[aldous]

Yes, indeed the genius of spreading propaganda this way is that it is often disseminated through personal networks, increasing its potency as a wealth of cognitive biases come into play. And how on earth can these campaigns be mitigated? The buffer of ‘mainstream media’ no longer appears to exists as it once did with the concept of ‘fake news’ etc very effectively delegitimising the concept of a reliable resource for information. The smartphone mightier than the sword. Weird isn’t it looking back on those halcyon days of early FB/Twitter? But on reflection, it’s totally logical that social platforms would ultimately end up being leveraged in this way.

[mieseratte]

> the concept of ‘fake news’ etc very effectively delegitimising the concept of a reliable resource for information.

I'd say the mainstream media and their talking-head opinion-pieces masquerading as news did as much if not more to hurt their image. This would be a much less pernicious problem in a world of genuine, balanced reporting.

[dfxm12]

I'd say the mainstream media and their talking-head opinion-pieces masquerading as news did as much if not more to hurt their image.

I don't think mainstream media masquerades opinion pieces as news. I think the public at large, vis-a-vis confirmation bias, just wants to believe anything they agree with is true and miscategorizes these stories on their own.

The Economist, CNN, MSNBC, NPR at least are all clear about what's news and what's opinion.

[mieseratte]

> just wants to believe anything they agree with is true and miscategorizes these stories on their own.

I implore you, go sample "news" segments from major sources (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) on a topic you are intimately familiar with. You'll quickly realize these mouth-pieces are spreading FUD to acquire more eyeballs and ad dollars.

> The Economist, CNN, MSNBC, NPR at least are all clear about what's news and what's opinion.

MSNBC, and to a perhaps lesser extent CNN are hysterically bad.

I had the pleasure of catching a few hours of primetime "coverage" on MSNBC last month and the talking heads were shrieking about some Federal department spending $1,500 on ten pairs of "tactical pants" for security officers. Well, go price some "tactical pants" from 5.11[0], a well known, reasonable brand, and you'll quickly see it's a fairly reasonable sum. Hell, ten pairs of decent Carhartts will set you back a similar sum. Yet the opinion-as-news talking-heads spent 15+ minutes railing on it as obvious corruption and frivolity of the current administration.

This is what passes for news. They're a bad joke.

[0] - https://www.511tactical.com/mens-professional.html

[dfxm12]

Is this the story you're talking about? https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/why-did-scott-pruitt-spen...

Where the talking head concedes the pants were apparently sensible?

[mieseratte]

There were actually multiple talking-heads / segments, with the linked video being the final one. It started with a woman with short-hard (Maddow?) and transitioned to that man.

The video you linked proceeds to list random Twitter users' jokes about tactical pants, e.g. "Chuck Norris Action Jeans" or how one might need the pants to sleep on a used Trump mattress. One would be mistaken for thinking this is Comedy Central's latest political comedy show and not "reputable" news.

> Where the talking head concedes the pants were apparently sensible?

Yes, after spending much time mocking the purchase the video concedes the purchase was perfectly normal (it was actually 40 pairs of pants at roughly $40 per pair.)

So why spend time and effort reporting a non-story on a mainstream "news" channel? It seems they are trying to fill the spot the Colbert Report vacated.

[frockington]

I believe the incentive to maximize clicks and/or views caused a short term spike in profits at the expense of long term integrity. I doubt it is permanent but the next few years will be difficult for media establishments when they need to restablish trust

[chrisallenlane]

> I doubt it is permanent but the next few years will be difficult for media establishments when they need to restablish trust

Why do you doubt it is permanent? I'm personally very pessimistic about this.

[CM30]

Especially true in the UK, where the newspapers are dire and the media has ignored any sense of ethics or accuracy in exchange for pandering to their individual echo chambers. If your standard for journalism (for many people) is the Daily Mail or the Sun or the Daily Mirror, is there really a huge difference between that and the fake news and outrage driven clickbait seen on social media?

Even the more upmarket ones like the Guardian and Telegraph pander to their audience and twist stories to fit political slants...

[mc32]

The traditional MSM used to have a particular perspective. CBS, NBC, CNN, Time all had perspectives. That’s to say saw something from a given POV, but they were not “mouthpieces” masquerading as news, back then. Now they all pretty much take sides rather than just have a particular perspective.

[slededit]

For anyone that wants to understand this, listen to some old broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow on the internet archive. https://archive.org/details/SeeItNow1951

He has an opinion and he shares it. But he will let the other side talk. In his famous fight with Senator McCarthy he gave him a whole episode to tell his side, never interrupting.