4 ms·

No orchestration is needed. Managers only need to look with disdain to anyone that brings the issue. Networks and social media extend the reach of these kinds

No orchestration is needed. Managers only need to look with disdain to anyone that brings the issue. Networks and social media extend the reach of these kinds of disdain, and take these mechanisms beyond the walls of the office and organization. In the present day climate, where accusations causing outrage tend more easily to become viral, one need not be someone's manager or even have a close relationship to exercise such power of disdain. The incentive structures in social media can act as a very efficient transmission substrate for these mechanisms. One doesn't have to look far, to see how social media amplified groupthink has short circuited professional judgement -- even in highly visible and public circumstances. In particular, forums, email lists, and social media groups of journalists can be seen to be having such effects. So, to get a cover up you only need to do nothing. With just a modicum of digging, this can be seen quite clearly in 2019, in the mainstream media, which is declining but still trusted by the public. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” This effect is very real and very powerful. This is why we as a society should be wary of the political exclusiveness of entire professions, entire industries, and of academia. If you're surrounded only by people of like minds, you're far less likely to have your idea checked by people highly motivated to find your faults. It's only diversity of opinions which guards against groupthink.

Retric 8y ago
It’s not really social pressure when managers have so much direct power not just in major events like a lay off or promotion, but also day to day tasking. This generally results in people becoming hypersensitive to their boss’s disapproval. Social networks on the other hand have far less direct impact which results in less socially accepted statements becoming common.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  This generally results in people becoming hypersensitive to their boss’s disapproval. In 2019, there are lots of examples of people being quite sensitive to approval over social media. This differs by individual circumstance. However, in 2019 there are entire fields where people must ascribe to some form of group consensus, or basically become un-personed from it. Media work seems to be particularly sensitive to this. not just in major events like a lay off or promotion, but also day to day tasking There are examples of journalists consulting and influencing each other in the context of news cycle events. Social networks on the other hand have far less direct impact This was once true but now is simply out of date and very wrong. In 2019, there are social networks which have very direct impact, and very large impacts on people's livelihood. There are entire fields where such social networks and online communication can get someone un-personed. These are basically the 2019 version of the "old boy network."
  - Retric 8y ago
    Over 32,000 journalists are working full time in the US, social media focus on a minute fraction of them. Social media can be a near full time job. One many successful people simply don’t have time for. So sure many NYT reporters might post their wedding photos online, but deeper interactions are often limited to people focusing on such things.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Over 32,000 journalists are working full time in the US, social media focus on a minute fraction of them. You're conflating two entirely different things here. Much of the dysfunction/groupthink occurs through things like legacy media journalists using social media. The point is that networks and social media enables offline channels for groupthink, which then affects other media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2JII6TG4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2JII6TG4o So sure many NYT reporters might post their wedding photos online This of course, isn't an issue. (But mistakenly considered as such, it might as well be a strawman.) What is an issue are blue checkmark journalists engaging in toxic groupthink on Twitter. This also happens on email lists and industry insider forums. (This isn't actually a new phenomenon. There are Vietnam era journalists who complained about how some correspondents never left bars in Saigon. The difference is that the groupthink can follow people around in their smartphone and come at them every waking hour.)
      - Retric 8y ago
        > “some correspondents” never left bars in Saigon My point is group think requires significant interaction over social media. This requires more than visiting a bar one a month / posting wedding photos. It requires significant amounts of time and crossing that threashold is not very common. So, sure a small fraction are significantly influenced but the majority is not. Making the overall influence far less significant than it might appear. On top of that mainstream news organizations like FOX, CNN, NPR differentiate based on appealing to different groups. Which creates different spheres of social media for each segment. This has been intensified with online sources the Drudge Report going mainstream and gathering vast followings. Which means social media is pulling different reporters in different directions.

Retric 8y ago

It’s not really social pressure when managers have so much direct power not just in major events like a lay off or promotion, but also day to day tasking. This generally results in people becoming hypersensitive to their boss’s disapproval. Social networks on the other hand have far less direct impact which results in less socially accepted statements becoming common.

stcredzero 8y ago
This generally results in people becoming hypersensitive to their boss’s disapproval. In 2019, there are lots of examples of people being quite sensitive to approval over social media. This differs by individual circumstance. However, in 2019 there are entire fields where people must ascribe to some form of group consensus, or basically become un-personed from it. Media work seems to be particularly sensitive to this. not just in major events like a lay off or promotion, but also day to day tasking There are examples of journalists consulting and influencing each other in the context of news cycle events. Social networks on the other hand have far less direct impact This was once true but now is simply out of date and very wrong. In 2019, there are social networks which have very direct impact, and very large impacts on people's livelihood. There are entire fields where such social networks and online communication can get someone un-personed. These are basically the 2019 version of the "old boy network."
- Retric 8y ago
  Over 32,000 journalists are working full time in the US, social media focus on a minute fraction of them. Social media can be a near full time job. One many successful people simply don’t have time for. So sure many NYT reporters might post their wedding photos online, but deeper interactions are often limited to people focusing on such things.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Over 32,000 journalists are working full time in the US, social media focus on a minute fraction of them. You're conflating two entirely different things here. Much of the dysfunction/groupthink occurs through things like legacy media journalists using social media. The point is that networks and social media enables offline channels for groupthink, which then affects other media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2JII6TG4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA2JII6TG4o So sure many NYT reporters might post their wedding photos online This of course, isn't an issue. (But mistakenly considered as such, it might as well be a strawman.) What is an issue are blue checkmark journalists engaging in toxic groupthink on Twitter. This also happens on email lists and industry insider forums. (This isn't actually a new phenomenon. There are Vietnam era journalists who complained about how some correspondents never left bars in Saigon. The difference is that the groupthink can follow people around in their smartphone and come at them every waking hour.)
    - Retric 8y ago
      > “some correspondents” never left bars in Saigon My point is group think requires significant interaction over social media. This requires more than visiting a bar one a month / posting wedding photos. It requires significant amounts of time and crossing that threashold is not very common. So, sure a small fraction are significantly influenced but the majority is not. Making the overall influence far less significant than it might appear. On top of that mainstream news organizations like FOX, CNN, NPR differentiate based on appealing to different groups. Which creates different spheres of social media for each segment. This has been intensified with online sources the Drudge Report going mainstream and gathering vast followings. Which means social media is pulling different reporters in different directions.