 You have to actually learn how to consume news from a propaganda source. Now, the New York Times mostly fact checks. That's not where the problem is. So I find it's pretty good if they are willing to state something unequivocally. They know when they're lying, they know when they're propagandizing. And so you have to be able to learn like about the to be sure paragraph. So seven paragraphs in, there's a paragraph that begins to be sure. And that paragraph has most of the things that they don't want to admit to. So it doesn't always start with to be sure. That's like in a world, it's a ritualized way. So look for the to be sure paragraph that they have had to put in in order to make sure that the piece is technically balanced. And then some other tricks are look, I think there's a site called newsdifts, maybe newsdifts.org. How the story changes online, recorded several differences as the day progresses. It's like a telephone tree. Right. Like a perfect example for us was the incident that happened on the mall in Washington where there was a MAGA group of teenagers who were interacting with Native Americans in the drums. And you saw that from the left-leaning media, they picked up this scoop around the MAGA teens accosted the Native American. And it kind of fit neatly into the left-leaning perspective of like, see these MAGA lovers are out of control, right? And it just fit neatly into their archetype. And then I talked to Johnny and Johnny's like, well, that's actually not what I've heard at all. It was actually the opposite. And then as the story twisted and turned and more sources got involved, it actually round up somewhere in the middle where you could from either side view the other person as being wrong and it was actually in a gray area, but where I'm consuming my information didn't show the gray area. It showed the black and white viewpoint that clearly these kids riled up in their hats, went after someone who was just peacefully demonstrating. And I feel like this is just one of many examples where we've had these conversations back and forth and it's now made me think, oh, let me step outside of my bubble, which is traditional media and let me just try to seek out a little bit more of the truth. And it almost seems like it is ramping up to once a month, now it's weekly, now it's several different stories that are, it's just teams that are popping up where it's like, and we both said like, we're trying to cut back on the news because it's driving both of us crazy. Well, it's driving all of us crazy. It's ruining our relationships. I'm glad, yeah. And I want my reality back. And I'm gonna take my reality back because who are these people? They're unelected. We can't question them. We can't understand what's going on. We know who they're hiring. Sarah Zhang at the New York Times. I mean, okay, it's like we're gonna write a confession that we're actually an activist political source. Okay, however, here's what I would recommend to your listeners. Think about every news organization as having a guiding narrative, okay? So once you've got a guiding narrative, you have to ask what happens when a narrative-aligned story comes through that organization. So my claim is that all of the major outlets, the sense-making organs, if you will, and my jargon, none of them are so weak that they can't catch a fly ball, right? If somebody hits a pop-up fly, they've got it if it's narrative-aligned. So Breitbart is gonna do fine if there's some story about somebody faking a hate crime. They're gonna cover that. Okay, on the other hand, if there is an actual hate crime, that's gonna line up much more with the New York Times, or Vox. So now you have this weird thing, which is that no one, there does not appear to be one single organ who can faithfully report a counter-narrative story. And there is always a counter-narrative story that will eventually come in. With something that you don't want to have to consider because it fowls up what your general view of the world is. If you believe, for example, that immigration is a pure positive, it's a free lunch, that Noah Smith told me straight up that he believes that it's a free lunch, it's the rarest of all things with no downside. Well, okay, sooner or later, some immigrant is going to do something horrendous. And that means that there's a problem for anybody who's stated, no, it's a free lunch, it's the miraculous thing that never happens. On the other hand, if you believe that immigrants are the source of America's weakness, I guarantee you somebody's gonna found an amazing pharmaceutical company that's gonna cure all sorts of diseases and that wouldn't have been done otherwise. Okay, so now the question is, why is no organ able to report both of these phenomena? And that has to do with the fact that we are living in a narrative-driven era. And so, I'm trying to be open. I have narrative stories and I have counter-narrative stories that run against what it is that I'm trying to say. It's much more fun to report the stories that perfectly align with my narrative. But I think that the big answer is you have to consume eclectically. You have to think about it as like your ear. Your ear has different hairs for different frequencies. And if some of those hairs in your organ of cordy go out, you won't hear things on that frequency. So my advice to you is start consuming some crazier stuff that is exactly counter-narrative to what you're consuming. And my advice to you is totally different, which is go back to consuming the propaganda that you've identified and recognize that there's a lot of true things that the New York Times does really well. But you're gonna have to do both. You're gonna have to aggregate across this because there is no sense-making organ, not one that I've found that can report a counter-narrative story faithfully.