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.
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.
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.
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
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.
It is hard to emphasize how insanely important editorials are for local news.
It’s hard to emphasize how unimportant it is for national news.
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.
As other respondents to this wapo comment argue, dropping endorsement could be seen as net better. Can be argued a number of ways.
However, I think it's worth pointing out what goes on at root: distrust and/or seeing oneself as having being manipulated.
On this fulcrum the actual details, facts, intent etc is rendered irrelevant: if I feel the fool telling me 2+2=4 (a fact) will to me become more evidence of bs.
The only way out in the current environment is to not get caught up emotionally in non falsafible stories, stick to facts, and regard anything from news that's not communicating data, facts as entertainment.
Opinion makers are entertainment.
How about WaPo choosing not endorse and then Blue Origin executives meeting with Trump the same day? Doesn’t have a fishy smell?
Twitter actively destroyed accounts that reported in the covid lab leak theory. Trust, lol.
As a subscriber to the (print) Post and steady reader, the decision not to endorse struck me as bizarrely coy. Day after day the A section was full of news articles that more or less labeled Donald Trump a fool, liar, and dangerous man. Yes, OK, so now why not endorse his opponent?
It was meant to increase trust. Why should a trump supporter trust a newspaper that endorses his opponent? Better to leave that up to the reader.
Increase trust by a last minute break with tradition forced by executives who then had their sibling rocket company (Blue Origin) go meet, the same day, with the candidate they just helped?
Now I just have to imagine a Trump supporter who trusts The Washington Post. It was not always easy to find a Bush 41 supporter who trusted it.
- [deleted]
> Twitter was gaining trust
It's interesting how our perception of this can be so different. From my viewpoint, Twitter had completely lost all trust by actively silencing people they disagreed with. This got particularly bad around covid. I am not much of a Twitter/X user, but at least people aren't being silenced on a massive scale anymore.
> but at least people aren't being silenced on a massive scale anymore.
This simply isn't true.
I dunno, try explaining how bad elon is at video games and watch how fast your checkmark goes away.
- [deleted]
I agree, it is interesting and that is kind of my point. What you're labeling as "perception" (not a bad label, just different) I tend to label "belief."
From your comment you clearly believe that Twitter had lost trust by "actively silencing people they disagreed with" whereas I, reading the reports that the trust and safety folks were putting out, felt like the policies they had in place to moderate people who they felt were not contributing to the conversation seemed to be rooted in reasonable principles. So we had two very different beliefs leading to very different viewpoints.
The original article that kicked this off talks exactly about this. Some people believe that the economy was "bad/weak", others believe that the economy is "good/strong". Two opposite viewpoints with presumably access to the same data!
Its a reasonable thing to engage in discussion with people who believe differently than you do to understand their point of view and what sources of data or evidence they base their beliefs on. To give a commonly cited example, one person would say "I believe the earth is roughly 6,000 years old based on my source which is the Bible." and another person might say, "I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, based on the idea of nuclear decay and carbon dating."
In examples like this, one can often quickly come to an assessment of whether or not it is worthwhile to re-examine one's own beliefs based on the other person's sources of evidence. It doesn't end up that you'll agree, just that you will understand why they believe what they believe.
"The most dangerous meme in existence is Friedman's extremist view of shareholder supremacy"
Trickle down is a kissing cousin.
Rich people are fine; insane profits are just fine.
Imbalance however is not. Single variable local maximums are distorting leading to corrupting.
The press is broke. Major press outlets can run at a loss, supported by a billionaire. Many press outfits are switching to non-profit status, or being replaced by non-profits.
The real problem isn’t money. It’s partisanship.
Journalists are overwhelming Democrats. The available numbers are stark: 96%, as far as anyone can tell.
If the roles were reversed, would any Democrat trust a media populated 96% by Republicans?
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.
"hyperreality" -- a mainstay of USSR's new media, but used and abused by the US MSM. Fox News took it to new levels.
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
The phrase occurs in that book, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that it had "the current sense" before Jonestown.
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.
I don't think the current sense is suicide exactly, but rather (hyperbolically) so sold on a (misguided) belief that you would commit suicide if, per that belief, they were "supposed to" do so. I agree that it would feel awkward to use it about someone who had actually killed themselves, but I think that's mostly because there's an element of (dark) humor to it.
Yes, if you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities.
I want people to believe in stop signs.
> 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
