4 ms·

I wish the media waited until they had more red meat before stirring people up with these he-said she-said stories. It turns everything into such noise that mo

I wish the media waited until they had more red meat before stirring people up with these he-said she-said stories. It turns everything into such noise that most people just don't pay attention or care. I remember years ago the media was doing the same thing to that poor old lady who got scalded by McDonald's coffee. They ballyhooed the initial $1M (edit: actually $2.86M) judgment as front-page news, but the little details--like having burns severe enough to require skin grafts, or the judgment being reduced to a few hundred grand on appeal that barely covered her hospital expense--was always tiny print published much later. The result? People were driven to the bogus conclusion that torts-gone-wild were root of all evil, and of course, we end up with the current scenario of arbitration-gone-wild (like in this article). We traded a non-problem for a serious one thanks to media disaster porn. Whatever awful things I can say about Facebook or Twitter, I have to concede some degree of gratitude to them for eviscerating the mainstream media.

dasil003 9y ago
> Whatever awful things I can say about Facebook or Twitter, I have to concede some degree of gratitude to them for eviscerating the mainstream media. Except Facebook is entirely driven by engagement with absolutely zero value placed on truth, it drives all posts towards a supermarket check-out lane tabloid sensibility. I'm not sure how that can be considered an improvement on any axis.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Because then there's one big enemy we can gang up on instead of a million little ones that scatter like roaches.
  - codefined 9y ago
    I don't know, it might make the single target bigger. But monopolisation almost always hurts the consumer. At least where there were a million little crappy news sources, there were a few good ones.
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      Is that such a bad thing? Is it better to have a few "authoritative" sources everyone believes that exhort us all to do something stupid, like Vietnam or Iraq, and we trust them, and we do it with minimal-to-no hesitation? Or, is it better to have a million little squabbling social-media echo chambers and gridlock? So far, I think I prefer the latter.
ScottBurson 9y ago
Are Facebook and Twitter any better? Everybody is going for page views.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Not so much better as more tractable...
rhino369 9y ago
That McD's story is like second level fake-news/rush-to-judgement. Yes, the woman was seriously hurt. So people shouldn't have reacted quite so strongly. But now people use it as an example of rush to judgement, when really, people were mostly right about it in the first place. She shouldn't have put fresh coffee in her crotch. McD's still brews their coffee just as hot because that is how you are supposed to. She shouldn't have gotten a dime.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Don't know. McD made the coffee purposely hot so people wouldn't drink it inside the local shop, meaning they would get less refills. They knew people were getting burned because of it, and decided to keep doing it. They had the power to fix it and the incentive not to. Being liable in a lawsuit is the right kind of fix.
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    > McD made the coffee purposely hot so people wouldn't drink it inside the local shop, meaning they would get less refills. Source? Particularly since places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts that do not offer free refills serve at roughly the same temperature.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      I think it was from Adam ruins everything, don't have a source at hand.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    There is no way McD's cares about free coffee refills. Starbucks serves at the same temperature. It's the optimal brewing temperature.
- SilasX 9y ago
  I (somewhat) agree. At the very least, I dislike how people equate "nasty burn" with "obvious guilt". That's not how it works. There are many ways you can get a burn without it being some big corporation's fault. If you prepare boiling water in a kettle and spill it on yourself, you can't use the nasty burns as proof that the kettlemaker was obviously guilty and deserving to pay your bills. There is a defensible case that the particular level of coffee temperature, combined with some rational standard for how it should be labeled, combined with general consumer preferences for temperature and understanding of what to expect when served coffee, all together imply that McDonald's acted negligently. But that debate is always short-circuited in discussions about the case, where everyone is tripping over each other to say, "oh, you disagree with the verdict? I guess you didn't see these pictures [NSFW]. Checkmate, skeptics." Or worse, "the lawyers were really aloof when Liebeck was trying to be cool." Those really aren't good reasons to make a decision.
djsumdog 9y ago
The McDonald's case was most likely intentional though. They're a big company and most likely pushed the media that direction as damage control. There's a good Adam Ruins Everything video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ
mikeleeorg 9y ago
The sad thing is, there are people who know how to manipulate the media for nefarious gains. Not that I'm arguing that this story is like that, but it's sad to me that many journalists are motivated to publish sensational stories immediately rather than wait and do the research first. Read "Trust Me, I'm Lying" by Ryan Holiday for a frightening look at media manipulation.

dasil003 9y ago

> Whatever awful things I can say about Facebook or Twitter, I have to concede some degree of gratitude to them for eviscerating the mainstream media. Except Facebook is entirely driven by engagement with absolutely zero value placed on truth, it drives all posts towards a supermarket check-out lane tabloid sensibility. I'm not sure how that can be considered an improvement on any axis.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
Because then there's one big enemy we can gang up on instead of a million little ones that scatter like roaches.
- codefined 9y ago
  I don't know, it might make the single target bigger. But monopolisation almost always hurts the consumer. At least where there were a million little crappy news sources, there were a few good ones.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    Is that such a bad thing? Is it better to have a few "authoritative" sources everyone believes that exhort us all to do something stupid, like Vietnam or Iraq, and we trust them, and we do it with minimal-to-no hesitation? Or, is it better to have a million little squabbling social-media echo chambers and gridlock? So far, I think I prefer the latter.

ScottBurson 9y ago

Are Facebook and Twitter any better? Everybody is going for page views.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
Not so much better as more tractable...

rhino369 9y ago

That McD's story is like second level fake-news/rush-to-judgement. Yes, the woman was seriously hurt. So people shouldn't have reacted quite so strongly. But now people use it as an example of rush to judgement, when really, people were mostly right about it in the first place. She shouldn't have put fresh coffee in her crotch. McD's still brews their coffee just as hot because that is how you are supposed to. She shouldn't have gotten a dime.

conanbatt 9y ago
Don't know. McD made the coffee purposely hot so people wouldn't drink it inside the local shop, meaning they would get less refills. They knew people were getting burned because of it, and decided to keep doing it. They had the power to fix it and the incentive not to. Being liable in a lawsuit is the right kind of fix.
- vonmoltke 9y ago
  > McD made the coffee purposely hot so people wouldn't drink it inside the local shop, meaning they would get less refills. Source? Particularly since places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts that do not offer free refills serve at roughly the same temperature.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    I think it was from Adam ruins everything, don't have a source at hand.
- rhino369 9y ago
  There is no way McD's cares about free coffee refills. Starbucks serves at the same temperature. It's the optimal brewing temperature.
SilasX 9y ago
I (somewhat) agree. At the very least, I dislike how people equate "nasty burn" with "obvious guilt". That's not how it works. There are many ways you can get a burn without it being some big corporation's fault. If you prepare boiling water in a kettle and spill it on yourself, you can't use the nasty burns as proof that the kettlemaker was obviously guilty and deserving to pay your bills. There is a defensible case that the particular level of coffee temperature, combined with some rational standard for how it should be labeled, combined with general consumer preferences for temperature and understanding of what to expect when served coffee, all together imply that McDonald's acted negligently. But that debate is always short-circuited in discussions about the case, where everyone is tripping over each other to say, "oh, you disagree with the verdict? I guess you didn't see these pictures [NSFW]. Checkmate, skeptics." Or worse, "the lawyers were really aloof when Liebeck was trying to be cool." Those really aren't good reasons to make a decision.

djsumdog 9y ago

The McDonald's case was most likely intentional though. They're a big company and most likely pushed the media that direction as damage control. There's a good Adam Ruins Everything video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ

mikeleeorg 9y ago

The sad thing is, there are people who know how to manipulate the media for nefarious gains. Not that I'm arguing that this story is like that, but it's sad to me that many journalists are motivated to publish sensational stories immediately rather than wait and do the research first. Read "Trust Me, I'm Lying" by Ryan Holiday for a frightening look at media manipulation.