news sites have clearly learned how to use a variant of cunningham's law ("the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer") in order to maximize engagement and traffic
news sites that (appear to) get things wrong will get more traffic than news sites that get it right
this suggests to me that news will only get more infuriating as time goes on
example that is, IMO, clearly set up to piss people off via deliberate omission in the title
the article itself, of course, makes sure to talk about it
but the point is that this approach gets more traffic than if you include it in the title and forget to piss people off
What's wild is, the media is arguably the primary means by which the public *is* educated.
So what we have here is a case of a miseducated public further miseducating itself, via a process that is catalyzed by a misincentivized media
[Quote from @alaindebotton's book, News]
Btw Matt Yglesias is a coward who consistently tweets terrible takes & then deletes his tweets afterwards. Every time I see him appear on my feed I am embarrassed for him. I've been procrastinating on this tweet, because it's not a nice thing to say about someone... but it's true
Believe it or not when I was a kid I actually wanted to “work in the media”. It seemed like a noble profession. Like being a real-time librarian.
I feel like rule #1 of being a good “media person” is to keep meticulous, publicly accessible/verifiable records. Never delete
Lol I made an unintentional typo and it’s a chance to demonstrate what I mean.
If you have tweeted something untrue, and it’s being spread, you can delete it - but screenshot first and explain why
(I meant errenous, not strenuous. Lol at autocorrect)
If the public stopped paying attention to cowards with no intellectual integrity, it wouldn’t be necessary to call them out
Alas, the public (in aggregate) is an idiot. I’m sorry but it’s true
This is a cute and wholesome version of this method in use
Same tactic well-used to market a dating show
@netflix
Wanna watch a really bad date? https://t.co/KVgJNIWz0h
17. Indeed that’s the nature of the game at this point and there’s probably no turning back; if anything it’s going to get worse and everybody’s going to keep doing it more and more
@Cernovich
If what Tucker Carlson said is so horrific, why play it?
It was collecting dust, no one heard it.
The media amplifies what they claim is really bad and no one should ever hear.
On the evening Robert Mueller submitted his report to the Justice Department, President Trump was on the tiled patio of Mar-a-Lago, bathed in golden light, with his wife and son Barron, who had reached teenagerhood two days earlier https://t.co/hJ6Mtvkqru https://t.co/STbnNwEQYi
22. It’s funny to consider that commenters like this do it for free
23. perfect setup
@WIRED
Sci-Fi is starting to get more political. In recent months, dozens of writers have contributed to stories that present a wide variety of marginalized perspectives https://t.co/kTazFsFV5f
If you haven't read it, read it. The core, IMO: media environments are incentivized to find the most divisive issues possible, & get everyone to fight about it. Few talk about Vegan Outreach (very responsible, sensible charity), everyone talks about PETA
25. this dilemma is going to keep getting more intense and more pronounced. Bunch of people showing up in the replies to say "so?" "why does that matter?" – but it would never have gotten on their radar otherwise
26. “the shooter” 😏
27. Pretending to discover Asian food (and then only mentioning midway in the video, and not at all in the tweet or headline) is a very reliable outrage generator
@nowthisimpact
Lactose-free butter exists and yes, it's REAL butter https://t.co/byN0v1BPe3
28. I wonder if the researchers were earnest? I think 70% chance they were. And I'm 99% sure whoever at WaPo published this, did so gleefully knowing that people would show up to fight in the replies and comments sections.
@washingtonpost
Dodgeball is a tool of "oppression" used to "dehumanize" others, researchers argue https://t.co/2GANBGdk5i
news sites have clearly learned how to use a variant of cunningham's law ("the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer") in order to maximize engagement and trafficnews sites that (appear to) get things wrong will get more traffic than news sites that get it rightthis suggests to me that news will only get more infuriating as time goes onexample that is, IMO, clearly set up to piss people off via deliberate omission in the title
the article itself, of course, makes sure to talk about it
but the point is that this approach gets more traffic than if you include it in the title and forget to piss people off"Lauren Ipsum wins award"
5 RTs, 13 likes
-
"SAY HER NAME, $NEWSORG"
___________________
| |
|"Woman wins award"|
|___________________|
17,325 RTs, 64,523 Likesnot saying her name seems to have become the best way to get people to know her nameit might even make sense for a news org to have a critic on the payroll. "we'll tweet this, then you outrage-QT it"
but i'm guessing that's not even necessary, because lots of people are eager and willing to outrage-QT for freeThis whole state of affairs is clearly not in the public's best interest, but that is going to be very difficult to change, becauseWhat's wild is, the media is arguably the primary means by which the public *is* educated.
So what we have here is a case of a miseducated public further miseducating itself, via a process that is catalyzed by a misincentivized media
[Quote from @alaindebotton's book, News]Btw Matt Yglesias is a coward who consistently tweets terrible takes & then deletes his tweets afterwards. Every time I see him appear on my feed I am embarrassed for him. I've been procrastinating on this tweet, because it's not a nice thing to say about someone... but it's trueBelieve it or not when I was a kid I actually wanted to “work in the media”. It seemed like a noble profession. Like being a real-time librarian.
I feel like rule #1 of being a good “media person” is to keep meticulous, publicly accessible/verifiable records. Never deleteLol I made an unintentional typo and it’s a chance to demonstrate what I mean.
If you have tweeted something untrue, and it’s being spread, you can delete it - but screenshot first and explain why(I meant errenous, not strenuous. Lol at autocorrect)
If the public stopped paying attention to cowards with no intellectual integrity, it wouldn’t be necessary to call them out
Alas, the public (in aggregate) is an idiot. I’m sorry but it’s trueThis is a cute and wholesome version of this method in useSame tactic well-used to market a dating showall instances of male parenting will henceforth be described as babysitting17. Indeed that’s the nature of the game at this point and there’s probably no turning back; if anything it’s going to get worse and everybody’s going to keep doing it more and more18. holmes is not actually that interesting, but the media has to pretend that she is
anyway, this is clever marketing19. lol20. Optimising for engagement means filming and producing more train wrecks. The wreckage will continue to get more spectacular as time goes on21. “Still feel average”22. It’s funny to consider that commenters like this do it for free23. perfect setup24. SSC's Toxoplasma of Rage becomes more relevant with each passing dayIf you haven't read it, read it. The core, IMO: media environments are incentivized to find the most divisive issues possible, & get everyone to fight about it. Few talk about Vegan Outreach (very responsible, sensible charity), everyone talks about PETA25. this dilemma is going to keep getting more intense and more pronounced. Bunch of people showing up in the replies to say "so?" "why does that matter?" – but it would never have gotten on their radar otherwise26. “the shooter” 😏27. Pretending to discover Asian food (and then only mentioning midway in the video, and not at all in the tweet or headline) is a very reliable outrage generator28. I wonder if the researchers were earnest? I think 70% chance they were. And I'm 99% sure whoever at WaPo published this, did so gleefully knowing that people would show up to fight in the replies and comments sections.29. Every media org must now be hungrily hiring writers who can help them get ratio’d on demand30.
yes
news sites have clearly learned how to use a variant of cunningham's law ("the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer") in order to maximize engagement and traffic ... news sites that (appear to) get things wrong will get more traffic than news sites that get it right ... this suggests to me that news will only get more infuriating as time goes on ... example that is, IMO, clearly set up to piss people off via deliberate omission in the title
the article itself, of course, makes sure to talk about it
but the point is that this approach gets more traffic than if you include it in the title and forget to piss people off ... "Lauren Ipsum wins award"
5 RTs, 13 likes
-
"SAY HER NAME, $NEWSORG"
___________________
"Woman wins award"
___________________
17,325 RTs, 64,523 Likes ... not saying her name seems to have become the best way to get people to know her name ... it might even make sense for a news org to have a critic on the payroll. "we'll tweet this, then you outrage-QT it"
but i'm guessing that's not even necessary, because lots of people are eager and willing to outrage-QT for free ... This whole state of affairs is clearly not in the public's best interest, but that is going to be very difficult to change, because ... What's wild is, the media is arguably the primary means by which the public *is* educated.
So what we have here is a case of a miseducated public further miseducating itself, via a process that is catalyzed by a misincentivized media
[Quote from @alaindebotton's book, News] ... Btw Matt Yglesias is a coward who consistently tweets terrible takes & then deletes his tweets afterwards. Every time I see him appear on my feed I am embarrassed for him. I've been procrastinating on this tweet, because it's not a nice thing to say about someone... but it's true ... Believe it or not when I was a kid I actually wanted to “work in the media”. It seemed like a noble profession. Like being a real-time librarian.
I feel like rule #1 of being a good “media person” is to keep meticulous, publicly accessible/verifiable records. Never delete ... Lol I made an unintentional typo and it’s a chance to demonstrate what I mean.
If you have tweeted something untrue, and it’s being spread, you can delete it - but screenshot first and explain why ... (I meant errenous, not strenuous. Lol at autocorrect)
If the public stopped paying attention to cowards with no intellectual integrity, it wouldn’t be necessary to call them out
Alas, the public (in aggregate) is an idiot. I’m sorry but it’s true ... This is a cute and wholesome version of this method in use ... Same tactic well-used to market a dating show ... all instances of male parenting will henceforth be described as babysitting ... 17. Indeed that’s the nature of the game at this point and there’s probably no turning back; if anything it’s going to get worse and everybody’s going to keep doing it more and more ... 18. holmes is not actually that interesting, but the media has to pretend that she is
anyway, this is clever marketing ... 19. lol ... 20. Optimising for engagement means filming and producing more train wrecks. The wreckage will continue to get more spectacular as time goes on ... 21. “Still feel average” ... 22. It’s funny to consider that commenters like this do it for free ... 23. perfect setup ... 24. SSC's Toxoplasma of Rage becomes more relevant with each passing day ... If you haven't read it, read it. The core, IMO: media environments are incentivized to find the most divisive issues possible, & get everyone to fight about it. Few talk about Vegan Outreach (very responsible, sensible charity), everyone talks about PETA ... 25. this dilemma is going to keep getting more intense and more pronounced. Bunch of people showing up in the replies to say "so?" "why does that matter?" – but it would never have gotten on their radar otherwise ... 26. “the shooter” ... 27. Pretending to discover Asian food (and then only mentioning midway in the video, and not at all in the tweet or headline) is a very reliable outrage generator ... 28. I wonder if the researchers were earnest? I think 70% chance they were. And I'm 99% sure whoever at WaPo published this, did so gleefully knowing that people would show up to fight in the replies and comments sections. ... 29. Every media org must now be hungrily hiring writers who can help them get ratio’d on demand ... 30.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
