13 ms·

Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divide

Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"? Dystopic

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sneak 5y ago
They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    > I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc. Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases. We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn. If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable. But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates. Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again. The result is a loss of trust. What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the same as it would have been 20 years ago based on those details.
    - hn8788 5y ago
      It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
      - ryantgtg 5y ago
        Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon? The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.
        katbyte 5y ago
        Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.
  - voldacar 5y ago
    > I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue
- metamet 5y ago
  > when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan division and demonization. Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a product of the stoked polarization.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    Rittenhouse showing up was a result of unrest in a town where he had friends and family. He gave aid to rioters and protesters as well as counter protesters. He showed up to protect and help people, and if he hadn't been armed, he could have been shot and killed or beaten to death, because he told people he was there to help the police. It wasn't until he'd been shot at, attacked with a skateboard, and had a gun aimed at him by an asshole who threatened to kill him earlier that Rittenhouse used his weapon. I think being armed was probably responsible and it's fairly clear given the evidence from the trial that it was used in a responsible way that exemplifies the use of lethal force in self defense. The media stoked narratives that caused the riots are to blame. Sensationalism of topics like police on black violence manipulates people into believing things that aren't true, and they react in ways that might very well be reasonable if the narratives were true. I think Rittenhouse is going to sue the ever loving shit out of a lot of legacy media corporations, and maybe that will make them a little more cautious when hyping the tabloid bullshit.
    - katbyte 5y ago
      He is a child and was not legally allowed to purchase and pisses that weapon?
      - jpindar 5y ago
        False. He did not purchase the rifle (a friend of his who lives in Wisconsin did), and it wasn't illegal for him to possess it in Wisconsin, which is why the charge of possession was dropped.
    - lifeformed 5y ago
- rajup 5y ago
  This is the Nick Sandmann saga all over again. A couple of years later we will hear of these outlets quietly settling various lawsuits with Rittenhouse. But hey at that point the outrage machine has moved on to something else, they have made their bucks. Small price to pay.
drc37 5y ago
Violence sells.
- _yoqn 5y ago
  It's more than that. Violence destabilizes and diminishes power in those fighting. Thus granting the illusion of increased power to those pulling the strings. Evil stuff.
infamouscow 5y ago
The fact is most people don't want to know about things that conflict with their world view. I don't think what the media is doing is intentionally malicious, they just need to perpetuate a specific world view to keep their viewers.
- rabuse 5y ago
  This is a naive view of it, IMO. Political ideologies run rampant at large corporations nowadays, and then it trickles into the actual product/service due to management.
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    It's possible that some large corporations have decided that appearing to publicly support one ideology or another will be good for business. If that alienates you, you are likely not the audience they're targeting. If they're doing a bad job of that and alienating people who should be their customers, well, the market will take of that, won't it?
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > The fact is most people don't want to know about things that conflict with their world view. I don't think what the media is doing is intentionally malicious, they just need to perpetuate a specific world view to keep their viewers. If your viewers demand malice and being malicious is the only way to keep your viewers, that doesn't mean you're not being malicious; it means you're being malicious for money.
akudha 5y ago
The only thing they need from viewers is eyeballs. Truth and facts don’t get you eyeballs, outrage and propaganda do. It is insanely hard to present only facts and be truthful and impartial. It is quite easy to pick a narrative and stick to it, damn the facts. MSM is funded by advertisers and big corporations. They’ll do what their money masters want them to - vilifying unions is a good example.
- S_A_P 5y ago
  I’m surprised how blantant the narrative pushing is orchestrated. This example happened the other day on NBC news(main channel). So regardless of your stance on ivermectin, this is what played the other day: Aaron Roger’s used ivermectin at the advise of Joe Rogan. Ivermectin is oftentimes used a horse dewormer. <cut to Pfizer commercial> Return from Pfizer commercial. Pfizer has announced a new Covid antiviral drug that combines mRNA therapy with a low dose HIV drug and has proven (some high 80s/90s number). Pfizer is asking for an emergency approval for treatment with Covid 19. Look, I don’t know if Ivermectin is effective for Covid or not. From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it. I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion. I’m not even that scared about the anti viral that Pfizer is pushing. HIV drugs have been around long enough to establish a safety profile and weigh the risk vs reward. I do think, that despite reports ivermectin has a pretty solid safety record. However safe HIV drugs are, the commercials for them list significant side effects. Again I hesitate to post this as someone thinks I’m pushing ivermectin as a legitimate therapy. I truly do not know… To me the sequence of the story commercial and the counter story made me feel a bit queasy.
  - akudha 5y ago
    Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky describes in detail how the media lies, manipulates, twists the facts/truth to fit a particular narrative. He gives example after example after example. They also selectively ignore certain stories while simultaneously amplifying certain other stories. This has been going on for decades, this is nothing new. What is new is the medium and the cost. TV is still expensive even today, while internet is cheap, its reach is much larger and it has permanent memory. This is why we should support smaller independent outlets like TYT. We may or may not like their style, but they don't rely on corporate sponsors and that deserves respect. I am also happy about independent newsletter publishers (on substack, for example) - these are a drop in the ocean, but still a start. I can't name a single large publication (left, right, center, liberal, conservative... whatever) that I trust or respect :(
freejazz 5y ago
They sell controversy. It's not really that hard to understand and all of these other "motives" are just ridiculous.
B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
Sells more soap.
Apofis 5y ago
Can we get over the notion that foreign state interference is not a thing in our media? There, you have your culprit; outside of other national interests whom social unrest and division benefits. They play both sides, same as the admen. Suddenly, what is happening and why is crystal clear.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  You don't need to believe in a foreign boogeyman to believe that American society is fundamentally broken and is thus tearing itself apart. I don't see anything that's happened in the last 10 years that required the involvement of a foreign actor. This stuff was pioneered by guys like Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell, not Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
- forgotmyoldname 5y ago
  Always resorting to blaming a foreign boogeyman is dangerous thinking. Sometimes you need to accept that there are bad actors within your own country. For a lot of news programs, the credits are publicly visible and verifiably citizens. The people talking are citizens of your own country. They could care about their country instead of money. They just don’t.
  - Apofis 5y ago
    I'm not excusing anyone stateside. You guys are pretty deflective of this topic on HN, but I get it.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Foreign state interference is the story the media has decided to go with. It shields corporate powers and provides a scapegoat. Having an external entity seen as causing this threat plays into our fears. The truth is corporate interests have over taken and reshaped the news and media properties they vertically own. Does it worry you that your news promotes a culture filtered through corporate interests? Do you remember the last news story on corporate interests altering the news? You won't get that news story.. because no one wants you to think that is an issue. They want you to be scared of foreign entities but ignore the killer sitting beside you.
Ancapistani 5y ago
> attempting to cause social unrest This seems the likely result, but I’m not quite convinced it’s their motivation. It seems just as likely to me that they’re reporting based on analysis from people who are ideologically motivated, consciously or not.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Yeah, it's easy to drop an innuendo laiden “long” headline and then the readers won't read what actually happened in the text of the article and sway public opinion a lot.
clavicat 5y ago
To understand what’s going on, just analyze the controversy like you would analyze any street conflict in a third-world country. A petit-bourgeois MAGA chud gunned down three members of the lumpenproletarian Sturmabteilung. Now the lib bourgeoisie need to avenge their fallen clients by making an example of the Rittenator as a warning to any other members of the chud class who get the idea of emulating Paul Kersey the next time the libs sic the lumpenproles on the suburbs to punish them for political insubordination. Perfectly normal, comprehensible third-world politics.
- jimt1234 5y ago
  +1 for Paul Kersey LOL
- cbozeman 5y ago
  I love how you're being downvoted, even though you've given the perfect explanation of what happened.
steve76 5y ago
[dead]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sneak 5y ago

They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.

ALittleLight 5y ago
I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  > I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc. Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases. We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn. If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable. But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates. Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again. The result is a loss of trust. What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the same as it would have been 20 years ago based on those details.
  - hn8788 5y ago
    It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
    - ryantgtg 5y ago
      Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon? The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.
      - katbyte 5y ago
        Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.
- voldacar 5y ago
  > I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue
metamet 5y ago
> when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan division and demonization. Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a product of the stoked polarization.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Rittenhouse showing up was a result of unrest in a town where he had friends and family. He gave aid to rioters and protesters as well as counter protesters. He showed up to protect and help people, and if he hadn't been armed, he could have been shot and killed or beaten to death, because he told people he was there to help the police. It wasn't until he'd been shot at, attacked with a skateboard, and had a gun aimed at him by an asshole who threatened to kill him earlier that Rittenhouse used his weapon. I think being armed was probably responsible and it's fairly clear given the evidence from the trial that it was used in a responsible way that exemplifies the use of lethal force in self defense. The media stoked narratives that caused the riots are to blame. Sensationalism of topics like police on black violence manipulates people into believing things that aren't true, and they react in ways that might very well be reasonable if the narratives were true. I think Rittenhouse is going to sue the ever loving shit out of a lot of legacy media corporations, and maybe that will make them a little more cautious when hyping the tabloid bullshit.
  - katbyte 5y ago
    He is a child and was not legally allowed to purchase and pisses that weapon?
    - jpindar 5y ago
      False. He did not purchase the rifle (a friend of his who lives in Wisconsin did), and it wasn't illegal for him to possess it in Wisconsin, which is why the charge of possession was dropped.
  - lifeformed 5y ago
rajup 5y ago
This is the Nick Sandmann saga all over again. A couple of years later we will hear of these outlets quietly settling various lawsuits with Rittenhouse. But hey at that point the outrage machine has moved on to something else, they have made their bucks. Small price to pay.

drc37 5y ago

Violence sells.

_yoqn 5y ago
It's more than that. Violence destabilizes and diminishes power in those fighting. Thus granting the illusion of increased power to those pulling the strings. Evil stuff.

infamouscow 5y ago

The fact is most people don't want to know about things that conflict with their world view. I don't think what the media is doing is intentionally malicious, they just need to perpetuate a specific world view to keep their viewers.

rabuse 5y ago
This is a naive view of it, IMO. Political ideologies run rampant at large corporations nowadays, and then it trickles into the actual product/service due to management.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  It's possible that some large corporations have decided that appearing to publicly support one ideology or another will be good for business. If that alienates you, you are likely not the audience they're targeting. If they're doing a bad job of that and alienating people who should be their customers, well, the market will take of that, won't it?
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> The fact is most people don't want to know about things that conflict with their world view. I don't think what the media is doing is intentionally malicious, they just need to perpetuate a specific world view to keep their viewers. If your viewers demand malice and being malicious is the only way to keep your viewers, that doesn't mean you're not being malicious; it means you're being malicious for money.

akudha 5y ago

The only thing they need from viewers is eyeballs. Truth and facts don’t get you eyeballs, outrage and propaganda do. It is insanely hard to present only facts and be truthful and impartial. It is quite easy to pick a narrative and stick to it, damn the facts. MSM is funded by advertisers and big corporations. They’ll do what their money masters want them to - vilifying unions is a good example.

S_A_P 5y ago
I’m surprised how blantant the narrative pushing is orchestrated. This example happened the other day on NBC news(main channel). So regardless of your stance on ivermectin, this is what played the other day: Aaron Roger’s used ivermectin at the advise of Joe Rogan. Ivermectin is oftentimes used a horse dewormer. <cut to Pfizer commercial> Return from Pfizer commercial. Pfizer has announced a new Covid antiviral drug that combines mRNA therapy with a low dose HIV drug and has proven (some high 80s/90s number). Pfizer is asking for an emergency approval for treatment with Covid 19. Look, I don’t know if Ivermectin is effective for Covid or not. From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it. I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion. I’m not even that scared about the anti viral that Pfizer is pushing. HIV drugs have been around long enough to establish a safety profile and weigh the risk vs reward. I do think, that despite reports ivermectin has a pretty solid safety record. However safe HIV drugs are, the commercials for them list significant side effects. Again I hesitate to post this as someone thinks I’m pushing ivermectin as a legitimate therapy. I truly do not know… To me the sequence of the story commercial and the counter story made me feel a bit queasy.
- akudha 5y ago
  Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky describes in detail how the media lies, manipulates, twists the facts/truth to fit a particular narrative. He gives example after example after example. They also selectively ignore certain stories while simultaneously amplifying certain other stories. This has been going on for decades, this is nothing new. What is new is the medium and the cost. TV is still expensive even today, while internet is cheap, its reach is much larger and it has permanent memory. This is why we should support smaller independent outlets like TYT. We may or may not like their style, but they don't rely on corporate sponsors and that deserves respect. I am also happy about independent newsletter publishers (on substack, for example) - these are a drop in the ocean, but still a start. I can't name a single large publication (left, right, center, liberal, conservative... whatever) that I trust or respect :(

freejazz 5y ago

They sell controversy. It's not really that hard to understand and all of these other "motives" are just ridiculous.

B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago

Sells more soap.

Apofis 5y ago

Can we get over the notion that foreign state interference is not a thing in our media? There, you have your culprit; outside of other national interests whom social unrest and division benefits. They play both sides, same as the admen. Suddenly, what is happening and why is crystal clear.

spoonjim 5y ago
You don't need to believe in a foreign boogeyman to believe that American society is fundamentally broken and is thus tearing itself apart. I don't see anything that's happened in the last 10 years that required the involvement of a foreign actor. This stuff was pioneered by guys like Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell, not Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
forgotmyoldname 5y ago
Always resorting to blaming a foreign boogeyman is dangerous thinking. Sometimes you need to accept that there are bad actors within your own country. For a lot of news programs, the credits are publicly visible and verifiably citizens. The people talking are citizens of your own country. They could care about their country instead of money. They just don’t.
- Apofis 5y ago
  I'm not excusing anyone stateside. You guys are pretty deflective of this topic on HN, but I get it.
ipaddr 5y ago
Foreign state interference is the story the media has decided to go with. It shields corporate powers and provides a scapegoat. Having an external entity seen as causing this threat plays into our fears. The truth is corporate interests have over taken and reshaped the news and media properties they vertically own. Does it worry you that your news promotes a culture filtered through corporate interests? Do you remember the last news story on corporate interests altering the news? You won't get that news story.. because no one wants you to think that is an issue. They want you to be scared of foreign entities but ignore the killer sitting beside you.

Ancapistani 5y ago

> attempting to cause social unrest This seems the likely result, but I’m not quite convinced it’s their motivation. It seems just as likely to me that they’re reporting based on analysis from people who are ideologically motivated, consciously or not.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Yeah, it's easy to drop an innuendo laiden “long” headline and then the readers won't read what actually happened in the text of the article and sway public opinion a lot.

clavicat 5y ago

To understand what’s going on, just analyze the controversy like you would analyze any street conflict in a third-world country. A petit-bourgeois MAGA chud gunned down three members of the lumpenproletarian Sturmabteilung. Now the lib bourgeoisie need to avenge their fallen clients by making an example of the Rittenator as a warning to any other members of the chud class who get the idea of emulating Paul Kersey the next time the libs sic the lumpenproles on the suburbs to punish them for political insubordination. Perfectly normal, comprehensible third-world politics.

jimt1234 5y ago
+1 for Paul Kersey LOL
cbozeman 5y ago
I love how you're being downvoted, even though you've given the perfect explanation of what happened.

steve76 5y ago

[dead]