Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media.

While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc.

Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.




> Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.

We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn.

If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable.

But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates.

Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again.

The result is a loss of trust.

What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: