Anatomy of a Moral Panic • Hacker News Board

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#101

Post by dogruck » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:09 AM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #95

brianjoseff wrote: post #13

Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Or at least providing alternatives that are equally profitable yet less pernicious. Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but the…

> Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Nobody, because the "underlying business model problem" is that, contra their stated preference, people don't want real journalism, or at least don't want it enough to pay for it. They want easily digestible fl…

I've thought about this too. I agree with you.

Another angle is that "real journalism" is fiction. Stronger than "people don't want it" is that it doesn't even exist.

Suppose Zuck, Musk, Gates, Bezos, and Bloomberg pooled their cash, with matching funds from Uncle Sam, into a blind trust to fund "real journalism." What then?

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#102

Post by dogruck » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:13 AM UTC

wolf550e wrote: post #81

Wasn't the "baseball test" an accepted norm in journalism? "A reporter should not be assigned to cover subject X unless he has as good an understanding of X as a baseball writer is expected to have of baseball."[1] Shouldn't media outlets be embarrassed into retracting stories written by people who know nothing about the subject? Shouldn't the reputation of the media outlet suffer? 1 - https://www.theatlantic.com/per…

It's an ilformed test. Can a writer truly understand baseball as well as a baseball player? But, isn't a baseball player bound to be heavily biased toward the consensus baseball view?

Or, take finance. If a financial journalist truly understood finance, wouldn't they be running a hedge fund instead of scraping by pumping out articles?

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#103

Post by KKKKkkkk1 » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:26 AM UTC

brianjoseff wrote: post #13

Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Or at least providing alternatives that are equally profitable yet less pernicious. Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but the…

There is no business-model problem. Mass hysteria has existed long before Western-style free press. In late 19th century Russia, the government would spread rumors that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and instigate pogroms. In medieval Europe, people used to burn witches. In modern Egypt, people think 9/11 was a US-government conspiracy. All of these phenomena have taken place without a capitalist free press.

To me, these examples indicate that the profit motive in journalism is actually good. It creates an incentive for publishing the truth and a disincentive to spreading lies that does not exist in other models of journalism.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#104

Post by sethrin » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:30 AM UTC

e9 wrote: post #96

jacalata wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little difficult to explain without actually knowing about you. And it's true that if you're not American/don't now or ever intend to live in the US, it probably doesn't affect you.

I live in California. I am happy to share some more info. Edit: I am fine with answers that talk about average Americans. I just want to understand the issue and hear different perspectives.

Generally, it redistributes funding in a way that will disproportionally affect California, resulting in less funding. It results in less funding increases overall over the next few years. It also allows some measure of price discrimination against pre-existing conditions.

It seems to be better thought out than the previous iteration, which is a low bar. Personally I don't think that a focus on health care is a good idea for either party at the moment, but Republican success in repealing the ACA seems likely to be a Pyrrhic victory at best. However, it's far from a certain thing at the moment, and the actions of two or three Senators could change the picture entirely.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#105

Post by brianjoseff » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:34 AM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #95

brianjoseff wrote: post #13

Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Or at least providing alternatives that are equally profitable yet less pernicious. Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but the…

> Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Nobody, because the "underlying business model problem" is that, contra their stated preference, people don't want real journalism, or at least don't want it enough to pay for it. They want easily digestible fl…

Generally agreed with comments here. It isn't really a business model problem, it's just that in the US, our laissez-faire, internet-enabled capitalist system is just uniquely optimized to enable this stuff at scale and at faster cycle time. (radio in 30s germany could be parallel..don't know enough)

So, we're in a tricky situation.

Given that:

1. fundamentally we are just a rabid pack of stimuli seeking animals on a ravenous, desperate hunt for our next emotionally titillating hit

and

2. we've decided that in our (U.S.) implementation of liberal democracy, for the most part, freedom of speech is super protected and businesses are free to peddle pretty much whatever titillation they want (as long as no harm to others, per JS Mill On Liberty, etc..) unfettered by governance

how do we ensure that the public sphere doesn't devolve into a savage, mindless flurry of pure vitriol, slander, and falsehood

in the past we've leaned on a few structures to overcome these tendencies: an aristocratic taste-maker class steeped in classical tradition; authoritarian dictate; religious institutions that appealed to moral orders beyond earthly sin

obviously these structures had deep, DEEP issues, and we've rightly moved towards casting them aside

so what's next?

how to we bake reason into our societal architecture without relying on the problematic structures of yore?

Or should we just have faith that, despite these trying times, the better instincts of humanity shall prevail and we'll lift ourselves out of the morass--perhaps brought to our senses by some charismatic, enlightened leader utilizing moral-suasion and a made-for-tv personality....or some other mechanism of mass-englightenment

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#106

Post by weberc2 » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:49 AM UTC

dogruck wrote: post #102

wolf550e wrote: post #81

Wasn't the "baseball test" an accepted norm in journalism? "A reporter should not be assigned to cover subject X unless he has as good an understanding of X as a baseball writer is expected to have of baseball."[1] Shouldn't media outlets be embarrassed into retracting stories written by people who know nothing about the subject? Shouldn't the reputation of the media outlet suffer? 1 - https://www.theatlantic.com/per…

It's an ilformed test. Can a writer truly understand baseball as well as a baseball player? But, isn't a baseball player bound to be heavily biased toward the consensus baseball view? Or, take finance. If a financial journalist truly understood finance, wouldn't they be running a hedge fund instead of scraping by pumping out articles?

He said baseball writer, not player, unless he edited his comment between your post and mine.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#107

Post by brianjoseff » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:50 AM UTC

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #103

brianjoseff wrote: post #13

Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Or at least providing alternatives that are equally profitable yet less pernicious. Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but the…

There is no business-model problem. Mass hysteria has existed long before Western-style free press. In late 19th century Russia, the government would spread rumors that Jews drink the blood of Christian babies and instigate pogroms. In medieval Europe, people used to burn witches. In modern Egypt, people think 9/11 was a US-government conspiracy. All of these phenomena have taken place without a capitalist free press…

Interesting point. So capitalist free press is actually a net positive here given the transparency it presumably enables (and promotes to the degree that consumers desire truthful/etc journalism)

I think part of what makes our modern situation different is that mass hysteria has a denser network on which to propagate (yes also means remedial measures also propagate faster) and is propelled via a more ruthlessly efficient propellant (expression of consumer preference in a frictionless, free-market, internet-enabled system)

But I'd argue that, generally, whenever feedback loops are tightened, systems tend to lose stability, increasing risk of very bad events.

So my point still stands, something should be done about this... I just don't know what. regulation feels kludgy, building a competing product/model that somehow encourages more pro-social outcomes, per my business model fixation in parent comment, feels nice--but likely is too naively optimistic.

So what else is there? Some old-time religion? "Don't lie and don't hate each other...". Also doesn't feel like a good route, for reasons too many to enumerate.

So what is there?

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#108

Post by dogruck » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 3:51 AM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #106

dogruck wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an ilformed test. Can a writer truly understand baseball as well as a baseball player? But, isn't a baseball player bound to be heavily biased toward the consensus baseball view? Or, take finance. If a financial journalist truly understood finance, wouldn't they be running a hedge fund instead of scraping by pumping out articles?

He said baseball writer, not player, unless he edited his comment between your post and mine.

I think we read the same post. I'm just saying that a writer's bias is correlated with his expertise.

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#109

Post by matt4077 » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 4:03 AM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #77

the talk missing here: accountability. reporters can screw up. like everyone else. heck in the IT security industry we have a mantra that you should not punish mistakes, because over time that makes people more prone to hide mistakes instead of disclosing. why isn't journalism the same? in the past they would publish erratas and mea culpas. now, they get the clicks, ad revenue, and on to the next "mistake".

"In the past"? I see multiple corrections per week, sometimes daily. They've started documenting even minor mistakes such as misspelled names.

And mistakes that actually matter do have consequences, and not of the "don't punish" variety. See the recent firing of two CNN producers for publishing a story they later had to retract (something about some Trump associate's business dealings in Malta, I believe)

Re: Anatomy of a Moral Panic

#110

Post by matt4077 » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 4:05 AM UTC

brianjoseff wrote: post #13

Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Or at least providing alternatives that are equally profitable yet less pernicious. Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but the…

If you stick to quality journalism (NYT/WSJ/The New Yorker/The Economist/Bloomberg), the world of journalism is really not worse than it was in whatever golden age of the press people seem to imagine.

The idea that all media gravitate towards low-brow outrage clickbait because it sells better is quite obviously wrong. Just as there is fast food as well as organic granola, or porn as well as independent conceptual arthouse cinema, there are publications of all levels of quality. And that didn't actually change dramatically, because tabloid journalism wasn't just invented. If people were attracted only to the yellow press, it would have taken over the market long ago. Instead, journalism has been, just like history, bending towards quality (/justice).

What changed is that the barriers to entry have fallen. It used to require capital to publish, and those capable of reaching the masses had to have seen success in other walks of life, or convinced the establishment of their credentials.

Now, the internet allows the Breitbarts of the world to reach an audience as deranged as them, and that is putting some pressure on parts of the market. But that affects not so much the top end of the spectrum, but local papers and publications like the National Enquirer.