5 ms·

Prepare for the Ultimate Gaslighting

30 points by AstroJetson 7y ago

itronitron 7y ago
the author completely lost me at "I imagine you feel like I do: devastated, depressed, and heartbroken."
- quezzle 7y ago
  Yep not everyone does.
umvi 7y ago
> a government that has so severely damaged the credibility of our media that 300 million people don’t know who to listen to for basic facts that can save their own lives. The media has done this to themselves. For years they have eagerly profited not on the truth, but on the outrageous. Many news outlets will spin the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing, or more (in their parlance) "breaking". Lastly, the media should not be our source of truth, nor should the government be our source of truth. Truth needs not to be told to individuals but discovered by individuals after carefully considering information from multiple sources.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Many news outlets will spin the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing, or more (in their parlance) "breaking". Breaking news just means a story is current, reported as events unfold or just happened, nothing to do with how outrageous or "fear-inducing" it is.
  - trothamel 7y ago
    As a counterexample, https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-breaking-news-titanic-sinking-2014-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-breaking-news-titanic-si... .
  - dpedu 7y ago
    > reported as events unfold or just happened Which means less time is allocated to investigation, fact-checking, and comparing reports from different sources.
    - krapp 7y ago
      Well yes, but that's still not "spin(ning) the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing." The term exists because it refers to special news reports which would "break into" regular programming, it goes all the way back to radio.
    - jayd16 7y ago
      Which is why the stories are labeled as breaking news or developing.
  - Turing_Machine 7y ago
    That seems a little disingenuous. By your definition, me spilling a little bit of coffee a few minutes ago (as I in fact did) would be "breaking news", but that's certainly not going to show up on CNN with a 200-point "BREAKING!!!!! NEWS!!!!" headline, accompanied by zoomy visual effects and dramatic music.
    - krapp 7y ago
      It's not my definition, it's the actual factual definition.
      - Turing_Machine 7y ago
        Whether it's the "actual factual definition" or not, it's definitely not the way the term is commonly used by the news media of today.
        krapp 7y ago
        How do you know? Are you a member of the news media?
        Turing_Machine 7y ago
        I watch the news, and see which stories are given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!" treatment. They are, without exception, sensationalistic stories, not mundane stories that just happen to be new. Can you give me a counter-example of even one boring, run-of-the-mill story that has been shown on any major news site that has been given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!!" treatment simply because it is a new story? I don't think you can, and even if you could, it would be an extreme outlier.
        krapp 7y ago
        >They are, without exception, sensationalistic stories, not mundane stories that just happen to be new. Really? Literally every story reported on every news outlet anywhere in the world, without exception labelled as breaking news is sensationalized? Nothing reported on as breaking news actually deserves to be covered as such on its own merits? >Can you give me a counter-example of even one boring, run-of-the-mill story that has been shown on any major news site that has been given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!!" treatment simply because it is a new story? You... you do realize that boring, run of the mill events are by definition not news, right? And that the entire point of "breaking news," legitimately, used as intended, is to report exceptional events? What's your definition of "mundane breaking news," exactly? Man walks dog? But fine. Since your thesis is that such a thing doesn't exist, I only had to find one, but I found three. Shooting at a Fresno party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkPWLcBlUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkPWLcBlUM And CNN: Trump saying a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z53kXE5dRHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z53kXE5dRHk And Kobe Bryant's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVn_ziuTJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVn_ziuTJ4 No hyperbole, no crazy sound effects, no multiple exclamation points, no "spin(ning) the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing." Literally just the media reporting current events.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Come on, we all know the media abuses the term "breaking" so that they can get more eyeballs glued to the screen. If they can figure out how to promote a story from "normal" to "breaking" it will get more views. And how does the promotion happen? By making a story into something scarier or more frightful than it actually is. Why does it work? People are programmed to think "breaking news" means something significant is happening and they should probably pay attention. It's a tactic that has been lampooned many times by The Onion: https://youtu.be/9U4Ha9HQvMo https://youtu.be/9U4Ha9HQvMo https://youtu.be/xTXz_4u-4mc https://youtu.be/xTXz_4u-4mc
- loopz 7y ago
  Media has moved to become mouth-pieces of different interest groups exactly because opinion should stay opinion, and arbiters of truth become corruptible. So reporting is often back and forth between people disagreeing 1.7% while making sure they stay in power. When only for-profit media is accepted, it is also the most profitable move to go all stochastic in each direction.
- gizmo686 7y ago
  In what universe am I, a software engineer, remotly qualified to know how important staying at home is, or what symptoms indicate I should self isolate, or how long after symptoms I remain infectious. Expertise is important. And so are secondary and tertiary sources who can synthesise the mass volume of raw information those experts generate in a way that is consumable by the non expert.
  - umvi 7y ago
    In what universe are healthcare experts remotely qualified to understand the economic ramifications of optimizing for health-related variables? They have little to no expertise in economics, government, or other areas whose variables they are massively altering in their quest to optimize the health variables they care about. Apparently they are willing to collapse nations, create millions of homeless, etc. with their advice.
    - gizmo686 7y ago
      It is not their job to consider the economic implications. Their job is to advice on the public health implications. This is just advice. Government executives are expected to consider this advice, as well as the advice of economic experts when deciding what actions to take. You could, argue that executives placed undue weight in the concern of the health experts, but that would be a critisism of government executives, not health experts.
    - valenciarose 7y ago
      Economics and government are both taught in many public health programs. It has long been recognized that many public health problems have significant economic drivers. Public health policy analysis has long had cost/benefit as critical.
    - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
      Collapse nations, create millions of homeless maybe the short term economic result of the health advice. But it's very highly likely to be a much better long term economic result than not taking the advice. Your commentary reads as skeptical of the value of the advice of healthcare experts during a pandemic, which, to me, is truly a confusing position for anyone to take other than someone who only understand the splash, and not the ripples, of this global situation.
- david38 7y ago
  That’s like saying I should never believe the labels on food. This container says honey. I expect it to be honey. If it is thickened sugar water, then shame on me for buying it, even if I’m not a chemist. If you are part of the government, it is your duty to lead the best course of action for the population at large. If you are a registered news organization, you should be sued every time you are caught fear-mongering. News entertainment companies should be banned. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it needs to be a duck. This of course is unlikely happen.
quezzle 7y ago
Things will substantially return to normal once there is virtually infinite, less than 15 minute testing. Sure there will be economic wreckae everywhere but we’ve seen that before. It presents opportunity and optimism. Remember “RIP good times”? People always feel like things will never get back on track when they’re inside the bad part.
WalterBright 7y ago
I don't buy that there is some mass conspiracy to gaslight us. Mass media has been a source of inaccurate, biased, hysterical drivel since the invention of the printing press. That's always going to be true, no matter who runs it. The US has survived epidemics before, and far worse catastrophes.
- dmarchand90 7y ago
  I was just reading the autobiography of William T Sherman during the civil war he was constantly complaining about the press. The New York Times ran an unsubstantiated smear article on him. The confederate newspapers said they were winning the war, and sometimes the locals only found out otherwise when his armies arrived
gnabgib 7y ago
This is a dupe of a flagged post from 3 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22842336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22842336
- AstroJetson 7y ago
  Sorry about that. I had looked for this before I posted it. I'm guessing it was flagged so I couldn't find it.
jayd16 7y ago
I'm sure there will be political gaslighting, blame shifting an credit taking but in terms of advertising its just business as usual.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
I don't understand why this article is flagged, or why it's getting the derision from the HN crowd. The article rings true to me, it describes a distilled version of the world we lived in a mere two months ago. The desperation that will exist to get back to the lifestyles we were familiar with and the gross reality of consumerism that will be there to hold our hands through the re-transition. And it's nothing new, it will just be a more condensed, hyper, desperate version of the hyper, desperate consumerism we had before. "This is our chance to define a new version of normal" If the new normal is just progress towards the old normal, then we've learnt nothing.

30 points by AstroJetson 7y ago

itronitron 7y ago

the author completely lost me at "I imagine you feel like I do: devastated, depressed, and heartbroken."

quezzle 7y ago
Yep not everyone does.

umvi 7y ago

> a government that has so severely damaged the credibility of our media that 300 million people don’t know who to listen to for basic facts that can save their own lives. The media has done this to themselves. For years they have eagerly profited not on the truth, but on the outrageous. Many news outlets will spin the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing, or more (in their parlance) "breaking". Lastly, the media should not be our source of truth, nor should the government be our source of truth. Truth needs not to be told to individuals but discovered by individuals after carefully considering information from multiple sources.

krapp 7y ago
>Many news outlets will spin the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing, or more (in their parlance) "breaking". Breaking news just means a story is current, reported as events unfold or just happened, nothing to do with how outrageous or "fear-inducing" it is.
- trothamel 7y ago
  As a counterexample, https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-breaking-news-titanic-sinking-2014-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-breaking-news-titanic-si... .
- dpedu 7y ago
  > reported as events unfold or just happened Which means less time is allocated to investigation, fact-checking, and comparing reports from different sources.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Well yes, but that's still not "spin(ning) the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing." The term exists because it refers to special news reports which would "break into" regular programming, it goes all the way back to radio.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    Which is why the stories are labeled as breaking news or developing.
- Turing_Machine 7y ago
  That seems a little disingenuous. By your definition, me spilling a little bit of coffee a few minutes ago (as I in fact did) would be "breaking news", but that's certainly not going to show up on CNN with a 200-point "BREAKING!!!!! NEWS!!!!" headline, accompanied by zoomy visual effects and dramatic music.
  - krapp 7y ago
    It's not my definition, it's the actual factual definition.
    - Turing_Machine 7y ago
      Whether it's the "actual factual definition" or not, it's definitely not the way the term is commonly used by the news media of today.
      - krapp 7y ago
        How do you know? Are you a member of the news media?
        Turing_Machine 7y ago
        I watch the news, and see which stories are given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!" treatment. They are, without exception, sensationalistic stories, not mundane stories that just happen to be new. Can you give me a counter-example of even one boring, run-of-the-mill story that has been shown on any major news site that has been given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!!" treatment simply because it is a new story? I don't think you can, and even if you could, it would be an extreme outlier.
        krapp 7y ago
        >They are, without exception, sensationalistic stories, not mundane stories that just happen to be new. Really? Literally every story reported on every news outlet anywhere in the world, without exception labelled as breaking news is sensationalized? Nothing reported on as breaking news actually deserves to be covered as such on its own merits? >Can you give me a counter-example of even one boring, run-of-the-mill story that has been shown on any major news site that has been given the "BREAKING NEWS!!!!!" treatment simply because it is a new story? You... you do realize that boring, run of the mill events are by definition not news, right? And that the entire point of "breaking news," legitimately, used as intended, is to report exceptional events? What's your definition of "mundane breaking news," exactly? Man walks dog? But fine. Since your thesis is that such a thing doesn't exist, I only had to find one, but I found three. Shooting at a Fresno party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkPWLcBlUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkPWLcBlUM And CNN: Trump saying a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z53kXE5dRHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z53kXE5dRHk And Kobe Bryant's death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVn_ziuTJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbVn_ziuTJ4 No hyperbole, no crazy sound effects, no multiple exclamation points, no "spin(ning) the truth any way they can to make it more outrageous, fear-inducing." Literally just the media reporting current events.
- umvi 7y ago
  Come on, we all know the media abuses the term "breaking" so that they can get more eyeballs glued to the screen. If they can figure out how to promote a story from "normal" to "breaking" it will get more views. And how does the promotion happen? By making a story into something scarier or more frightful than it actually is. Why does it work? People are programmed to think "breaking news" means something significant is happening and they should probably pay attention. It's a tactic that has been lampooned many times by The Onion: https://youtu.be/9U4Ha9HQvMo https://youtu.be/9U4Ha9HQvMo https://youtu.be/xTXz_4u-4mc https://youtu.be/xTXz_4u-4mc
loopz 7y ago
Media has moved to become mouth-pieces of different interest groups exactly because opinion should stay opinion, and arbiters of truth become corruptible. So reporting is often back and forth between people disagreeing 1.7% while making sure they stay in power. When only for-profit media is accepted, it is also the most profitable move to go all stochastic in each direction.
gizmo686 7y ago
In what universe am I, a software engineer, remotly qualified to know how important staying at home is, or what symptoms indicate I should self isolate, or how long after symptoms I remain infectious. Expertise is important. And so are secondary and tertiary sources who can synthesise the mass volume of raw information those experts generate in a way that is consumable by the non expert.
- umvi 7y ago
  In what universe are healthcare experts remotely qualified to understand the economic ramifications of optimizing for health-related variables? They have little to no expertise in economics, government, or other areas whose variables they are massively altering in their quest to optimize the health variables they care about. Apparently they are willing to collapse nations, create millions of homeless, etc. with their advice.
  - gizmo686 7y ago
    It is not their job to consider the economic implications. Their job is to advice on the public health implications. This is just advice. Government executives are expected to consider this advice, as well as the advice of economic experts when deciding what actions to take. You could, argue that executives placed undue weight in the concern of the health experts, but that would be a critisism of government executives, not health experts.
  - valenciarose 7y ago
    Economics and government are both taught in many public health programs. It has long been recognized that many public health problems have significant economic drivers. Public health policy analysis has long had cost/benefit as critical.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    Collapse nations, create millions of homeless maybe the short term economic result of the health advice. But it's very highly likely to be a much better long term economic result than not taking the advice. Your commentary reads as skeptical of the value of the advice of healthcare experts during a pandemic, which, to me, is truly a confusing position for anyone to take other than someone who only understand the splash, and not the ripples, of this global situation.
david38 7y ago
That’s like saying I should never believe the labels on food. This container says honey. I expect it to be honey. If it is thickened sugar water, then shame on me for buying it, even if I’m not a chemist. If you are part of the government, it is your duty to lead the best course of action for the population at large. If you are a registered news organization, you should be sued every time you are caught fear-mongering. News entertainment companies should be banned. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it needs to be a duck. This of course is unlikely happen.

quezzle 7y ago

Things will substantially return to normal once there is virtually infinite, less than 15 minute testing. Sure there will be economic wreckae everywhere but we’ve seen that before. It presents opportunity and optimism. Remember “RIP good times”? People always feel like things will never get back on track when they’re inside the bad part.

WalterBright 7y ago

I don't buy that there is some mass conspiracy to gaslight us. Mass media has been a source of inaccurate, biased, hysterical drivel since the invention of the printing press. That's always going to be true, no matter who runs it. The US has survived epidemics before, and far worse catastrophes.

dmarchand90 7y ago
I was just reading the autobiography of William T Sherman during the civil war he was constantly complaining about the press. The New York Times ran an unsubstantiated smear article on him. The confederate newspapers said they were winning the war, and sometimes the locals only found out otherwise when his armies arrived

gnabgib 7y ago

This is a dupe of a flagged post from 3 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22842336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22842336

AstroJetson 7y ago
Sorry about that. I had looked for this before I posted it. I'm guessing it was flagged so I couldn't find it.

jayd16 7y ago

I'm sure there will be political gaslighting, blame shifting an credit taking but in terms of advertising its just business as usual.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

I don't understand why this article is flagged, or why it's getting the derision from the HN crowd. The article rings true to me, it describes a distilled version of the world we lived in a mere two months ago. The desperation that will exist to get back to the lifestyles we were familiar with and the gross reality of consumerism that will be there to hold our hands through the re-transition. And it's nothing new, it will just be a more condensed, hyper, desperate version of the hyper, desperate consumerism we had before. "This is our chance to define a new version of normal" If the new normal is just progress towards the old normal, then we've learnt nothing.