[Hamuko]

>Not all news is designed for outrage.

I don't think I get anxiety from content "designed for outrage". But if I go to the front page of the Washington Post, here's what I see:

>Buffalo shooting suspect wrote of plans months ago, online messages show

>Only 22 saw the Buffalo shooting live. Millions have seen it since.

>A barrage of ‘never-ending gunshots’: Inside the Buffalo massacre

>Ukraine ends bloody battle for Mariupol, evacuates fighters in steel plant

>Republicans are bringing extremism to the mainstream

>White Americans must speak out against white supremacy

>Russia is losing. That might make Putin more dangerous.

I'd say that these headlines are more in the "giving me anxiety" camp than not.

[greggman3]

To add to this. I don't watch the news anymore (maybe that makes me a bad person). I also rarely read it (except for hacker "news") but... Every few weeks I visit my mom for a few days and she wants to watch the news around 10pm. It always massively over hyped violence, crime, political outrage, and it's funny, in a sad way, that she always gets upset at it and ask her why she keeps watching. She says "for the weather" to which I reply (you can ask your ipad/iphone) but she keeps doing it even though every night it's clearly upsetting her. I think it's a habit like she feels they day isn't over unless she ends the night with news, even though it's 90% designed for outrage and sensationalism.

[openknot]

That is the point of my comment: not all news sources are designed for clickbait. In contrast, consider The Financial Times's (FT's) headlines:

>Tiger Global slashes bets on tech groups after stock market sell-off

> News in-depth. Military briefing: why Russia and Ukraine are fighting over a Black Sea outcrop

> Investors pull $7bn from Tether as stablecoin jitters intensify

> Buffett buys $3bn Citi stake in value-hunting stock splurge

> Ethiopia atrocities cast long shadow as city of Lalibela prays for peace

> Qantas says synthetic fuel could power long flights by mid-2030s

Some of the news itself is tragic. But it's a false equivalence to claim that the headlines and article content between news sources (e.g. Washington Post vs. the FT) are equally outrage-provoking or informative. The Washington Post was listed in the middle because their articles are usually highly informative (from the number of interviewed people and documents analyzed), though their headlines are more clickbait.

Both The Washington Post or the FT are different from (typically) Salon, and each is a far cry from social media. Also, the debate of news media in place of discussing social media is exactly the effect that Zuckerberg intended with his comment.

[davidhay]

Exactly. Also, Major news outlets A/B test their headlines, just like advertisers, which has clearly show that anxiety provoking headlines get clicks.

[em500]

Maybe try FT. Currently the Most Read headlines are:

- Bitcoin has no future as a payments network, says FTX chief

- Putin signals acceptance of Finland and Sweden joining Nato

- China’s economic activity plummets as Covid lockdowns hit growth

- "Russia learns a hard lesson about the folly of war"

- Harrow Beijing school loses its hallowed British branding

Or Wikipedia's Current events Portal:

- Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (pictured) is elected as President of Somalia.

- In the United States, ten people are killed in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

- Ukraine, represented by Kalush Orchestra with the song "Stefania", wins the Eurovision Song Contest.

- Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan inherits the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and becomes President of the United Arab Emirates after the death of Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.