[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.

[lostmsu]

What exactly is the problem with inducing outrage?

[myrmidon]

"Outrage fatigue can wear us down"-- the subtitle of the article :P

[lostmsu]

I don't necessarily see a problem with "outrage fatigue". It sounds like a self-solving problem: if a source gives you such fatigue, you will stop reading it naturally.

[myrmidon]

> if a source gives you such fatigue, you will stop reading it naturally.

That is not not at all how this works out in reality.

People are not subconciously opposed to being driven to outrage, especially if it reinforces their biases (the reverse appears to be true!).

Sanity check: If evoking outrage was driving away media consumer, there would be very strong selection pressure against that, and media would stop doing it or fail.

This is not what we observe: Almost all media is becoming increasingly outrage-inducing, because it works. It drives clicks, and it does not deter people from coming back.

Just consider CNN, FOX news, MSNBC , etc-- you can see the same trend over time, regardless of the position on the political spectrum.

[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.