SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In this era of "incite outrage-at-the-moment-to-get-that-click" clickbait news and postings pushed to us by mainstream media and social networks, is it a wonder that society is in the current state that its in..?
This article at NPR states that even if you're not aware of it, it's likely that your emotions will influence someone around you today. This can happen during our most basic exchanges, say on your commute to work. "If someone smiles at you, you smile back at them," says sociologist Nicholas Christakis of Yale University. "That's a very fleeting contagion of emotion from one person to another."
But it doesn't stop there. Emotions can spread through social networks almost like the flu or a cold. And, the extent to which emotions can cascade is eye-opening.
For instance, Christakis' research has shown that if you start to become happier with your life, a friend living close by has a 25 percent higher chance of becoming happy too. And your partner is more likely to feel better as well. The happiness can even spread to people to whom you're indirectly connected.
To document this, Christakis and his colleagues mapped out the face-to-face interactions of about 5,000 people living in one town, over the course of 32 years. Their emotional ups and downs were documented with periodic surveys. "We were able to show that as one person became happy or sad, it rippled through the network," Christakis says.
It's not just happiness that spreads, unhappiness and anger can be contagious, too. Should negative-clickbait be banned as a social threat?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @12:02AM (2 children)
Yep, NPR isn't perfect, but it is the best I have been able to find so far.
The pre-Murdoch Wall Street Journal used to be really good and I was happy to pay for it, but post Murdoch, its now just another worthless rag. New York Times used to be good too, but now is openly pro "open borders" and won't call illegal-aliens for what they actually are ('undocumented'..bah!), so they are out too, another "newspaper" that is an opinion rag rather than reporting news..
And don't get me going on the "Clinton Clinches nomination" piece that the hacks put out on the Associated Press (and they happily published in every paper in the state) the night before the California primary when Clinton hadn't actually 'clinched' anything... sheesh, its like Pravda..
Between the media and social networks trying to outrage with clickbait and more outrage to make money, and 'newspapers' with obvious agendas that have nothing to do with what "news" has classically been understood to be (fair and balanced reporting, investigation and publishing of the facts), it is pretty hopeless out there.
NPR is the best I have found so far, but is still far from ideal..
I wish there was something better, and wouldn't mind even paying for it, if it existed..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @12:18AM (1 child)
NPR does little more than re-read AP, Reuters, and BBC and call it their own. They have been doing that for as long as I can remember.
Once you realize people can buy articles that are little more than advertisements for something. It is not that big of a leap of logic to realize 'news' is fake or at best bought. Every once and awhile you will get a good piece. But many times they are rush jobs with little fact checking if any at all. Got to hit the deadline.
I wish there was something better, and wouldn't mind even paying for it, if it existed
Tell me about it... I have been searching for 25+ years.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:47AM
That is informative. I don't think NPR ever goes outside, or meets people. They get all their news right off the screens on their desks. Has anyone ever seen an NPR reporter, or journalist?