5 ms·

Isn't blaming everything on the media a bit too one-sided and simplistic? We live in an era where diversity of media sources have exploded. Media companies com

Isn't blaming everything on the media a bit too one-sided and simplistic? We live in an era where diversity of media sources have exploded. Media companies compete fiercely with one another for clicks, readers, and ad revenue. Perhaps the root problem is the media behaves the way it does because its consumers and the structure of the market makes it impossible for it not to. TL;DR: click-baity and inaccurate news exists as a reflection of consumer preference

danso 10y ago
I don't think the media are solely to blame, big picture wise, but for the scope of what this article covers, I think focusing on the media is appropriate. This is not to say that science can't revamp conventions and practices on their end. And there's not a perfect balance between media freedom and media scrutiny of science. That said, one could make the argument that it's not the media's fault that in any given month, a photogenic (and perhaps blonde) woman has been kidnapped or murdered. However, it is the media's fault when they saturate the airwaves and print with such incidents at the detriment of other news and information, even if readers gobble it up.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Feedback loops strike again. The fault is in the interaction between media and the audience. People tend to react better to some content than to another, which leads to that content making more money, which leads to more of such content. The process is optimizing for exploiting cognitive biases and heuristics the audience uses. Now the question is - what's easier to tackle? Issues with brain architecture that would require medical interventions we barely can imagine to correct, or business incentives of the media companies?
- intended 10y ago
  Aren't both brain architecture issues? Corporate incentives are built around converting avarice into societal progress and a are incentivized to find the shortest path to that profit. It's probably easier to make laws for one of those scenarios though.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Corporate incentives are built around converting avarice into societal progress I don't see how you can turn that into a "brain architecture" issue.
    - intended 10y ago
      Shareholders want to see profit increase. If other firms find ways of making more money with fewer morals, then the pressure on your firm to do the same increases, until you either succumb, or get bought over. Shareholders are driven by the same dopamine system that normal people are, and are unlikely to sit by and change their incentives for the sake of morals. The people pushing journalists to drop long form, in favor of revenue and attention generating articles with lower costs are shareholders, correctly responding to clear market incentives. Theres an excellent article from mother jones which provides a possible solution to this problem (its been shared on HN but there was no discussion when I found it) http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/whats-missing-from-journalism http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/whats-missing-from-...
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    A bit, yes, because the actors are humans too. But the core of the issue is more game-theoretic - shareholders cannot all coordinate to avoid taking some "shortest paths" that end up with unwanted consequences. Tackling this, hard as it is, is still easier than rocket neurosurgery.
    - intended 10y ago
      By this would you mean things like business incentives and tax breaks?
mcguire 10y ago
What you're describing is therefore a failure of journalistic ethics. An important part of any set of professional ethics is not giving the consumer what they want, if what they want violates a standard of the profession; in this case, that means having a significant chance of being true. On the other hand, that professional behavior has a difficult time competing with unprofessional behavior is unsurprising, as is that professional behavior is hard to maintain.
adrianratnapala 10y ago
I think this is absolutely true, and that consumers have themselves to blame for all kinds of bad stuff they buy. But it is also true opinion polls show journalists are trusted only about as much as estate agents. And rightly so. Media professionals sometimes see themselves as noble experts standing outside the internet echo chambers, and able to judiciously filter info-cacaphony to the benefit of the public. They aren't.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  > Media professionals sometimes see themselves as noble experts standing outside the internet echo chambers, and able to judiciously filter info-cacaphony to the benefit of the public. OTOH, to the extent that journalists view themselves in this light, it helps them enforce and maintain some sort of standard for themselves.

danso 10y ago

I don't think the media are solely to blame, big picture wise, but for the scope of what this article covers, I think focusing on the media is appropriate. This is not to say that science can't revamp conventions and practices on their end. And there's not a perfect balance between media freedom and media scrutiny of science. That said, one could make the argument that it's not the media's fault that in any given month, a photogenic (and perhaps blonde) woman has been kidnapped or murdered. However, it is the media's fault when they saturate the airwaves and print with such incidents at the detriment of other news and information, even if readers gobble it up.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Feedback loops strike again. The fault is in the interaction between media and the audience. People tend to react better to some content than to another, which leads to that content making more money, which leads to more of such content. The process is optimizing for exploiting cognitive biases and heuristics the audience uses. Now the question is - what's easier to tackle? Issues with brain architecture that would require medical interventions we barely can imagine to correct, or business incentives of the media companies?

intended 10y ago
Aren't both brain architecture issues? Corporate incentives are built around converting avarice into societal progress and a are incentivized to find the shortest path to that profit. It's probably easier to make laws for one of those scenarios though.
- tremon 10y ago
  Corporate incentives are built around converting avarice into societal progress I don't see how you can turn that into a "brain architecture" issue.
  - intended 10y ago
    Shareholders want to see profit increase. If other firms find ways of making more money with fewer morals, then the pressure on your firm to do the same increases, until you either succumb, or get bought over. Shareholders are driven by the same dopamine system that normal people are, and are unlikely to sit by and change their incentives for the sake of morals. The people pushing journalists to drop long form, in favor of revenue and attention generating articles with lower costs are shareholders, correctly responding to clear market incentives. Theres an excellent article from mother jones which provides a possible solution to this problem (its been shared on HN but there was no discussion when I found it) http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/whats-missing-from-journalism http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/08/whats-missing-from-...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  A bit, yes, because the actors are humans too. But the core of the issue is more game-theoretic - shareholders cannot all coordinate to avoid taking some "shortest paths" that end up with unwanted consequences. Tackling this, hard as it is, is still easier than rocket neurosurgery.
  - intended 10y ago
    By this would you mean things like business incentives and tax breaks?

mcguire 10y ago

What you're describing is therefore a failure of journalistic ethics. An important part of any set of professional ethics is not giving the consumer what they want, if what they want violates a standard of the profession; in this case, that means having a significant chance of being true. On the other hand, that professional behavior has a difficult time competing with unprofessional behavior is unsurprising, as is that professional behavior is hard to maintain.

adrianratnapala 10y ago

I think this is absolutely true, and that consumers have themselves to blame for all kinds of bad stuff they buy. But it is also true opinion polls show journalists are trusted only about as much as estate agents. And rightly so. Media professionals sometimes see themselves as noble experts standing outside the internet echo chambers, and able to judiciously filter info-cacaphony to the benefit of the public. They aren't.

smallnamespace 10y ago
> Media professionals sometimes see themselves as noble experts standing outside the internet echo chambers, and able to judiciously filter info-cacaphony to the benefit of the public. OTOH, to the extent that journalists view themselves in this light, it helps them enforce and maintain some sort of standard for themselves.