[tonyz]

Continued from above...


As preference falsification takes over a society, the next step is denouncing alleged dissidents. Examining Stalin’s Soviet Union, Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski described the common survival strategy of talebearing. Spying on and reporting friends, neighbors, and co-workers was the path to rewards and material wealth.

One way or another, almost everyone took part in the punishment of other citizens. Individuals applauded speakers they disliked, joined organizations whose mission they opposed, ostracized dissidents they admired, and followed orders they considered nonsensical.

Preference falsification impoverished public discourse in the Soviet Union, leading to many systemic shortcomings. Unable to challenge the defects of communist central planning, citizens were stuck with shoddy goods, food shortages, and endless queues. It was hazardous to question the wisdom of a communist policy or to profess ignorance as to its rationale—for any hint of unorthodoxy could be interpreted as sedition.

According to a Cato Institute poll, 62 percent of Americans say that the current political climate prevents them from expressing their views. Majorities of Democrats (52 percent), independents (59 percent) and Republicans (77 percent) now self-censor. The only group where the majority did not feel pressured into silence were leftist Democrats. Another studyfound that the higher the level of education, the greater the self-censorship.

Moderates may be the worst off. Whereas the right wing and left wing can retreat to zones where their views are reinforced rather than vilified, moderates cannot. The moderate who rejects the dominant views of the Left and the Right is shouted down by both sides. For moderates, there exists no safe haven from the culture wars.

Infectious diseases can spread faster today than in the past because of better transportation and mobility. Likewise, availability cascades spread faster and wider because of improvements in communication. Part of the problem is social media’s utility for propagating half-truths and worse.

Availability cascades can only occur when an influence network exhibits a “critical mass” of early adopters. For an availability cascade to occur, a minimum number of individuals must first adopt it. Once this threshold is reached, the cascade becomes self-sustaining with more and more adopting it. Persons A and B declare support for a particular position. Person C disagrees but is worried about retaliation if he dissents; so, he pretends to agree with the position. Person D sees that C is going along, so D goes along too. As social media drives information flows and connects swaths of people, critical mass can be achieved much faster. Social media is a cascade builder.

Social media also allows unscrupulous organizations with small support to appear much larger than they really are. For example, former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson in her 2017 book explained how Media Matters, a left-wing pressure group, uses a tiny but incessant number of Twitter users to bombard corporations with messages that—to a naïve corporate public relations department—have the appearance of a large grassroots movement.

Cui bono?

In every industry and institution there exists a metagame: hidden yet fundamental strategies that confer success and strategic dominance. Those who win the metagame capitalize on knowledge of structural mechanisms and system-level quirks. They know how “the game” should be played.

To win the metagame one must ask the right questions. Those who aren’t playing the metagame ask the wrong questions.

When it comes to our divisive politics, those who aren’t playing the metagame ask: “why are we divided?” or “to what extent are we divided?” In contrast, persons cognizant of the metagame ask: “who benefits from this division?” The ones who foment political polarization are the ones who benefit from it. These are the actors who initiate availability cascades.

Social agents who understand, create, and exploit availability cascades are called availability entrepreneurs. Be they government officials, news anchors, or activists, availability entrepreneurs trigger cascades to advance their agendas.

While many entities benefit from political tribalism, the mainstream media often benefits the most. After all, it is the media that controls the availability of most information. The media are the masters of establishing social proofs, manipulating cognitive heuristics, and propagating black swan events as if they were the norm.

The economics of the news business have changed in ways that make the media less inclined to report the news, and more inclined to be availability entrepreneurs pushing one social panic after another.

Data show how media content has changed. In 2011, data researcher Kalev Leetaru measured the sentiment of every article published in the New York Times between 1947 and 2005 and an archive of translated broadcasts from 130 countries between 1979 and 2010. Leetaru found that the tone of the news sources became progressively negative over the decades, with an acute plunge into negativity starting in the late 1990s. Similarly, a Rand Corporation study of the presentation of news between 1989 and 2017 found that pre-2000 broadcasts used more precise language and relied on public sources of authority—whereas post-2000 broadcasts were awash with emotional language, unplanned speeches, and personal anecdotes. What explains the shift?

It is no coincidence that the media’s descent into negativity began in the late 1990s. The period marked the rise of the Web and birth of the online competitors that traditional media struggles against today. Sensational news captures the public’s attention and attracts far more readers and viewers than a dispassionate summary of statistics and a presentation of accurate information. The choice appeared simple: sensationalize or perish.

According to Pew, US newspaper circulation in 2018 was the lowest since 1940, with an estimated 28.6 million for weekday and 30.8 million for Sunday. Those numbers were down eight and nine percent, respectively, from the previous year, with revenue also falling 13 percent. From 2016 to 2017, the portion of Americans who relied on local TV for their news fell nine percentage points, from 46 to 37 percent. Moreover, the average audience fell in key time slots in 2018, down 10 and 14 percent for morning and late night news, respectively. According to Forbes, CNN’s total primetime audience was well under a million viewers (767,000) in 2019. For context, there are more sex workers in the United States than there are people who watch CNN primetime. Between 1994 and 2014, journalism shed over 20,000 jobs, a 39 percent decline.

At the same time, the portion of Americans who get their news online, either from news websites or social media, grew from 38 percent in 2016 to 43 percent in 2017. As of 2018, 24 percent of all media consumption in 2018 was mobile. Online advertising expenditure surpassed TV ad spending for the first time in 2017.

The technological pressure exerted on traditional media drives negative reportage as a means of maintaining a shrinking market share. Very few media in the United States have ever been able to break even just on subscriptions; the media have always depended on advertising revenue. Gone are the days when a general circulation daily newspaper could sell dozens of pages of advertising in every issue.

So as general audiences decline, and the remaining audience becomes more digital and thus easier to quantify, the ratings and clicks become more important than ever. A journalist can produce a well-researched story with accurate data about gun crime in the US past and present. Another journalist can write a hysterical story designed to terrify readers. Which one gets more clicks?