• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Outrage Epidemic: How the New Information Landscape Fuels Tribalism

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,686
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
Very insightful article and podcast by the economist Russ Roberts.

Some excerpts:

The political atmosphere in America seem to have deteriorated a lot in the last few years. A lot of yelling. A lot of arrogance and overconfidence. A lot of trusting of stories that confirm what we already believe as opposed to stories that challenge what we only think we know. And a lot of trusting of stories that are literally not true.

People don’t just disagree with each other. They can’t imagine how a decent human being could disagree with their view of immigration or the minimum wage or President Trump.

...

It’s related to tribalism — our desire to join together with people and be part of something larger than ourselves — our embrace of religion, sports, politics. Tribalism is very old. Probably embedded in our DNA. So what has changed?

What has changed is our ability to feed and indulge our tribalism, particularly with news and politics. This new-found ability is the result of the transformation of the news and information landscape. It began with cable news. The internet has taken it to a new level.

...

Think of news and information as a buffet.

In the old days, the news buffet came from three suppliers — ABC, NBC, CBS and maybe your local newspaper. It was a pretty cushy environment for the networks. They jockeyed for market share but they all had a pretty good deal. Bland was the order of they day.

They served the informational equivalent of meat and potatoes. There was some variation but not much. Each station pretty much served up the same meat and the same potatoes. Oh, maybe one had french fries while the other had baked potatoes and the third had hash browns. But it was just potatoes. And it was only open a few hours a day.

When there’s only one television in the house, quality tends toward the lowest common denominator. Carving out a niche for programming that only a minority wants to watch isn’t profitable. Carving out a niche that a minority doesn’t want to watch is also unprofitable. They’ll veto that channel in a house with only one television. But as America got richer and televisions became cheaper, suddenly there’s an opportunity to customize.

That let cable create a lot more variation. You could have Fox News and MSNBC. You could have fish. And even some tofu. They were open pretty much all day.

And when the internet comes along and everyone has a smartphone, everyone watches what they want to watch and the world gets a lot more interesting. With Twitter and Facebook there’s ethnic food and fancy cuisine and diner food and paleo and even some crazy stuff on the edges, the news equivalent of chocolate covered locusts. You can go back for more any time you like.

The news business suddenly became very challenging. It suddenly became a lot harder to make money. The organizations that figured out how to make money survived. A lot of newspapers didn’t. A lot of news sites on the internet struggled to pay their bills. There was a big shakeout that’s still going on. But one thing is very clear. Traffic is crucial. Visitors, eyeballs, attention are all scarce. Getting more of them helps pay those bills.

That’s the obvious part. Here’s the not so obvious part. When it’s a giant buffet with competitors all over the place and people able to customize what they see and read, the providers are going to change what they serve.

The providers are going to change what they serve.

The competition is fierce to get the viewer’s attention. There’s an increased urgency to give the viewer what the viewer wants. If you do what you’ve always done, you probably don’t survive. Nobody wants the same well-done steak and the over-cooked mashed potatoes anymore. Viewers put up with it when they had to. Now they don’t have to. So if you’re a news organization and you want to stay alive, you have to attract more viewers, more attention.

And that leads to some strange dynamics.

Who is CNN’s biggest competitor? You’d think that would be Fox News. But their competition is really MSNBC and the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos and people on twitter who give people what they want. People and sites that cater to those who lean to the left. The biggest competitor of Fox News isn’t CNN — it’s Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh and sites that cater to the right.

To get more views, you need to be a little bit louder in favor of the home team and a little less nuanced. You can’t just politely disagree with the other tribe. You need to vilify them. Outrage sells when competition is this intense.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/i-cant-hear-you-e7a218831f07

He also did an hour long podcast to elaborate on these points with some proposed modest solutions.

http://www.econtalk.org/russ-roberts-on-the-information-revolution-politics-yeats-and-yelling/

It is a difficult problem to face with no good solution. Government certainly isn't the answer (the elected officials are partly a result of this phenomenon, so it would be dangerous and counter productive to entrust those who got in power to change the system to reduce the ability of people like them to get elected, not to mention first amendment/free speech issues).
 
Very insightful article and podcast by the economist Russ Roberts.

Some excerpts:

The political atmosphere in America seem to have deteriorated a lot in the last few years. A lot of yelling. A lot of arrogance and overconfidence. A lot of trusting of stories that confirm what we already believe as opposed to stories that challenge what we only think we know. And a lot of trusting of stories that are literally not true.

People don’t just disagree with each other. They can’t imagine how a decent human being could disagree with their view of immigration or the minimum wage or President Trump.

...

It’s related to tribalism — our desire to join together with people and be part of something larger than ourselves — our embrace of religion, sports, politics. Tribalism is very old. Probably embedded in our DNA. So what has changed?

What has changed is our ability to feed and indulge our tribalism, particularly with news and politics. This new-found ability is the result of the transformation of the news and information landscape. It began with cable news. The internet has taken it to a new level.

...

Think of news and information as a buffet.

In the old days, the news buffet came from three suppliers — ABC, NBC, CBS and maybe your local newspaper. It was a pretty cushy environment for the networks. They jockeyed for market share but they all had a pretty good deal. Bland was the order of they day.

They served the informational equivalent of meat and potatoes. There was some variation but not much. Each station pretty much served up the same meat and the same potatoes. Oh, maybe one had french fries while the other had baked potatoes and the third had hash browns. But it was just potatoes. And it was only open a few hours a day.

When there’s only one television in the house, quality tends toward the lowest common denominator. Carving out a niche for programming that only a minority wants to watch isn’t profitable. Carving out a niche that a minority doesn’t want to watch is also unprofitable. They’ll veto that channel in a house with only one television. But as America got richer and televisions became cheaper, suddenly there’s an opportunity to customize.

That let cable create a lot more variation. You could have Fox News and MSNBC. You could have fish. And even some tofu. They were open pretty much all day.

And when the internet comes along and everyone has a smartphone, everyone watches what they want to watch and the world gets a lot more interesting. With Twitter and Facebook there’s ethnic food and fancy cuisine and diner food and paleo and even some crazy stuff on the edges, the news equivalent of chocolate covered locusts. You can go back for more any time you like.

The news business suddenly became very challenging. It suddenly became a lot harder to make money. The organizations that figured out how to make money survived. A lot of newspapers didn’t. A lot of news sites on the internet struggled to pay their bills. There was a big shakeout that’s still going on. But one thing is very clear. Traffic is crucial. Visitors, eyeballs, attention are all scarce. Getting more of them helps pay those bills.

That’s the obvious part. Here’s the not so obvious part. When it’s a giant buffet with competitors all over the place and people able to customize what they see and read, the providers are going to change what they serve.

The providers are going to change what they serve.

The competition is fierce to get the viewer’s attention. There’s an increased urgency to give the viewer what the viewer wants. If you do what you’ve always done, you probably don’t survive. Nobody wants the same well-done steak and the over-cooked mashed potatoes anymore. Viewers put up with it when they had to. Now they don’t have to. So if you’re a news organization and you want to stay alive, you have to attract more viewers, more attention.

And that leads to some strange dynamics.

Who is CNN’s biggest competitor? You’d think that would be Fox News. But their competition is really MSNBC and the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos and people on twitter who give people what they want. People and sites that cater to those who lean to the left. The biggest competitor of Fox News isn’t CNN — it’s Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh and sites that cater to the right.

To get more views, you need to be a little bit louder in favor of the home team and a little less nuanced. You can’t just politely disagree with the other tribe. You need to vilify them. Outrage sells when competition is this intense.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/i-cant-hear-you-e7a218831f07

He also did an hour long podcast to elaborate on these points with some proposed modest solutions.

http://www.econtalk.org/russ-roberts-on-the-information-revolution-politics-yeats-and-yelling/

It is a difficult problem to face with no good solution. Government certainly isn't the answer (the elected officials are partly a result of this phenomenon, so it would be dangerous and counter productive to entrust those who got in power to change the system to reduce the ability of people like them to get elected, not to mention first amendment/free speech issues).
The trouble really started when the right-wing's AM media empire convinced enough people that the truth was biased.
 
I suspect that there is pleasure in outrage. See it right here on this board. Someone posts an item and "OMFG can you believe this"? Hoping to get others to chime in, "I know, those people are @#%&!." But the endorphins really flow when someone with a different opinion joins in. That guy. Man, like a synapse orgasm. Chasing that outrage high.
 
I was livid with moral outrage when I saw the OP title.I am trembling with righteous indignation. I can do at least 20 posts restating my outrage, and that is just today. Feel me dude?

God I feel fucking great now. I need to find more things to get outraged over, maybe I'll make something up.

CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are riddled with righteous indignation and moral posturing. It attracts viewers. Misery loves company.
 
I suspect that there is pleasure in outrage. See it right here on this board. Someone posts an item and "OMFG can you believe this"? Hoping to get others to chime in, "I know, those people are @#%&!." But the endorphins really flow when someone with a different opinion joins in. That guy. Man, like a synapse orgasm. Chasing that outrage high.

I think more of a dopamine hit than endorphins. Dopamine from pattern recognition and confirmation. It does not matter if the recognition is accurate, as long as you think it is you get the hit. The hit needs to be protected and perception will be warped to achieve that.

The "aha, it was group A which did act X!!!!" addiction. Despite that groups A, B and C all do act X (as well as acts Y and Z that may be the opposite of X).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098533/

https://www.google.com/search?q=confirmation+bias+dopamine&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS776US776&oq=comfirmation+bias+dopamine&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7420j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Makes me wonder if compulsive gamblers are more likely to be conspiracy kooks.
 
Last edited:
Very insightful article and podcast by the economist Russ Roberts.

Some excerpts:

<snip>​

The providers are going to change what they serve.

The competition is fierce to get the viewer’s attention. There’s an increased urgency to give the viewer what the viewer wants. If you do what you’ve always done, you probably don’t survive. Nobody wants the same well-done steak and the over-cooked mashed potatoes anymore. Viewers put up with it when they had to. Now they don’t have to. So if you’re a news organization and you want to stay alive, you have to attract more viewers, more attention.

And that leads to some strange dynamic ...

... To get more views, you need to be a little bit louder in favor of the home team and a little less nuanced. You can’t just politely disagree with the other tribe. You need to vilify them. Outrage sells when competition is this intense.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/i-cant-hear-you-e7a218831f07

He also did an hour long podcast to elaborate on these points with some proposed modest solutions.

http://www.econtalk.org/russ-roberts-on-the-information-revolution-politics-yeats-and-yelling/

It is a difficult problem to face with no good solution. The government certainly isn't the answer (the elected officials are partly a result of this phenomenon, so it would be dangerous and counterproductive to entrust those who got in power to change the system to reduce the ability of people like them to get elected, not to mention first amendment/free speech issues).

I am sorry, but the article is a case of belaboring the obvious. (I am not hearing well enough today. I didn't try to listen to the podcast.) And there is nothing new here looking at American history. If anything the bland, middle of the road of TV news for the twenty or thirty years of its prominence was the anomaly, not the recent partisanship.

The newspapers have always been used by the establishment to push their politics. Conservatives have always needed the lies that they need to believe that the status quo isn't causing the social and economic problems that it is actually causing. Both conservatives and liberals need to be fed with the reasons that they are being disadvantaged and persecuted for their political views.

As an economist, I am surprised that he didn't raise the obvious point that what changed TV news the most was when it transitioned from an obligation that the broadcasters had to meet to payback their use of the common radio and TV spectrum into profit-making entertainment. This was another really bad idea from your beloved neoliberals and free-market cultists.

Once again, profits and markets are not the best way to do everything.
 
Very insightful article and podcast by the economist Russ Roberts.

Some excerpts:

<snip>​

The providers are going to change what they serve.

The competition is fierce to get the viewer’s attention. There’s an increased urgency to give the viewer what the viewer wants. If you do what you’ve always done, you probably don’t survive. Nobody wants the same well-done steak and the over-cooked mashed potatoes anymore. Viewers put up with it when they had to. Now they don’t have to. So if you’re a news organization and you want to stay alive, you have to attract more viewers, more attention.

And that leads to some strange dynamic ...

... To get more views, you need to be a little bit louder in favor of the home team and a little less nuanced. You can’t just politely disagree with the other tribe. You need to vilify them. Outrage sells when competition is this intense.

https://medium.com/@russroberts/i-cant-hear-you-e7a218831f07

He also did an hour long podcast to elaborate on these points with some proposed modest solutions.

http://www.econtalk.org/russ-roberts-on-the-information-revolution-politics-yeats-and-yelling/

It is a difficult problem to face with no good solution. The government certainly isn't the answer (the elected officials are partly a result of this phenomenon, so it would be dangerous and counterproductive to entrust those who got in power to change the system to reduce the ability of people like them to get elected, not to mention first amendment/free speech issues).

I am sorry, but the article is a case of belaboring the obvious. (I am not hearing well enough today. I didn't try to listen to the podcast.) And there is nothing new here looking at American history. If anything the bland, middle of the road of TV news for the twenty or thirty years of its prominence was the anomaly, not the recent partisanship.

The newspapers have always been used by the establishment to push their politics. Conservatives have always needed the lies that they need to believe that the status quo isn't causing the social and economic problems that it is actually causing. Both conservatives and liberals need to be fed with the reasons that they are being disadvantaged and persecuted for their political views.

As an economist, I am surprised that he didn't raise the obvious point that what changed TV news the most was when it transitioned from an obligation that the broadcasters had to meet to payback their use of the common radio and TV spectrum into profit-making entertainment. This was another really bad idea from your beloved neoliberals and free-market cultists.

Once again, profits and markets are not the best way to do everything.
Agreed, once cable news started, that just started a ball rolling to kill legit news coverage.

So a two pronged fucking of news in the US... the right-wing AM media empire convincing people facts are biased and cable.
 
Back
Top Bottom