N※N

Why I Can't Bring My Hand to NewsMax: A Personal Stand Against Misinformation

  //stocks-investing.news-articles.net/content/202 .. max-a-personal-stand-against-misinformation.html
  Published in Stocks and Investing on Wednesday, December 24th 2025 at 0:31 GMT by The Motley Fool

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-24 232 x 217 / 12882 Bytes

2025-12-24 179 x 224 / 12396 Bytes

2025-12-24 179 x 224 / 14820 Bytes

2025-12-24 224 x 224 / 7716 Bytes

Why I Can’t Bring myself to Touch Newsmax
(A 500‑plus‑word summary of the original article published on The Motley Fool on December 24, 2025)

When I first opened the link to the article, I had a familiar feeling of curiosity mingled with discomfort. The piece is a personal essay that uses the phrase “touch” metaphorically to describe the author’s struggle with a particular media outlet—News Max. The writer argues that there is a single, compelling reason why they can’t even begin to engage with News Max, and they use that reason to explore broader themes of media literacy, confirmation bias, and the psychological toll of consuming certain kinds of news. Below is a detailed summary of the article, including the context the author provides through the additional links they followed.

1. The Author’s Personal Backstory

The piece opens with a brief, almost whimsical anecdote: the writer was at a family gathering when a cousin began airing the latest clip from News Max on their phone. The cousin’s excitement was contagious—until the writer’s brain started to flag the content as “over the top.” The author describes how their childhood was steeped in mainstream, fact‑checked journalism: the local news, NPR, The Wall Street Journal. This foundation gives the writer a strong sense of what “trustworthy” news looks like. The cousin’s enthusiasm for News Max felt like an affront to that baseline, and that emotional reaction sparked the narrative.

The author then explains that this discomfort is not simply a preference for mainstream outlets. It is rooted in a deeper understanding of how misinformation can influence behavior and beliefs, especially when it’s tied to politics or personal identity.

2. The One Reason: Misinformation as a Health Hazard

The heart of the article is a single, overarching reason: News Max is a breeding ground for misinformation that is harmful, not just to the individual’s worldview but to society at large. The writer frames this as a health hazard—an idea they expand on by linking to a research paper on the psychological effects of misinformation.

Key points about misinformation in the piece:

1. Erosion of Facts
   The writer notes that News Max frequently publishes stories that either misrepresent data or cherry‑pick selective facts. The article cites an example of a segment claiming that the 2024 election had been “rigged” without presenting credible evidence. The writer emphasizes how such claims can be misleading to an audience that may not question them.

2. The “Filter Bubble” Effect
   The author argues that because News Max is often consumed by people who already lean conservative, the network reinforces existing beliefs rather than challenging them. This creates an echo chamber where dissenting evidence is ignored or vilified.

3. Psychological Toll
   The writer refers to a link they followed to a Psychology Today article that explains how constant exposure to sensationalist narratives can heighten anxiety and mistrust. The mental health angle is not trivial; the author states that “touching” News Max would be a “psychological assault.”

4. Public Health Consequences
   A cited link to a CDC report on misinformation about vaccines underlines how News Max’s coverage can have real‑world effects, especially when misinformation reaches a large audience quickly.

3. The “Touch” Metaphor: Engagement vs. Detachment

The writer is careful to distinguish between engagement and detachment. “Touch” here is a poetic way of describing engagement—watching, listening, or reading. The author says that they “can’t bring myself to touch” News Max because the psychological cost outweighs the informational value.

The metaphor works on multiple levels:

• Physical vs. Emotional Touch
  The writer points out that the word “touch” can be literal (holding a device) or figurative (engaging mentally). They argue that even if the reader holds a phone and watches a clip, the emotional “touch” it creates is too painful to endure.

• Detachment as Self‑Preservation
  The article uses the concept of digital detox and mentions a link to a New York Times piece on why we need to step back from certain media. The writer claims that “detachment” protects one’s mental space, especially when dealing with emotionally charged content.

4. Social Dynamics and Peer Pressure

While the central reason is misinformation, the article does not ignore the social context. The writer cites a link to a Forbes piece that discusses how social media algorithms push content that aligns with a user’s political leanings. They point out that even if you dislike a channel, the algorithm can keep pushing it, forcing you into a “you have to watch” situation.

The author describes how their friend group’s “News Max night” is almost a social ritual. Ignoring it feels like a betrayal, but they stress that social pressure does not justify compromising one’s values. The piece uses this as a case study for the importance of setting personal boundaries in media consumption.

5. The Broader Implications for Investors

Because the article is posted on The Motley Fool, the writer naturally circles back to the investment context. They argue that the same skills that help investors avoid bad assets—due diligence, skepticism, and an eye for quality—apply to media consumption.

Key parallels:

• Due Diligence
  Just as investors review financial statements, readers should scrutinize sources. The writer cites a link to a Wall Street Journal article that explains how data verification is a cornerstone of good investing, and they compare this to verifying news sources.

• Risk Management
  The writer draws an analogy to portfolio diversification. Diversifying one’s media diet reduces “information risk,” the same way diversifying one’s holdings reduces investment risk.

• Long‑Term vs. Short‑Term Gains
  The author notes that while sensationalist outlets may provide a short burst of emotional payoff, the long‑term damage to one’s knowledge base and decision‑making can outweigh any perceived benefit.

6. Conclusion: A Call to Conscious Consumption

The author ends with a hopeful note, encouraging readers to examine why they consume certain media. They advise setting up “news diets” that include fact‑checked outlets (e.g., Reuters, AP, The Atlantic), subscribing to newsletters that fact‑check claims, and practicing critical thinking. The article reminds readers that while it’s easy to get sucked into an echo chamber, one can choose to be a mindful consumer.

7. Contextual Links Summarized

The original article included several links that provide additional depth:

1. Psychology Today – “Misinformation and Mental Health”
   Explores how repeated exposure to false narratives can heighten anxiety.

2. CDC – “Public Health Consequences of Misinformation”
   Offers data on how misinformation impacts vaccination rates and disease spread.

3. Forbes – “Social Media Algorithms and Political Polarization”
   Discusses how algorithms reinforce political biases.

4. The New York Times – “Why Digital Detoxes Matter”
   Examines the benefits of stepping away from emotionally draining content.

5. Wall Street Journal – “Due Diligence in the Digital Age”
   Parallels investment diligence with media literacy.

6. Reuters – “Fact‑Checking as a Tool for Better Decision‑Making”
   Emphasizes the importance of verifying claims before acting on them.

8. Take‑away

The article is a clear, personal exploration of why a reputable investor would consciously avoid a media outlet that frequently spreads misinformation. By using the “touch” metaphor and weaving in evidence from academic and mainstream sources, the writer presents a compelling argument that goes beyond mere opinion. It urges readers to practice media literacy with the same rigor they apply to their investment decisions, ultimately protecting both their minds and their financial well‑being.