4 ms·

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 ap

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 Social networks on the other hand have far less direct impact This was once true but now is simply out of date and very wrong.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.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      My point is group think requires significant interaction over social media. Then the behavior of many journalists over social media should greatly concern you. This requires more than visiting a bar one a month / posting wedding photos. It requires significant amounts of time and crossing that threshold is not very common. This is common among journalists. Particularly those working in niche media. Making the overall influence far less significant than it might appear. Those who know the facts behind certain niche stories are amazed at the degree of reality warping done by the mainstream media. Just look at what happened around the Covington kids.
      - Retric 8y ago
        The Covington Kids story shows how social media amplified both sides of an issue. It’s the opposite of group think with multiple narratives showing up. What you’re describing “group consensus” is a systemic bias. A historical example of say US WWII propaganda qualifies as essentially all US news is shifted in the same direction. Waves of news with story X being updated to story Y over time is a different thing. That’s a question of which organizations get involved over time. You can find examples that support any narrative based on timing. But, bias would mean the story did not evolve.

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.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    My point is group think requires significant interaction over social media. Then the behavior of many journalists over social media should greatly concern you. This requires more than visiting a bar one a month / posting wedding photos. It requires significant amounts of time and crossing that threshold is not very common. This is common among journalists. Particularly those working in niche media. Making the overall influence far less significant than it might appear. Those who know the facts behind certain niche stories are amazed at the degree of reality warping done by the mainstream media. Just look at what happened around the Covington kids.
    - Retric 8y ago
      The Covington Kids story shows how social media amplified both sides of an issue. It’s the opposite of group think with multiple narratives showing up. What you’re describing “group consensus” is a systemic bias. A historical example of say US WWII propaganda qualifies as essentially all US news is shifted in the same direction. Waves of news with story X being updated to story Y over time is a different thing. That’s a question of which organizations get involved over time. You can find examples that support any narrative based on timing. But, bias would mean the story did not evolve.