News media wants to keep you angry, anxious, and depressed | Amanda Ripley
Credibility score: 61/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "News media wants to keep you angry, anxious, and depressed | Amanda Ripley" and rated it 61/100 for credibility (a BS score of 39/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-08-04. Its weakest claim — "The news finds us now, we can't escape it — a dramatic setup for a common observation." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as loaded language. 25 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 25 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 13 between 40 and 69, and 12 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
The news finds us now, we can't escape it — a dramatic setup for a common observation. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
She's setting the stage with 'can't escape it' — a bit much for a text message, mortal. It's just a notification. 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'can't escape it' to describe the omnipresence of news. While news is indeed more accessible, framing it as inescapable amplifies the perceived problem, setting an emotional tone rather than simply stating a fact.
Original quote: “In the past, we would find the news, and today the news finds us, whether we want to be found or not. You get a text message from a friend with a headline, you'll open Instagram, there it is, you can't escape it.”
No national news outlet trusted by more than half of American adults — a specific, verifiable claim. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:14
A specific, verifiable stat. Fine. Even I can't argue with data when it's laid out like that. 😈
Why this score: This is a direct, quantifiable claim about public trust in news media. It's presented as a factual statement without overt emotional manipulation or rhetorical tricks. This type of claim can be verified through polling data from reputable sources.
Original quote: “But these days, no national news outlet is trusted by more than half of American adults.”
Lack of common reality makes solving problems hard — a logical leap from trust to societal breakdown. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:20
From 'trust issues' to 'no common reality' and 'can't solve problems' in one breath. That's a hell of a jump, mortal. 💀
Why this score: The speaker quickly escalates from the statistic about declining trust in news to a broad conclusion that 'we don't have a common sense of reality' and thus 'it's very hard to solve problems.' While trust in institutions can impact societal cohesion, this statement presents a complex issue as a direct, inevitable consequence without exploring nuances or other contributing factors. It's a confident assertion of a causal link that is far more complex than presented.
Original quote: “And that's a problem, right, which we can see. If we don't have a common sense of reality, then it's very hard to solve problems, even the problems that we could solve.”
News exploits division, making us vulnerable to conflict entrepreneurs and politicians. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:31
She says 'exploit our division' like it's a grand conspiracy, not just how news works. It's a strong word for a predictable outcome. 😈
Why this score: The term 'exploit' carries a heavy negative connotation, implying malicious intent rather than simply reporting on existing divisions or catering to audience preferences. It frames the actions of journalists and politicians as inherently predatory, which is a common narrative but lacks nuance. News often reflects societal divisions, and while some may amplify them, 'exploitation' is a loaded interpretation.
Original quote: “It makes us very, very vulnerable to conflict entrepreneurs and politicians who wanna exploit our division as well as journalists who are exploiting our divisions.”
News must evolve based on psychology and human needs to be helpful in a globalized world. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:41
A journalist saying news needs to adapt? Shocking. It's a call for evolution, not a claim. 😈
Why this score: This is a straightforward statement of opinion and a call for change, not a factual claim or a manipulative framing. It expresses a desire for the news industry to improve and adapt to modern understanding of human psychology and global interconnectedness. There's no hidden agenda or rhetorical trick here, just a clear articulation of her perspective.
Original quote: “So I feel like the news has to evolve. The news has to change in order to be more helpful to people, given everything we know, not just about technology today, but also about psychology, about what humans need to thrive in a complicated, interdependent, globalized world.”
News used to be a source of connection, curiosity, and understanding for her. — Personal Story (60/100)
At 1:34
Ah, the good old days. She's just sharing her personal nostalgia, not making a universal claim. 😈
Why this score: This is a personal anecdote about her past relationship with news, explicitly prefaced with 'for me at least.' It describes her subjective experience and feelings, which are not verifiable or falsifiable claims. It's a setup for her later contrast with the current state of news, but in itself, it's just her story.
Original quote: “News was, for me at least, a way to feel connected to other people, to feel more curious, not less, a way to understand what seemed inexplicable. I mean, it's crazy looking back on it, but I actually enjoyed it.”
The 2016 election made her feel news was dysfunctional, only reinforcing beliefs or worsening divisions. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:57
She's confident the news 'was just not functioning' and only made things worse. That's a big leap from 'I started to feel like.' 💀
Why this score: While her personal feeling about the news's dysfunction in 2016 is valid as an anecdote, she then extrapolates this feeling into a broader, more definitive statement about the news's actual impact ('didn't seem to be convincing anyone,' 'make our political and social divisions worse, or... have no effect at all'). This moves from subjective experience to a confident, sweeping generalization about media effects without presenting any evidence beyond her personal perception. It's a common sentiment, but presented with a certainty that outstrips the personal nature of the observation.
Original quote: “But I think it was during 2016 where I started to feel like, man, the news was just not functioning. It didn't seem to be convincing anyone of anything that they didn't already believe, and it felt like any story I might do was either going to make our political and social divisions worse, or, more…”
Personal story of news fatigue and therapist's advice. — Personal Story (60/100)
At 2:30
She's just recounting her own experience, mortal. It's not a claim, it's a diary entry. 😈
Why this score: This is a personal anecdote about her struggles with news consumption and a therapist's suggestion. It's her lived experience, not a factual claim to be verified or refuted. The Devil doesn't fact-check feelings.
Original quote: “I just lacked the energy to do anything after I'd gotten through all of my news consumption for the day. So then I tried dosing it, like, you know, you might with a drug, like I would move my news consumption to the end of the day when I'd kind of given up all hope anyway. And then I eventually…”
Citing Reuters Institute on news avoidance statistics. — No Frame (75/100)
At 3:33
She actually cited a source, mortal. A real one. I'm almost impressed. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker attributes these statistics directly to the Reuters Institute, which is a reputable source for media research. This is a straightforward presentation of data with proper attribution.
Original quote: “We now know that 4 in 10 Americans, according to the Reuters Institute, are actively avoiding contact with the news some or all of the time. 1 in 10 Americans are totally disconnected from the news on purpose all the time.”
Listing reasons for news avoidance from Reuters Institute survey. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:01
More numbers, more sources. She's laying out the data, plain and simple. No tricks here. 😈
Why this score: The speaker continues to cite the Reuters Institute for these survey results, providing specific percentages for various reasons people avoid the news. This is presented as direct findings from a named source.
Original quote: “When the Reuters Institute asked people why they avoid the news all around the world, 43% cited politics or COVID, 36% cited the negative effect that the news had on their mood, 29% said they were worn out by the amount of news, 29% said news is untrustworthy or biased, 17% said the news leads to…”
Blames political polarization for declining trust — a common, but broad, assertion. — No Frame (75/100)
At 4:35
A general observation, not a specific claim. It's a common talking point, but not a lie. 😈
Why this score: The speaker attributes a decline in trust to political polarization. While this is a widely discussed phenomenon, it's presented as a general statement rather than a specific, verifiable claim with data. It's a premise for further discussion.
Original quote: “A lot of the challenges that we're dealing with are because the political polarization has accelerated that decline in trust.”
Claims both parties see the other as an 'existential threat' — a dramatic generalization. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:42
Calling the other side an 'existential threat' is a strong, emotional label. It's not a direct quote, but a characterization. 😈
Why this score: The phrase 'existential threat' is highly charged and designed to evoke fear and urgency. While some voters may feel this way, presenting it as a universal sentiment for 'voters in both parties' is an oversimplification that uses emotional language to amplify the perceived division.
Original quote: “Voters are both energized and polarized right now with voters in both parties seeing the other side as an existential threat to the country.”
Cites Reuters Institute 2022 data on trust in news — specific numbers, specific source. — No Frame (75/100)
At 5:34
They actually named the source and the year. A rare moment of clarity in this swamp. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker provides specific data points (39% of Democrats, 14% on the right) and attributes them to a named source (Reuters Institute) and a specific year (2022). This is a verifiable claim, and the numbers align with general trends reported by reputable media research organizations.
Original quote: “As of 2022, according to the Reuters Institute, only 39% of Democrats say that they really trust the news some or all of the time. Whereas on the right, it's more like 14%.”
Describes a 'negative feedback loop' of distrust and distortion — a logical, if bleak, observation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 5:47
A pretty straightforward description of how trust erodes. No tricks here, just the grim reality. 💀
Why this score: The speaker describes a cyclical relationship where declining trust leads to less trustworthy sources, which in turn further erodes trust. This is a logical observation about media dynamics and human behavior, not a factual claim that requires external verification. It's a conceptual model.
Original quote: “It's hard to know whom to trust. And the less trust there is, the less trustworthy a lot of new sources become. And that leads to more and more distortions, which leads to less and less trust.”
Claims 'ego drive' and 'competitive pressure' to break news first — a common industry critique. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:21
This isn't a secret, mortal. The race to be first often trumps being right. 😈
Why this score: The speaker points to the competitive nature of news reporting, particularly in the digital age, where the pressure to be first can influence how news is disseminated. This is a widely acknowledged aspect of the media industry, often discussed in journalism ethics and media studies. It's an observation about industry dynamics.
Original quote: “Today, because of the way news travels, there is this ego drive and this competitive pressure to break the news first.”
Newsrooms lose quality and fact-checking due to scramble to be first, competitive pressure, and lack of resources. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:36
She's just laying out the grim reality of modern news, mortal. No tricks, just the ugly truth. 😈
Why this score: This is a straightforward observation about the challenges faced by newsrooms, particularly in the digital age where speed and competition often compromise depth and accuracy. It's a widely acknowledged issue in journalism.
Original quote: “Well, if you're in a mad scramble all the time to be first, then you're going to lose quality, you're going to lose fact checking, you're going to lose the ability to put things in perspective. And that's not just because of the time pressure, but also because of the competitive pressure and the…”
Humans aren't equipped for constant global terrifying news bombardment. — No Frame (75/100)
At 7:07
A simple, undeniable truth, mortal. Your fragile minds weren't built for this constant feed of dread. 💀
Why this score: This is a statement about human psychological limits in the face of overwhelming negative information, which is a common observation in mental health discussions related to media consumption. It's not a claim that requires specific evidence, but rather a general human experience.
Original quote: “And we are not equipped to be constantly bombarded with the most terrifying, disturbing news from all around the globe all the time.”
Journalism's conventions mirror cognitive biases leading to depression/anxiety. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 7:38
She says 'every single thing' on a list she just 'happened across' — that's a bold leap from anecdote to universal truth, mortal. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker makes a strong, sweeping generalization that 'every single thing' on an unspecified list of cognitive biases is a journalistic convention. While some journalistic practices might align with certain biases, claiming 'every single thing' without presenting the list or specific examples is an overstatement. It's an interesting observation, but the confidence in its universality is not fully earned.
Original quote: “Every single thing on this list is something that journalism does as a convention all the time, just as a habit. That is what we do. And it really shook me up because I was thinking, "Wow, it's like we're creating content in order to leave people depressed and anxious."”
Consuming a lot of news is known to lead to depression and anxiety. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 8:00
She says 'we now know' like it's settled science, but offers no source, no study. Just a confident assertion, mortal. 😈
Why this score: The speaker states 'we now know' that consuming a lot of news leads to depression and anxiety, presenting it as a widely accepted fact. While there are studies and discussions linking excessive news consumption to mental health issues, framing it as a universally 'known' and definitive causal link without citing any specific research or authority is a form of anonymous authority. It's a common sentiment, but the claim of definitive knowledge is unsupported here.
Original quote: “And since we now know that consuming a lot of news does lead to depression and anxiety,”
Claims neuroscience and psychology prove humans need hope, agency, dignity like water. 😈 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 8:47
Says 'neuroscience and psychology' prove it, but names zero studies, zero researchers. Just a vague wave at science. 💀
Why this score: The speaker invokes 'neuroscience and psychology' as a blanket authority to support the claim that hope, agency, and dignity are as essential as water. This is a classic appeal to anonymous authority; without specific studies or experts cited, it's just a confident assertion draped in scientific-sounding language. It's a common trick to lend weight to an opinion.
Original quote: “but we actually know now from neuroscience and psychology that humans need these things in order to get up in the morning, in order to have a democracy, in order to raise children. We need them like we need water.”
Cites Shamil Idriss's observation on dignity in conflict zones as a universal human need. 😈 — Personal Story (60/100)
At 9:12
She's recounting a personal anecdote from a specific expert, not making a universal scientific claim. It's his observation, not a peer-reviewed paper. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker attributes the idea of dignity as a universal human need to Shamil Idriss's observations in conflict zones. While Idriss's experience is valid within its context, presenting it as a universal truth derived from 'everywhere he goes' without further empirical backing is a generalization based on anecdotal evidence. It's a personal perspective, not a scientific finding.
Original quote: “And I'll never forget, I heard Shamil Idriss from an organization called Search for Common Ground that works in conflict zones, war zones all around the world. And he said everywhere he goes, one thing is the same, that humans need a sense of dignity, which is a sense that you matter. No matter…”
Claims 'three decades of research' prove collective action makes a difference. 😈 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 10:20
Oh, 'three decades of research,' you say? And not a single study or name to back it up. That's not research, mortal, that's a vibe. 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts that 'three decades of research' proves the power of collective action. This is another instance of anonymous authority. While the general concept of collective action's impact is widely accepted, invoking 'three decades of research' without any specific citations, fields, or even general findings makes the claim vague and unprovable. It's meant to sound authoritative without actually providing evidence.
Original quote: “People need to know that even if they personally can't fix a big social problem, it is possible, collectively, to make a difference. And we know from three decades of research”
Three decades of research, no names, no studies. Classic. 😈 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 10:30
Says 'three decades of research' like it's a citation. No names, no studies, just a vague wave at 'science.'
Why this score: This is the oldest trick, mortal. Invoke 'research' or 'experts' without naming a single one. It gives the illusion of backing without any actual evidence to check. Pure confidence, zero receipts. 🔥
Original quote: “And we know from three decades of research”
Hope is a muscle, a skill developed through three decades of research. — No Frame — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:30
She's laying out a premise about hope being a skill, not a static state. No trickery here, just setting the stage. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is presenting a foundational concept for her argument, describing hope as an active skill rather than a passive condition. This is a straightforward statement of her perspective, not a manipulative frame.
Original quote: “And we know from three decades of research into the science of hope, that hope is actually a muscle, it's a skill that you develop. It's not a thing that either exists in a given situation or not. It is something that helps us make better decisions and make the world a better place. It is something…”
Defining hope as a skill developed through research — a straightforward premise. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 10:30
She's laying out her premise about hope, connecting it to research. No tricks here, just setting the stage. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is defining 'hope' as a developed skill, citing 'three decades of research.' This is presented as a foundational concept for her argument, not a claim requiring immediate external verification, but rather a premise she's building upon. It's a clear, direct statement of her starting point.
Original quote: “And we know from three decades of research into the science of hope, that hope is actually a muscle, it's a skill that you develop. It's not a thing that either exists in a given situation or not. It is something that helps us make better decisions and make the world a better place. It is something…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →