Hacker News Reader

Comment by hux_ | Hacker News Reader

The news orgs have discovered placing 10th grade problem sets on the desks of 2nd graders is very lucrative.

It's what the Rush Limbaugh and Jon Oliver types do day in day out (and if you are observant with zero long term impact). All the news orgs are doing it too and they will never regain the trust they once had. Journalism was never about making people feel helpless. Today's journalism is about making people feel helpless for profit.

So my advice don't read stuff that's above your grade level.

View on HN

How does Oliver encourage helplessness? There's often a direct call-to-action at the end of particularly pointed segments, from contacting local representatives to the more frivolous hashtags for e.g. Phillip Morris. While I have issues with his style, the targets are usually well chosen.

With regards to your analogy...you would not have much luck encouraging a 2nd grader to improve their reading comprehension beyond 2nd grade by telling them to stick to a 2nd grade level of reading.

Oliver’s segments often climax with the host desperately sputtering “its 2016 for Christ sakes!!!” His whole brand is pessimistic cynicism.

The person you replied to gave 2 specific examples of Oliver making calls to action. If you're going to refute that point, you need to provide examples as well, not just vague assertions. Remember, the meat of Oliver's show is the 15-20 minute segment that is well researched, credits sources and contains a call to action at the end. The most famous example is probably Oliver's video about Net Neutrality 2 years ago galvanised support for it and is used even today to explain NN to laymen. Its absurd to claim that the show promotes cynicism when Oliver always exhorts his viewers to do _something_.

If you're objecting to a "its 2016!" at the end of a throwaway 30-second joke then you're being too sensitive IMO.

please - oliver is on the so-called-left end of the false dichotomy spectrum, whereas limbaugh is on the so-called-right end. both espouse a faux-popularism rooted in arguing against evil strawmen that lacks nuance and always slants towards greater centralized, large-entity control of society.

False equivalence. There's a legitimate argument that allowing one media group to stealthily control local media markets creates potential for mass misinformation. Or that allowing tobacco companies to litigate against entire nations health initiatives is a bad idea. Both are large entities wanting to steer society into alignment with their profit motive.

It's not nearly similar in lack of to calling women prostitutes and sluts for advocating that health insurance should cover female contraception. Or calling 13 years old girls, "dogs".

It's not to do with left and right. It's to do with a basic sense of civility.

>"It's what the Rush Limbaugh and Jon Oliver types do day in day out (and if you are observant with zero long term impact)."

Political satire is very different from actual news journalism. I'm not sure why you are conflating the two.

>"Today's journalism is about making people feel helpless for profit."

The news media selling anxiety and fear is not a recent development. There's even a very old newsrooms adage that states "If it bleeds it leads."

Very thoughtful comment, thank you. What do you refer to as „grade level“? Political knowledge, personal range of power, personal sense of empowerment, or psych. ability to deal with hardship?

It is probably a reference to nuance and the fact that the real world is complicated, with multiple competing interests and perspectives. Children learn history in lessons that often have an implicit good-guys/bad-guys story hidden beneath it, while educated adults tend to be able to handle stories that have fewer good guys and bad guys and mostly just a bunch of guys pursuing their own self-interest within a particular environment that provides a specific set of available options. The problem is that the latter sort of lessons involve more cognitive effort and do not lead you to easy answers that make you feel like you are a part of 'the good guys.' John Oliver, much like Rush Limbaugh, tells simple stories of the former variety; stripped of nuance and complications that are intended to lead the recipient to a specific and obvious solution or outcome.

I'd relate it to the strong emergence of rage politics. Rage seems to transmit and spread much faster than any other type of meme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

This sounds presumptuous to me. People sometimes think that their perspective is better/more mature/clever/correct, while it is just.. different. They divide people into levels/classes in order to put themselves into the highest class. Given the high complexity of the world, any model falls apart if you look at it hard enough.

As an avid listener to both, Limbaugh is quite a bit more manipulative. I say that as a life-long Republican.

Edit: I should add that Limbaugh demonstrates an ability to use logic and analyze topics that makes me think he is being intentionally deceitful, mostly by leaving out relevant facts.

I've always perceived how news outlets use fear for driving demand for more news, but this is the first time I read about them using helplessness, and it's intriguing.

And you sound like you have looked into this. Is there any relevant publication piece that goes deeper into this rationale?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com