Discussing a difficult news story with someone who holds a different view can quickly turn unproductive if the goal, often unstated, is to win the exchange rather than to genuinely understand the other person's actual reasoning and the specific evidence or experience behind it. It holds up under ordinary pressure precisely because it never demanded very much to begin with.
A more constructive approach starts with a genuine question rather than an immediate counterargument, asking what specifically led the other person to their view, which tends to reveal areas of unexpected agreement, and also clarifies precisely where the real, substantive disagreement actually lies once the surface positions are properly unpacked.
This approach rarely changes a firmly held mind in a single conversation, but it does tend to preserve the relationship and keep the door open for a further, more productive exchange later, which matters more in the long run than winning any single, isolated argument in the moment.