4 ms·

Except that the said newsrooms are more often than not the ones that amplify and give a legitimacy to these mobs by printing their reactions as if it was someho

by cm2187 7y ago

Except that the said newsrooms are more often than not the ones that amplify and give a legitimacy to these mobs by printing their reactions as if it was somehow the reaction of the people. The NY Times itself actively participated in many of these lynchings, like the Covington kids. To me it looks more like a newsroom that likes playing with fire, got burned itself, and decides to cut its exposure so it can keep playing.

jdoliner 7y ago
This is how I see it too, things like the Covington kids create a backlash against the newsrooms that promulgate them. And NYT gave them too perfect of an opportunity when they published a remake of a Nazi propaganda comic that could easily be portrayed as antisemitic.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Correctness literally doesn't matter in the realm of politics. Only, who is the loudest and most persuasive.
  - kodz4 7y ago
    More like a bias towards people with the most energy. There are lots of loud and persuasive people around, but to stay relevant, social/news media selects for the ones that are tireless in performing their routines with robotic efficiency day in day out.
  - anomaloops 7y ago
    As an aside, is there a latin-based term for this kind of authoritative persuasion? I want to say it's ochlocracy, but generally it's not just any kind of mob I'm thinking of, but the mob that is the loudest. Rule by the loudest voices. A magnaocracy? (not to be confused with the fantastical magocracy)
    - nerfhammer 7y ago
      (-cracy words are Greek anyway)
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
If anything, that's the thing I hate most about Twitter. A journalist who wants to write a story with a particular angle can easily find tons of supporting viewpoints on Twitter, and usually at least a few of these are somewhat clever or snarky. So the journalist writes the article and then uses these examples from Twitter to show that "the masses" agree, or are equally outraged as the author. Since when do we start giving every rando who can shout something from Twitter equal weight?
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  This might be the worst trick used by media outlets to portend there's a 'movement afoot' or 'what most people' think when neither are true. "People are saying XYZ" - because some random person on Twitter said it. "People believe this" - again, some random Tweet in support. They're creating narrative, which is definitely the opposite of news, and it's way beyond 'Editorial' i.e. 'the opinion of the author'. Politicians do this, and the 'politician in Chief' does this in I think some nefarious ways, but that shouldn't give cover for ostensibly respectable outlets to do the same. Almost all of the major voices in the press are guilty of this. The wierdest pardox of the 'Fake News' line (which is usually used in a very cynical, nefarious way to shut down real news) ... is that there is actually a lot of 'Fake News' being created. I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism, and of having to look up references and facts because I don't quite trust ostensibly trustworthy people. I read the news these days not for 'news', but rather to see where various groups are trying to 'focus the narrative', which is really cynical.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    > I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism, and of having to look up references and facts because I don't quite trust ostensibly trustworthy people. And yet, that's what you must do. If you rely on spoon-fed cruft, you will be at the mercy of those who hold the end of your nose ring rope, and not even know it.
    - headsoup 7y ago
Chazprime 7y ago
Yup, media outlets like the NYT did this to themselves really. At some point they decided that a story could be manufactured from a few outraged individuals, even if those sources were random or completely unknown users. Bam...there's your instant moral outrage. It didn't matter that their story might be a grossly inaccurate sampling of readers or have little factual basis, the only thing that mattered was that suddenly a mob formed around them, instantly amplifying their message. I suppose this has done wonders for those sites looking to increase ad revenue, but I wonder what the actual damage is to political discourse in this country.
- Nadya 7y ago
  Humans are bad at figuring out the popularity of hats [0]. Couple this with the nasty trick of manufacturing the popularity of certain opinions [1] and I wager that it is pretty trivial to get most people to believe in anything and especially easy to make people think fringe opinions are actually widespread and commonplace. Coupled with the emotive fallacious reasoning of "If everyone believes/says it then it must be true" and you can make reality, at least how people see it, however you like. I am 100% convinced that this has been abused to boost the bottom line of certain media companies because outrage gets clicks and figuring out how to induce outrage means you can farm clicks by outraging people who you've conditioned to become outraged. Increasingly often media-manufactured lynchmobs are formed over topics where you can tell by talking to the outraged people that most of them are misinformed about whatever it is they are all worked up over. It's like the world's largest (and worst) game of Telephone. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/majority-illusion/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/ma... [1] Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2159/ https://xkcd.com/2159/
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >I wager that it is pretty trivial to get most people to believe in anything and especially easy to make people think fringe opinions are actually widespread and commonplace. I'd wager you can find plenty of examples of that on HN.
    - 7y ago

by cm2187 7y ago

jdoliner 7y ago

This is how I see it too, things like the Covington kids create a backlash against the newsrooms that promulgate them. And NYT gave them too perfect of an opportunity when they published a remake of a Nazi propaganda comic that could easily be portrayed as antisemitic.

eanzenberg 7y ago
Correctness literally doesn't matter in the realm of politics. Only, who is the loudest and most persuasive.
- kodz4 7y ago
  More like a bias towards people with the most energy. There are lots of loud and persuasive people around, but to stay relevant, social/news media selects for the ones that are tireless in performing their routines with robotic efficiency day in day out.
- anomaloops 7y ago
  As an aside, is there a latin-based term for this kind of authoritative persuasion? I want to say it's ochlocracy, but generally it's not just any kind of mob I'm thinking of, but the mob that is the loudest. Rule by the loudest voices. A magnaocracy? (not to be confused with the fantastical magocracy)
  - nerfhammer 7y ago
    (-cracy words are Greek anyway)

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

If anything, that's the thing I hate most about Twitter. A journalist who wants to write a story with a particular angle can easily find tons of supporting viewpoints on Twitter, and usually at least a few of these are somewhat clever or snarky. So the journalist writes the article and then uses these examples from Twitter to show that "the masses" agree, or are equally outraged as the author. Since when do we start giving every rando who can shout something from Twitter equal weight?

sonnyblarney 7y ago
This might be the worst trick used by media outlets to portend there's a 'movement afoot' or 'what most people' think when neither are true. "People are saying XYZ" - because some random person on Twitter said it. "People believe this" - again, some random Tweet in support. They're creating narrative, which is definitely the opposite of news, and it's way beyond 'Editorial' i.e. 'the opinion of the author'. Politicians do this, and the 'politician in Chief' does this in I think some nefarious ways, but that shouldn't give cover for ostensibly respectable outlets to do the same. Almost all of the major voices in the press are guilty of this. The wierdest pardox of the 'Fake News' line (which is usually used in a very cynical, nefarious way to shut down real news) ... is that there is actually a lot of 'Fake News' being created. I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism, and of having to look up references and facts because I don't quite trust ostensibly trustworthy people. I read the news these days not for 'news', but rather to see where various groups are trying to 'focus the narrative', which is really cynical.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism, and of having to look up references and facts because I don't quite trust ostensibly trustworthy people. And yet, that's what you must do. If you rely on spoon-fed cruft, you will be at the mercy of those who hold the end of your nose ring rope, and not even know it.
  - headsoup 7y ago

Chazprime 7y ago

Yup, media outlets like the NYT did this to themselves really. At some point they decided that a story could be manufactured from a few outraged individuals, even if those sources were random or completely unknown users. Bam...there's your instant moral outrage. It didn't matter that their story might be a grossly inaccurate sampling of readers or have little factual basis, the only thing that mattered was that suddenly a mob formed around them, instantly amplifying their message. I suppose this has done wonders for those sites looking to increase ad revenue, but I wonder what the actual damage is to political discourse in this country.

Nadya 7y ago
Humans are bad at figuring out the popularity of hats [0]. Couple this with the nasty trick of manufacturing the popularity of certain opinions [1] and I wager that it is pretty trivial to get most people to believe in anything and especially easy to make people think fringe opinions are actually widespread and commonplace. Coupled with the emotive fallacious reasoning of "If everyone believes/says it then it must be true" and you can make reality, at least how people see it, however you like. I am 100% convinced that this has been abused to boost the bottom line of certain media companies because outrage gets clicks and figuring out how to induce outrage means you can farm clicks by outraging people who you've conditioned to become outraged. Increasingly often media-manufactured lynchmobs are formed over topics where you can tell by talking to the outraged people that most of them are misinformed about whatever it is they are all worked up over. It's like the world's largest (and worst) game of Telephone. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/majority-illusion/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/ma... [1] Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2159/ https://xkcd.com/2159/
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >I wager that it is pretty trivial to get most people to believe in anything and especially easy to make people think fringe opinions are actually widespread and commonplace. I'd wager you can find plenty of examples of that on HN.
  - 7y ago