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)