This happened twice just this week, once with the (constructive, rather softball) comments made by a union leader about Corbyn himself (to which the reaction was something along the lines of "oh no, he's losing the support of his base!"), to the rather mild back-and-forth about John McDonnell's sarcastic crack about Mao in Parliament (which the media basically manufactured into a fake story, all the while implying that McDonnell is a crypto-communist, while he is nothing of the sort).
Anyway, rather than it being about a specific subject, I guess my point is that I am pretty down on journalists in general these days, because chasing the story and filling the news cycle (in any medium) seems to have taken priority over actually substantive reporting of things that matter.
Is anyone saying he's a crypto-communist? All I've seen is that it's yet another example of Corbyn's shadow cabinet being fantastically terrible at politics. It's not feeding the "Labour are outright marxists" narrative, it's feeding the "Corbyn is incompetent and sooner or later the house of cards will fall" narrative.
There is an infection of using superlative language at every turn, and it is especially bad (but not limited to) how conversation happens in the US, and countries like Britain that increasingly model their politics and culture on the US[0].
The current culture makes nuance and explanation hard, because those don't fit into sound bytes. When we live in a world where Jeff Bezos can declare, with a straight face, that 3000 words is a "long read", we're kinda screwed when it comes to politicians being able to make any point that isn't a slogan painted on the backdrop they are speaking in front of, or a startup to declare "we are just building a service that is one iteration better than the existing ones on the market, and people will pay us good money to use it".
I mean you can do that, and you can probably even make good money at it, but you won't get the fawning press or the billion-dollar hyperinflated valuations.
[0]: A strong statement, especially to make in passing, I know. But happy to lay out my reasoning on that point for anyone who wants it, and I promise it's not just the usual bellyaching about "creeping Americanisation" that gets thrown around a lot.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/11/the-guardian...
So for any writers without anything meaningful to say... well, just find the most obnoxious, audience baiting thing possible, back it up with a bunch of thinly sourced 'support' posts and watch your article trend on Reddit within an hour or two. Or maybe on Twitter.
It's also why comment sections were virually unmoderated until recently... a civil debate brings less comments than a heated flame war between lunatics.
I've heard second-hand information about my national media platforms that they're (the media companies) actually seeding flame wars in comments on purpose - angry people coming back to respond to other angry people = much more eyeballs = more ad dollars flowing in.
Watch the news on TV or read a newspaper; how many times do they tell you that people are outraged, or asking questions, or something is up for debate, without showing so much as a tweet?
Yes, the media manufactures outrage for attention. This is not the problem. The media has done the same for as long as it has existed. The problem is that real people are willing to believe and act upon this "outrage", sometimes in an extreme manner, to avoid being on the "wrong side".
The action I care about isn't the media writing a libellous "story" about how "outraged" people are at some action of mine, though they are scum for it. What I care about is when people use it as justification to call my boss/family/friends and go after me personally.
It's not the media that doxxes, makes death threats, and gets people fired. Who does that is a population that increasingly cannot tell the difference between words and violence, a population that sees bad thoughts as assault and disagreement as evil. Even the smallest infraction is justification for ruining lives.
Brendan Eich was ousted from his position at Mozilla for his donation years ago. A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays. The mob retaliations are completely disproportionate to the "crime".
That's why people are afraid of the new outrage. They know one violation of the ever changing set of rules can now cause a mob to go nuclear on everything they hold dear.
Historically, internet users were young, educated, and urban (or old, and working in a research lab, tech company, or university) - probably mostly Democrats in the US.
Over the last few years (as you now need the internet to do banking and pretty much anything else) it's now roughly equalised. It wasn't that long ago that people were shocked that "Mom" was on Facebook. In 2010-2013, the conservative networks (news sites, social network cliques, forums, etc.) really started to form. As an example, Twitchy (a fairly popular conservative "news" site made up of embedded tweets and commentary) was founded in 2012.
There's always been Libertarian and right-wing internet users, but now it's reached the same fever pitch as the left-wing outrage machine. It's no longer just Libertarians talking about how the government is the source of all evil, or an alt-right conspiracy theorist, it's that Jane Sixpack can now access the internet just as easily as a college kid.
I suspect the bulk of people on the internet used to think the outrage machine was a bunch of well-meaning idiots. But when it's the extreme Republicans (who were previously a tiny minority on the internet) pulling the same shit, it starts to be obvious why this is a problem.
This diagnosis is also too shallow. Just like people's belief and actions in response to "outrage" has varied over time, the media's sensationalism has varied over time, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
> Even the smallest infraction is justification for ruining lives. [...] Brendan Eich was ousted from his position at Mozilla for his donation years ago. A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays. The mob retaliations are completely disproportionate to the "crime".
These don't strike me as compelling examples. Brendan Eich (whom, for the record, I did not think should be ousted and said so at the time in HN discussions) was not ousted for minding his own business making a private donation, that is a misrepresentation. He was ousted because of his defense of his donation, and even if that ruined his life, he was in a position to affect a lot of lives, and it's reasonable (even if we disagree with them) for people to think it's unfortunate but necessary.
As for "A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays."---gays receive threats of death and violence, and actual death and violence, for merely being gay, and while there've been spikes in response to e.g. Obergefell, this has generally been decreasing, fortunately. So, a death threat in response to explicit prejudice doesn't really make the point that the mob is worsening.
Also, the parent argument is that death threats are a disproportionate response, not that they're new.
[Eich] was ousted for his donation. I saw no mention of a defense and
only people calling for his head because of the donation.
Also, the parent argument is that death threats are a disproportionate response, not that they're new.
> a population that increasingly cannot tell the difference between words and violence
> That's why people are afraid of the new outrage.
And, of course, the grandparent was a direct response to the original article where "new"-ness was part of the main point:
Tagline:
> People are so sensitive these days!
Opening sentence:
> Is the world more easily “outraged” than it used to be?
Conclusion:
> So is the world any more “outraged” than it’s always been?
Stopping inappropriate behavior is not outrage.
That being said, my point is that you are not helping anything regardless of the validity of the original complaints. You display flippant indignation by finding this "hilarious". Would it not help educate your co-workers to treat them reasonably instead of sarcastically confrontational? Has that approach ever yielded results?
That's one of the main things about outrage culture. Outrage will never convince anyone that they're wrong, it will only make them double down on their original ideas.
- Being told the term "you guys" is a micro-aggression that disenfranchises marginalized peoples.
- Being scolded for using the term "man hours."
- Being around people who think that a red hand at a crosswalk is emblematic of systemic racism.
- Working with people who look down at spending Thanksgiving with family, and instead rant about how you're celebrating the murder of the native peoples.
... and any other similar non-issue that psychos left and right today are touting as the biggest issues facing people today.
That doesn't mean Westboro Babtist Church is not a problem. It just means the majority is sane.
If your best example is a grammatically challenged tweet that racked up 4 favs and a retweet... you're probably inventing a controversy.
Here's some insane examples from the first page of a Google News search for "Twitter Backlash":
http://www.prweek.com/article/1372418/apple-faces-twitter-ba...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ruby-rose-faces-b...
http://www.eonline.com/news/711079/raven-symone-angers-twitt...
http://www.her.ie/life/bloomingdales-forced-to-apologise-to-...
To be fair though there is a culture of "outrage" that exists. The media may be implicit in propagating it but they don't always create it.
For example, this recently happened:
http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/fascism-at-yale/
I think it's important to study the media's role in creating and extending the reach of outrage, but it's equally important not to deny that there is a growing movement of people who are interested in limiting free speech and get very outrageous about it.
In fact, if you change "Calling for people to be fired for expressing their beliefs" to "Calling for senators to be voted out of office for expressing their beliefs" then that's fascist. You can play this game for all his examples:
> Calling to defund a newspaper for publishing an editorial you disagree with
Divestment from companies funding apartheid, something student protesters commonly supported in the late 80s
> Tearing down fliers that you disagree with
Removing neo-Nazi propaganda posters
> Calling for students to be expelled for wearing offensive Halloween costumes
Calling for people to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of its owner's anti-gay agendas
It can still be fascism, even if you see yourself as doing good. Actually, I think well-meaning idealists are sometimes some of the worst people out there. They see themselves as good and being correct, and they get really nasty and intolerant towards people who see things differently.
There's the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but I often get the impression that many people don't really grasp this.
"Hitler turned his large, unfathomable eyes on me; once again, as they had in Nuremberg, they impressed me with their deep and infinite goodness, as if they constantly wanted to give something without saying anything."
Even Hitler never painted as rose-coloured a view of himself as Wagener does.
His examples are all over the place. Boycotts most definitely aren't fascism. In fact, not allowing boycotts seems much closer to fascism than allowing them.
The posters are a different story. I don't know if I'd call it "fascism" to tear down posters (neo-nazi, or gay rights... it doesn't matter -- decisions should be content agnostic). It's vandalism for sure. It's also super ineffective.
There was recently a case where feminists defaced ads in the London tube that showed a model in a bikini and asked "Are you beach ready?". The end result was bringing international attention, support and sales for the company that made the ads.
In short, speech including boycotts isn't fascism. Tearing down posters is vandalism, probably not fascism. Tearing down posters is ineffective whatever you call it.
It gives the impression that certain political groups are more influential than they are. It encourages outrage culture and the censorship that follows that movement. It's a lazy tool for certain types of journalists.
There's so many more constructive things to do than use social media. Delete your accounts, wait a month for any addictive urges to pass and enjoy life again.
HN allows neither, so I wouldn't count it as so. I'd probably classify it as "news site with comments", but not "social media".
- Nov 5: Breitbart reports "Starbucks faces criticism from politicians and campaign groups today after it decided to remove all references to the festive season from its Christmas red cups'
- Nov 8: Huffington Post picks up the Breitbart story and reports "Some Christians Are Extremely Unhappy About Starbucks' New Holiday Cups"
Note the difference in headlines. This started as a Tory MP and a professional Christian shit-stirring group in the U.K. criticizing the move. It is rapidly generalized to "Christians".
In an age of people consuming news in 140 characters or less, news outlets really have a responsibility to apply the same journalistic integrity to their headline as to the rest of the article. They are there to report the news, not cause the news.
And those without integrity, who manufacture news, will earn more.
Also journalism = marketing now. Headlines, scoops, shocking videos...
In the world I live in, the proportion is far higher. Especially if you are talking about the mainstream media. Hell, easily one of 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers is fake.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (11 June 1807).
Oh wait...
Ultimately lots of disagreements have this cyclic structure. Like people accusing those who call for tolerance of being intolerant of intolerance. Or those who oppose science by accusing scientists of not doing science right. Or those telling people to think for themselves, and find out the truth (from the sources they deem to be correct). Or people who claim that those campaigning against racism are the real racists for making everything about race. There's probably some deep point, but I can't be bothered to think about it. It's easier to just be enraged at how stupid people are. Those stupid f*ers who can't even have a civil discussion!
The internet has a serious problem with fame.
Before the internet, fame was usually something that required an investment in media access. Everybody knows about the big Hollywood movie because they paid for a lot of advertising/etc. A low-budget film could potentially be more popular if people knew about it, but the meager (or nonexistent) advertising budget usually guaranteed it would never[1] become famous.
This is what the internet changed. It's fundamental power is that anybody can publish because the network doesn't differentiate between "publishing" hosts and "consumer" hosts. All peers are supposed[2] to be equal in capability. The internet is media access. What used to require significant investment of time and/or money now happens to people regularly when they post something casually on the internet: they can become famous.
Unfortunately, our social norms are still adapting to this change. As this article shows, trivial posts are incorrectly interpreted and the author ends up wading through flames and insults. This is because what started as a casual post is now addressing an audience.
For a very good explanation of this type of change-in-relationship, I suggest watching "This is Phil Fish"[4]. As this is HN, many of you probably know the drama involving Phil Fish and his game "Fez", but tht doesn't matter because this video is about everybody who is not Phil Fish: the audience that supplies the projection, tokenism, and hatred that fuels the media when they want cheap hits/impressions.
--
[1] I am ignoring the phenomena of some movies gaining a cult following a long time after their initial release for simplicity and questionable relevance (time).
[2] NAT has destroyed a lot of this equality, creating a situation where you have to get the permission of a 3rd party (port forwarding at the router, some centralized server, etc). If we allow this digital imprimatur[3] to continue to exist, then the internet has truly reverted back to "TV".
The internet means information travels faster than ever before, but also inadvertently causes "interesting things" to outpace "the truth".
Properties like Upworthy/Buzzfeed/ect. exacerbate this. Von D is right not to capitulate.
P.S. So too, are we.
Something about the Middle East? You need at least a hundred years of historical knowledge to understand what is playing out. Ideally more. But it's not that simple; you need to understand the politics of countries that are recent but significant players.
And this is the problem: people believe it's reasonable to form an opinion on complex matters from consuming a few soundbites and massaged footage. How is that at all reasonable? Answer: it isn't.
Either way, for my own sanity I now have to avoid twitter and any article that even remotely looks like it might be about someone being offended about something.
This whole story (including this post) may just as well be part of a smart promotion stunt for Sephora lipstick. Some agency might be getting paid for generating all this attention, stirring up controversy around the brand, with the media and bloggers masterfully manipulated into cooperation. There's no way to know...
She gets some more attention for calling attention to this, and increases our collective cynicism a little more (and rightly so).
It's tempting to call this a victimless crime, but it's really not. The victims are those who are actually outraged, often by actually outrageous things, like US police taking people's money, beating them up, and killing them. Or by regulatory capture in energy and banking. Or by US foreign policy hypocrisy. Or any number of other things.
Honestly, if there was some way for me to fine media outlets in general and specific authors in particular for this behavior, I would do it. It is wrong to shovel shit into people's minds especially if you have an official "press" designation. You've violated trust, and if the media doesn't police itself, then the media itself is going to be replaced with something that does.
Close down Twitter, the 140 characters are exactly enough why those things get blown out of proportion. Also why ADD "journalists" adore Twitter.
"Is the world more easily “outraged” than it used to be? I don’t think so, but then again, there’s no real way to tell."
Presumably one could go build google N-gram timeseries plots for various n-grams associated with what the article calls "outrage culture" and then look for big bumps in the curve.
I'm not close enough to the phenomenon to guess the correct buzzwords. Maybe "problematic" or "offensive"?
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
--
And now for my less civil and less thoughtful rant:
This is why I think journalism and media is one of the biggest thing that's turning the world to shit. The key observation from the article:
> 3. The narrative told by the media in step 2 is considered reality.
Every time they lie - and they lie often, regardless whether you want to call it "bias" or "agenda", it's done on purpose; you can't not notice that level of intellectual dishonesty - every time they lie, people believe them. And no, lying in headline and "correcting" it in the middle of the article doesn't cut it, almost nobody reads the damn article. People go on believing what they read, and then they demand changes accordingly, and then they vote accordingly, and stupid policies get instituted and people get hurt.
As the good old LW quote goes[0], "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don't do it to anyone unless you'd also slash their tires." Except in case of media it's really sabotage. It can take your job, your career or your home at a whim. It changes national and international policies.
Take Europe and the immigration crisis. You know what's actually the problem there? It's not just immigrants, and it's not just xenophobia. It's media feeding off each other, causing outrage after outrage, overblowing the issue to the point of turning half of otherwise sane people into aggressive xenophobes, and the other half into high-horse riding apologists.
I tend to get strange looks when I say there's a problem with media, because Free Media is obviously a Key Element to the Democratic Process (and Democratic = Good). But you know what also is free to do whatever the fuck it wants? Cancer. And it doesn't end well for the host organism. So maybe we need to reevaluate what do we really gain from having this feedback loop running unchecked.
I'm not saying, get rid of media. I ask only one thing, I ask it from editors and from journalists: have some fucking integrity. Don't publish blatant lies.
And yes, I know that's in a way not your fault, Moloch - "the abstracted spirit of discoordination and flailing response to incentives" - publishes whatever he wants. But if you want to stand up to him, I'm willing to join. I'd be happy to pay for a news source whose primary goal would be to present facts and just facts, the way they are. No spin, no lies, no reporting scientific papers as if they proved the opposite of what they actually do - just the raw truth.
--
Another thing. It used to be that the best way to filter out lies and propaganda was to run articles through Reddit and/or Hacker News - lots of people with random biases, combined with quite a good chance of there being a person directly involved with the thing described, was usually enough to sanitize the news story. But I'm worried this is slowly stopping to work too. Outrage is exactly what's eating us. I've seen too many times HN jumping to conclusions. Hell, I've personally been guilty of this myself far more than I'm willing to admit. And don't even get me started on Reddit.
Some fairly weak logic.
2) Craft tweets that are likely to be picked up
3) Sit back and enjoy (for extra credit, mail predictions about the news to someone in a sealed envelope)
We are the angry mob
We read the papers everyday
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
Also, if you get offended by "underage red", maybe your mind is dirty is a bit weird defense. What is the name meant to imply?
And finally, if we should be outraged by anything isn't underage red better than war on christmas?
I don't follow this line of reasoning. Let's say the same media often create a fake sexism/ism scandal out of something innocent or unrelated. Can we conclude that sexism/ism is not a problem anymore?
Aren't safe-spaces real? Is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA staged? I don't remember things like that from my university years.