Except that the said newsrooms are more often than not the ones that amplify and give a legitimacy to these mobs by printing their reactions as if it was somehow the reaction of the people. The NY Times itself actively participated in many of these lynchings, like the Covington kids.

To me it looks more like a newsroom that likes playing with fire, got burned itself, and decides to cut its exposure so it can keep playing.

Yup, media outlets like the NYT did this to themselves really.

At some point they decided that a story could be manufactured from a few outraged individuals, even if those sources were random or completely unknown users. Bam...there's your instant moral outrage. It didn't matter that their story might be a grossly inaccurate sampling of readers or have little factual basis, the only thing that mattered was that suddenly a mob formed around them, instantly amplifying their message.

I suppose this has done wonders for those sites looking to increase ad revenue, but I wonder what the actual damage is to political discourse in this country.

Humans are bad at figuring out the popularity of hats [0].

Couple this with the nasty trick of manufacturing the popularity of certain opinions [1] and I wager that it is pretty trivial to get most people to believe in anything and especially easy to make people think fringe opinions are actually widespread and commonplace. Coupled with the emotive fallacious reasoning of "If everyone believes/says it then it must be true" and you can make reality, at least how people see it, however you like.

I am 100% convinced that this has been abused to boost the bottom line of certain media companies because outrage gets clicks and figuring out how to induce outrage means you can farm clicks by outraging people who you've conditioned to become outraged. Increasingly often media-manufactured lynchmobs are formed over topics where you can tell by talking to the outraged people that most of them are misinformed about whatever it is they are all worked up over.

It's like the world's largest (and worst) game of Telephone.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/ma...

[1] Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2159/

>I wager that it is pretty trivial to get most people to believe in anything and especially easy to make people think fringe opinions are actually widespread and commonplace.

I'd wager you can find plenty of examples of that on HN.

It's been linked before on HN but The Century of the Self is very eye-opening in this regard and available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

Apparently the very first act of Public Relations was in renaming Propaganda to Public Relations.

Thanks for the insightful post and especially the first link. Hadn't come across that before. I will definitely be sharing that (to my kids first of all).

If anything, that's the thing I hate most about Twitter. A journalist who wants to write a story with a particular angle can easily find tons of supporting viewpoints on Twitter, and usually at least a few of these are somewhat clever or snarky.

So the journalist writes the article and then uses these examples from Twitter to show that "the masses" agree, or are equally outraged as the author.

Since when do we start giving every rando who can shout something from Twitter equal weight?

This might be the worst trick used by media outlets to portend there's a 'movement afoot' or 'what most people' think when neither are true.

"People are saying XYZ" - because some random person on Twitter said it.

"People believe this" - again, some random Tweet in support.

They're creating narrative, which is definitely the opposite of news, and it's way beyond 'Editorial' i.e. 'the opinion of the author'.

Politicians do this, and the 'politician in Chief' does this in I think some nefarious ways, but that shouldn't give cover for ostensibly respectable outlets to do the same.

Almost all of the major voices in the press are guilty of this.

The wierdest pardox of the 'Fake News' line (which is usually used in a very cynical, nefarious way to shut down real news) ... is that there is actually a lot of 'Fake News' being created.

I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism, and of having to look up references and facts because I don't quite trust ostensibly trustworthy people.

I read the news these days not for 'news', but rather to see where various groups are trying to 'focus the narrative', which is really cynical.

> I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism, and of having to look up references and facts because I don't quite trust ostensibly trustworthy people.

And yet, that's what you must do. If you rely on spoon-fed cruft, you will be at the mercy of those who hold the end of your nose ring rope, and not even know it.

Not sure why you've been down voted, but it's true.

We are either a) no longer close to the journalism sources to determine their trustworthiness or b) we were being fed the narrative through print and were ignorant to the manipulation through blind trust.

This is not saying don't trust anyone and put on our conspiracy hats, it is saying that we must honest in admitting we should be reviewing, comparing and challenging our news sources until they build sufficient quality to allow trust. (incidentally, I also think part of the reason people hate media sites pay-walling content is because it's asking the question before demonstrating trustworthiness)

> I read the news these days not for 'news', but rather to see where various groups are trying to 'focus the narrative', which is really cynical.

This is not random. It's because people who are in charge of the news decided that their side (whatever it is) winning is more important than you knowing the truth and deciding for yourself. They do not believe you can do the right choice, given truthful information, and they are determined to shape your world in a way that you'd have no choice but believe them. If it requires lying, cheating and faking - they'd lie, cheat and fake, because they have the moral high-ground and it's all ultimately for your own good.

And until people in their masses start rejecting this approach in principle - even if it's their side that is winning! - that would not stop and you will have to be extra cynical (and probably not enough cynical anyway - you are alone and those people are professionals with billion-sized budgets - they probably deceive you much more than you can know).

> "People are saying XYZ" - because some random person on Twitter said it.

But it was ever thus - except now there is at least a random person on Twitter saying it rather than it being made up in the newsroom.

> They're creating narrative

Literally every media since the dawn of time has done this - it is, I think, impossible to write an objective report of something -that people will then pay for-. (cf Jim Sterling's parodic objective reviews on YouTube as an example.)

> I'm tired of having to read everything with a huge dose of cynicism

That was always required for any media. It always will be. People buy/found media companies to further their agenda; not out of the goodness of their heart.

> except now there is at least a random person on Twitter saying it rather than it being made up in the newsroom.

How do you know that person is not sitting in the same newsroom? Or the next one?

> How do you know that person is not sitting in the same newsroom? Or the next one?

You don't but the "person on Twitter said XYZ" at least has a (flimsy) verification test attached to it - search on Twitter, see if you find it. Now, sure, maybe Fred from the next office over posted it after they concocted the story at lunch but the timestamp and age of the account betrays that. Also if it's an egg avatar or has a name like 'madeup9384874'.

No, it's not perfect but at least there is -some- way of potentially verifying that someone, not the reporter, said this.

To me it is still a mystery why anybody cares what people say on Twitter. Well, one may care what Trump says on Twitter, maybe, because he's US President, and if he prefers to express himself on Twitter, and you want to know what's The Leader of The Free Word thinks - it may be important. Maybe a dozen people who can really influence lives - if they choose Twitter as a platform, it makes sense to listen.

But if a bunch of randos make a mob on Twitter why anybody should care? I think the only reason why it has influence because the legacy press is afraid of losing its relevancy and thus tries to be "trendy" and supports those non-events and makes events out of them. They are so afraid and confused that they severely overestimate how important those are - and by that make their own fears come true. And in addition hurt the whole society by amplifying the most noisy and irresponsible voices and drowning reasonable and thoughtful ones. Maybe it's time to stop enabling that noise by refusing to take Twitter chitchat seriously.

This is how I see it too, things like the Covington kids create a backlash against the newsrooms that promulgate them. And NYT gave them too perfect of an opportunity when they published a remake of a Nazi propaganda comic that could easily be portrayed as antisemitic.

Correctness literally doesn't matter in the realm of politics. Only, who is the loudest and most persuasive.

More like a bias towards people with the most energy.

There are lots of loud and persuasive people around, but to stay relevant, social/news media selects for the ones that are tireless in performing their routines with robotic efficiency day in day out.

As an aside, is there a latin-based term for this kind of authoritative persuasion? I want to say it's ochlocracy, but generally it's not just any kind of mob I'm thinking of, but the mob that is the loudest. Rule by the loudest voices. A magnaocracy? (not to be confused with the fantastical magocracy)

(-cracy words are Greek anyway)

It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist. You can, in fact, log out of Twitter and never log back in again. Most of the time doing so will have zero long term negative impact, since the mob is fickle, trapped in their filter bubbles, and will move onto the next outrage in days if not hours.

The mobs that cause doxing or have credible threats of harm upon on individuals (like job loss or even violence) do in fact wield incredible, terrifying power though.

What is confusing? Even if you yourself log out of Twitter, other people are still looking at it. In that sense, they don't cease to exist when you put your phone down, because other people are still paying attention to them.

Sure, as long as they don't know who you are, then it's not such a big deal. An online mob that's mad at you but doesn't know who you are is easy enough to ignore - just log out, as you said. But increasingly it feels like it is less and less likely that the mob does not know who you are. A Twitter mob knows that its outrage is for naught unless it can cause lasting harm to its target, and so it goes to great efforts to dox those targets. Almost always, it seems, the target is doxxed and then their life is ripped to shreds.

> It does confuse me that these mobs have such power on decision makers at companies and media outlets like this. The interesting thing about Twitter "mobs" is that if you look away from the computer screen or hit the button on the side of your phone, they are suddenly silent and may as well not exist.

If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business. So if you just choose to ignore Twitter, that does not mean that it may as well not exist.

> If you are a company then bad stories on Twitter could cause a significant drop in business.

But does it cause a drop seems like the pertinent question. New media isn't like the old media where bad press was big deal. Maybe it's just not anymore for exactly these reasons.

The angry vocal minority on twitter (people who may not even be customers, perhaps likely are not) really has such an effect on a company's sales? Got any examples?

Well, there is the Uriah’s Heating and Cooling case in Ohio last year.

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180729/theodore-decker-colum...

Sure ... here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/oberlin-bakery-lawsuit...

For Gibsons it wasn't just Twitter complaints. People literally picketed their store (and Oberlin admin managed and helped the protests) and Oberlin itself cut off orders from them - it was direct financial pressure. Surely when a large college that a bakery served for decades suddenly decides to cut off all orders it can hurt much more than a bunch of people putting words into a website.

I think part of the problem is that it's just as likely to cause a raise (from the increased exposure) as it is to cause a drop, which creates an incentive to do things that will incite outrage.

Is there really much of a difference between the two? A sufficiently large angry only mob is bound to have at least a couple people who are willing to take things too far.

The criticism of the NYT cartoon wasn't just on Twitter, but had demonstrations in front of their office, other large organizations weighting in, ...

The underlying issue is the assumption that nobody may have their views put to doubt, or worse, criticized. The right not to be offended, not written anywhere, somehow became holy.

Not that I would offend people on purpose: it usually hampers real discussion and leave people more polarized and striving less for understanding.

But for some, feeling offended and demonstrating that feeling as loudly as possible became an easy publicity tool. It exploits the natural propensity of people to help those who are hurt.

It's very sad that few (or no?) large media ever was able to say: "Suck it up. Your opinion and this guy's opinion are different. This is how freedom works: by giving equal rights to people you don't like." (But freedom is not very valued by many, it seems; often definitely not as much as being right, or at least having the upper hand.)

>the latest flavor of puritanical outrage

For some time I have been searching for ways to express how the worst characteristics of religion people give for leaving persist widely with nonbelievers. This expresses it nicely.

Oh man, I think what you're trying to say is: You're trying to figure out how the worst characteristics of religious people also exist in nonbelievers. Is that right?

There will always be people who have varying amounts of commitment to their inherited and / or adopted value systems.

For example: I'm pretty gung ho about surfing. I'm all for property rights but turning beaches into private property... well now, shut the front door!

"Moral panic" is probably the term you want.

> The issue now is that the puritanical outrage stretches past the pulpit and Letters to the Editor and directly into your notifications,

I think many people have realized that they can control the discourse by pretending to be offended. And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are.

> And it is not easy to figure out if someone is genuinely distraught at seeing a cartoon like that (or anything really) or they are just claiming they are

We should just not care. Somebody is always going to be offended with something. You can't please everyone. Somebody being offended in not an excuse to publish something. That's what's wrong with the present expectations -- the acceptance that "offending" someone is an excuse enough not to print something.

We should simply stop accepting that somebody being "offended" is enough to produce a veto to publish anything.

If anybody is scared they should also just admit that. But not accept that those who threat him or her have any right to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

"Molly Norris drew the original, poster-like cartoon on April 20, 2010, which declared May 20, 2010, to be the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". The drawing showed various anthropomorphized objects, including a coffee cup, a cherry and a box of pasta, each claiming to be the likeness of Muhammad."

"FBI officials reportedly notified Norris warning her that they considered it a "very serious threat."[143][144]

"Norris has since changed her name and gone into hiding. According to the Seattle Weekly (her former employer), this decision was based on "the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI.""

"As of 2015, Norris is still in hiding and jihadist threats against her life continue."

We should publish exactly what is "offensive" until there is enough of it that nobody's life can be threatened.

Otherwise we accept to be bullied.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

"The gunmen burst into the meeting room and called out Charb's name to target him before opening fire. The shooting lasted five to ten minutes. The gunmen aimed at the journalists' heads and killed them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

"Van Gogh was shot with a HS2000 and stabbed by Mohammed Bouyeri while cycling to work on 2 November 2004 at about 9 o'clock in the morning."

https://www.salon.com/2004/11/24/vangogh_2/

"On the morning of Nov. 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master's great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old."

I don't understand why this is downvoted so much. If we're going to apply the three filters (Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is it true?), the parent comment seems to fulfill two of them. Can someone chime in and educate me?

> From the Salem witch trials to the Red Scare to the Harry Potter book burnings

some how a master of nuance missed that one of these things is rather not like the other...

> Nuance is not permitted in 2019

Also, screwing up, learning that, changing your ways, admitting you were wrong, adapting is not permitted either. It will follow you forever, regardless.

Said journalists and publishers try and whip up moralistic mobs in service of their goals, though. Then when it doesn't go their way, the shock and outrage happen.

Everyone is happy when puritanism is what they like...HN's endless preening about riding bicycles, outlawing cars in cities, outlawing sugar, getting rid of facebook, and more are good examples. When their enemies use it though, watch out. Unfortunately the realization that a person themselves can be like that is hard won and hard to counter even when knowing it exists.

I wonder if there are any interesting flame wars between emacs and vim supporters on twitter.

I wonder how different humanity would be if anger and the fight-or-flight response could be disconnected, or the dopamine response from self-righteousness could be severed.

Psilocybin may provide somewhat of a reasonable approximation of this at appropriate dosages.

Not sure why you are being downvoted on this.

General popularity (or lack thereof) would be my guess :)

Lobotomy would help too.

For real? Do you have a link I could read up on?

Sure there is ridiculous posturing and fake outrage on Twitter....

But this is the NYT (who stood for journalism at one point) and political cartoons — which is satire and lampooning of the political class and politics.

Shying away from that is indicative of something gone wrong.

I know the NYT only started political cartoons in the last few decades, but this can’t be good for political freedom.

I really want to read the perspective of some great contemporary thinkers on this. Who were the thinkers writing about this in a compelling way and who it's likely that in 20 years or 50 years we'll be able to look back on and say their essays really understood the zeitgeist?

What shocks me is how companies and organizations have reacted to this. Every time a significant decision is deferred to mob rule I feel a little bit of power departs civil and ordered society and is transferred to the mob. Which seems to me to validate the notion that we ought to be afraid of mobs. That's a pretty scary society to live in and doesn't really mesh with the principle of rule of law.

The only reference point I have for this is historically the utilisation of and empowerment of angry mobs has coincided with times of great political turmoil such as a revolution. And that historically at least you could say that these mobs are created by breaking down the existing structures of authority. I think you can find a reference for that in Western society where the power of traditional moral authority or institutional symbols of authority have declined or been dismantled.

Probably the least controversial idea I have as to a cause of all this is that there must be a huge amount of potential emotional energy present in the population that is being directed towards are tapped by these expressions of outrage and mob outburst. I think it's reasonable to say that this potential emotional energy was not created by these topics it was created elsewhere by foundational issues such as economics but it's being directed towards these topics perhaps as cathartic outlet.