are talking about here...)

The only thing I would add (and this additional is essential to my own mental health during these taxing times) is that there is always a strain of thought that seeks to unleash energies that are liberatory - in opposition to the mainstream - and therein we can find kernels of hope that change remains something we can fight for and, at the very least, hope for and envision.

Maybe we call these energies "radical"? Well, being called a "radical", an "outsider", "marginal", hell, even "deviant" suits me just fine these days!

Well, I don’t know. 

I hear you, but I’d push back on the idea that these ‘radical’ energies are automatically liberatory. A lot of what gets framed as being outside the mainstream isn’t progress — it’s just noise or backlash. And defining happiness purely by your own perceptions isn’t liberatory either — that’s just self-referential comfort, not change. Real liberation comes when ideas actually shift conditions for more than just the individual.  So I continue to encourage the OP to reach beyond temporary externals to find happiness or satisfaction.

For me, history has proven time after time that it runs in cycles. What is now won’t be soon and what can’t be is likely to be - it it has merit

[ShortCutie7]

1 hour ago, PhileasFogg said:

Well, I don’t know. 

I hear you, but I’d push back on the idea that these ‘radical’ energies are automatically liberatory. A lot of what gets framed as being outside the mainstream isn’t progress — it’s just noise or backlash. And defining happiness purely by your own perceptions isn’t liberatory either — that’s just self-referential comfort, not change. Real liberation comes when ideas actually shift conditions for more than just the individual.  So I continue to encourage the OP to reach beyond temporary externals to find happiness or satisfaction.

For me, history has proven time after time that it runs in cycles. What is now won’t be soon and what can’t be is likely to be - it it has merit

I totally agree!  For context, my original post had nothing to do with a bias in media- I was upset because an organization I belong to is endorsing a political candidate who makes me feel unsafe.  I then got even more upset when I received an email from the organization stating that it was the first time in their over a century of existence endorsing ANY candidate for this position.  While of course the media shapes my perception of this candidate (and leads others to strongly support them), it is a fact that the organization is endorsing for the first time in its long history.

[pubic_assistance]

10 hours ago, ShortCutie7 said:

While of course the media shapes my perception of this candidate (and leads others to strongly support them), it is a fact that the organization is endorsing for the first time in its long history.

Maybe you should spend time considering WHY the organization is supporting this candidate by pretending for a moment that you don't have strong feelings against this person. 

When I was in debate club in high school we practiced by debating BOTH the pros and cons of the subject. I found that letting go of preconceived notions and emotional thinking brings greater clarity. You are unlikely to change your core beliefs but it helps us understand how others may have different viewpoints. Politics uses emotion to build walls and gather followers. Dropping emotional engagement prevents you from being herded as a sheep.

[ShortCutie7]

17 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Maybe you should spend time considering WHY the organization is supporting this candidate by pretending for a moment that you don't have strong feelings against this person. 

When I was in debate club in high school we practiced by debating BOTH the pros and cons of the subject. I found that letting go of preconceived notions and emotional thinking brings greater clarity. You are unlikely to change your core beliefs but it helps us understand how others may have different viewpoints. Politics uses emotion to build walls and gather followers. Dropping emotional engagement prevents you from being herded as a sheep.

I know EXACTLY why my organization supports this candidate, and why so many others do as well.  In this particular situation, there was no need to support ANY candidate since doing so alienates a large number of its members and displays an insensitivity to a people without whom the organization would likely not even exist.

ETA: A slightly exaggerated comparison would be the NAACP endorsing a former KKK member.  This former KKK member might claim not to be racist and otherwise have policies that align perfectly with the NAACP’s values, but it doesn’t undo the past.

Edited August 19 by ShortCutie7
Added comparison

[pubic_assistance]

2 hours ago, ShortCutie7 said:

A slightly exaggerated comparison would be the NAACP endorsing a former KKK member

I'm going to guess that this is FAR MORE than a "slight exaggeration".

I tend to agree...it's a slippery slope for an organization to start endorsing political candidates. I've pulled support myself over the years for the same reason. I did take a minute to understand where they were coming from and that understanding is where I decided my values didn't align with theirs. But I did at least spend some time trying to understand.

[ShortCutie7]

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

I'm going to guess that this is FAR MORE than a "slight exaggeration".

I tend to agree...it's a slippery slope for an organization to start endorsing political candidates. I've pulled support myself over the years for the same reason. I did take a minute to understand where they were coming from and that understanding is where I decided my values didn't align with theirs. But I did at least spend some time trying to understand.

Going with the theme of the thread, the facts-only lens indicates a large exaggeration; the emotional impact lens indicates a slight exaggeration.