5 ms·

Valuable anecdata. News is defined by conflict, (literally, no conflict = not news) and this shows how headlines that express the most conflict get the most cli

Valuable anecdata. News is defined by conflict, (literally, no conflict = not news) and this shows how headlines that express the most conflict get the most clicks. The integrity issues come up when even though the facts reported are real, the conflict that frames them is manufactured - and this is why people reject news. They don't reject it because of fake facts, they reject it because of fake conflict. When I want the real news, I go to fringe websites, because they get the real conflict right, and if I need details and facts, I can look those up. The reason they get the real conflict right is because by definition the fringe lives in that conflict, and they are the real anti-establishment that creates a counter balance narrative, whereas a conflict produced by setting mundane events and facts against the backdrop of an ideology designed to manufacture conflict is unreadable tripe. If I needed to sustain the dissonance of establishment narratives, I would read the NYTimes to keep up the appearances, but since my livelihood and aspirations do not depend on that, I have the freedom not to engage it. If you think you are being played and manipulated, watching these A/B tests should be enlightening.

ARandomerDude 6y ago
Meh. This is the narrative of Marx and Foucault, and one I think is demonstrably false. For multiple counter-examples, see pretty much everything on https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/good-news https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/good-news
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Every single one of those headlines asserts a conflict, and the only difference is these MSN ones appeal to sentiment instead of outrage. Arguably, newspapers as a concern are a post-Marx phenomenon, and it's what people get taught in j-school, and what editors accept. Students of both are peddlers of pernicious nonsense, but their students also produced some entertaining and powerful things, notably recycled recipes for accelerating and reverting democracies into their inevitable tyrannies. Anyway, the NYTimes doesn't register as meaningful to me, and if they were looking for a reason why people are leaving them and other mainstream outlets behind, it's becuase their conflicts are contrived.
TeeMassive 6y ago
> literally, no conflict = not news Read local news. In fact that gives me an idea, a local news aggregator which ignores redundant news and can find the most impactful ones.
clairity 6y ago
it's not simply conflict, but value-laden judgement and manipulative framings to try to coerce, not invite, agreement.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ARandomerDude 6y ago

Meh. This is the narrative of Marx and Foucault, and one I think is demonstrably false. For multiple counter-examples, see pretty much everything on https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/good-news https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/good-news

motohagiography 6y ago
Every single one of those headlines asserts a conflict, and the only difference is these MSN ones appeal to sentiment instead of outrage. Arguably, newspapers as a concern are a post-Marx phenomenon, and it's what people get taught in j-school, and what editors accept. Students of both are peddlers of pernicious nonsense, but their students also produced some entertaining and powerful things, notably recycled recipes for accelerating and reverting democracies into their inevitable tyrannies. Anyway, the NYTimes doesn't register as meaningful to me, and if they were looking for a reason why people are leaving them and other mainstream outlets behind, it's becuase their conflicts are contrived.

TeeMassive 6y ago

> literally, no conflict = not news Read local news. In fact that gives me an idea, a local news aggregator which ignores redundant news and can find the most impactful ones.

clairity 6y ago

it's not simply conflict, but value-laden judgement and manipulative framings to try to coerce, not invite, agreement.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]