6 ms·

Sigh. This is an important topic, probably not an HN topic but still it is important, and the topic isn't "perceptions of the economy and crime" is "ability to

Sigh. This is an important topic, probably not an HN topic but still it is important, and the topic isn't "perceptions of the economy and crime" is "ability to discern discourse from propaganda" If you can make someone believe something, you can use that belief to get them to act against their own self interest. This isn't even a controversial thing for most people to understand. The canonical example that illustrates this was Jim Jones making his followers believe that their best choice was to kill themselves and their children by drinking cyanide laced Kool-aid. This effect is weaponized through persuasive narratives being repeatedly presented. Once the belief is set, the narratives add in the action that is required next. That the "media" is the primary tool of setting this narrative is, and always has been, the case. One of the reasons the very first amendment to the US constitution protected the right to a 'free press' was to explicitly allow the media to present narratives that were different than what the government wished to present. Further that they could do this without fear of reprisal. The "media" has its own agendas and influences, we have a shortage of voices which are both independent and trusted. It is informative to watch the response by established media when such voices emerge.

grajaganDev 2y ago
Yes, if you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities.
- dallasg3 2y ago
  I want people to believe in stop signs.
llamaimperative 2y ago
IMO we have plenty of independent and trusted media, the issue is that they are independently, and increasingly monomaniacally, pursuing financial outcomes. Not an obviously terrible thing except when they each independently discovered that the best way to make $number go up is to produce outrage. For the most part, the less you understand a topic, the more easily you'll be outraged about it, and the more viewership ($$$) you'll drive to the people who give you outrage and withhold understanding. The most dangerous meme in existence is Friedman's extremist view of shareholder supremacy, which we saw drawn to its obvious conclusion the past few weeks in the Rotunda.
- ChuckMcM 2y ago
  I don't disagree, there is that Dutch saying that trust enters the town on foot and leaves on a horse. When the media's pursuit of financial incomes results in actions that actively destroy trust (the WaPo non-endorsement and unwillingness to present important points of view is the current poster child for this) then they simply become 'independent and untrusted' which is of not much use. For me, a more sobering example was that Twitter was gaining trust and it seems that in response Elon Musk bought and killed it. That felt a bit more like actively denying the emergence of new media. It was also an example completely counter to Friedman's view on shareholder value as, as an action, it destroyed shareholder value. Just as Bezo's actions have destroyed shareholder value in the Washington Post.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    I know people were outraged over the WaPo not endorsing anybody but personally I wish newspapers would drop most columnists and also stop endorsing. I subscribed to WaPo and WSJ for a year and reading the opinion columns was really bad for my mental state. You just get angry constantly. Now I am reading Reuters mostly and they are refreshingly boring in comparison
    - cafard 2y ago
      Some years ago, I decided that if I could read the headline and the byline and then at least summarize the column, there was no point in reading an opinion piece. This has saved a good deal of time and stress.
    - maeil 2y ago
      Would WaPo have stopped endorsing if it was set to endorse Bezos' favoured candidate? Of those that stopped endorsing, what's the ratio by candidate they would've endorsed? If only the outlets who were set to endorse candidate A stop doing so, but those for candidate B keep doing so, do you still consider this an improvement? From some philosophical PoV it might be, but in terms of real world consequences, I'm not sure how it can.
    - 2y ago
MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
> Jim Jones making his followers believe that their best choice was to kill themselves and their children by drinking cyanide laced Kool-aid Just a nit: my understanding is that anyone who didn't drink the poison was murdered.
- generj 2y ago
  Also it wasn’t Kool-Aid but Flavor Aid. Not that it matters for the overall point but it’s an example of a brand being the generic name for a product category backfiring.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    The phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” in the current sense precedes the Jim Jones massacre. It began with a book called “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test” (1968).
    - dllthomas 2y ago
      The phrase occurs in that book, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that it had "the current sense" before Jonestown.
      - pyuser583 2y ago
        The “current sense” is more similar to the Acid Test than Jonestown. When we say “drinking the Kool Aid” we mean adopting a dumb way of thinking. Not killing yourself, or even harming yourself. Just being stupid. We wouldn’t say “they drank the kool aid” if someone committed suicide. More important for present discussion, “The Kool Aid Acid Test” referred to actual Kool Aid, not a generic equivalent. The Kool Aid marketing team embraced and promoted its countercultural image. Many brands did. But this left the brand vulnerable when the counterculture became associated with extremism. Recent parallels to this exist.
        dllthomas 2y ago
chneu 2y ago
Newt Gingrich literally said on TV that if he can make someone believe something then that's as real as fact. Him and a CNN anchor were talking about crime stats being down. Newt disagreed and said Americans feel like crime is up.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  "hyperreality" -- a mainstay of USSR's new media, but used and abused by the US MSM. Fox News took it to new levels.
- ChuckMcM 2y ago
  There is an important difference between someone claiming on TV they can do something and seeing the effects of people believing something for which there is objective and easily obtained evidence that contradicts that belief.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
> This is an important topic, probably not an HN topic but still it is important, and the topic isn't "perceptions of the economy and crime" is "ability to discern discourse from propaganda" Arguably it's the same problem on HN

grajaganDev 2y ago

Yes, if you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities.

dallasg3 2y ago
I want people to believe in stop signs.

llamaimperative 2y ago

IMO we have plenty of independent and trusted media, the issue is that they are independently, and increasingly monomaniacally, pursuing financial outcomes. Not an obviously terrible thing except when they each independently discovered that the best way to make $number go up is to produce outrage. For the most part, the less you understand a topic, the more easily you'll be outraged about it, and the more viewership ($$$) you'll drive to the people who give you outrage and withhold understanding. The most dangerous meme in existence is Friedman's extremist view of shareholder supremacy, which we saw drawn to its obvious conclusion the past few weeks in the Rotunda.

ChuckMcM 2y ago
I don't disagree, there is that Dutch saying that trust enters the town on foot and leaves on a horse. When the media's pursuit of financial incomes results in actions that actively destroy trust (the WaPo non-endorsement and unwillingness to present important points of view is the current poster child for this) then they simply become 'independent and untrusted' which is of not much use. For me, a more sobering example was that Twitter was gaining trust and it seems that in response Elon Musk bought and killed it. That felt a bit more like actively denying the emergence of new media. It was also an example completely counter to Friedman's view on shareholder value as, as an action, it destroyed shareholder value. Just as Bezo's actions have destroyed shareholder value in the Washington Post.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  I know people were outraged over the WaPo not endorsing anybody but personally I wish newspapers would drop most columnists and also stop endorsing. I subscribed to WaPo and WSJ for a year and reading the opinion columns was really bad for my mental state. You just get angry constantly. Now I am reading Reuters mostly and they are refreshingly boring in comparison
  - cafard 2y ago
    Some years ago, I decided that if I could read the headline and the byline and then at least summarize the column, there was no point in reading an opinion piece. This has saved a good deal of time and stress.
  - maeil 2y ago
    Would WaPo have stopped endorsing if it was set to endorse Bezos' favoured candidate? Of those that stopped endorsing, what's the ratio by candidate they would've endorsed? If only the outlets who were set to endorse candidate A stop doing so, but those for candidate B keep doing so, do you still consider this an improvement? From some philosophical PoV it might be, but in terms of real world consequences, I'm not sure how it can.
  - 2y ago

MathMonkeyMan 2y ago

> Jim Jones making his followers believe that their best choice was to kill themselves and their children by drinking cyanide laced Kool-aid Just a nit: my understanding is that anyone who didn't drink the poison was murdered.

generj 2y ago
Also it wasn’t Kool-Aid but Flavor Aid. Not that it matters for the overall point but it’s an example of a brand being the generic name for a product category backfiring.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  The phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” in the current sense precedes the Jim Jones massacre. It began with a book called “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test” (1968).
  - dllthomas 2y ago
    The phrase occurs in that book, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that it had "the current sense" before Jonestown.
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      The “current sense” is more similar to the Acid Test than Jonestown. When we say “drinking the Kool Aid” we mean adopting a dumb way of thinking. Not killing yourself, or even harming yourself. Just being stupid. We wouldn’t say “they drank the kool aid” if someone committed suicide. More important for present discussion, “The Kool Aid Acid Test” referred to actual Kool Aid, not a generic equivalent. The Kool Aid marketing team embraced and promoted its countercultural image. Many brands did. But this left the brand vulnerable when the counterculture became associated with extremism. Recent parallels to this exist.
      - dllthomas 2y ago

chneu 2y ago

Newt Gingrich literally said on TV that if he can make someone believe something then that's as real as fact. Him and a CNN anchor were talking about crime stats being down. Newt disagreed and said Americans feel like crime is up.

red-iron-pine 2y ago
"hyperreality" -- a mainstay of USSR's new media, but used and abused by the US MSM. Fox News took it to new levels.
ChuckMcM 2y ago
There is an important difference between someone claiming on TV they can do something and seeing the effects of people believing something for which there is objective and easily obtained evidence that contradicts that belief.

red-iron-pine 2y ago

> This is an important topic, probably not an HN topic but still it is important, and the topic isn't "perceptions of the economy and crime" is "ability to discern discourse from propaganda" Arguably it's the same problem on HN