"[T]his is exactly how a complicated regulatory issue gets flattened into a moral cartoon...instead of explaining this crucial context, they frame everything like a morality play."
Bravo. I can't think of a better encapsulation of today's Media Industrial Complex. Just think: if the news is fake, imagine history!
Munger's line is a driving force in ways people just don't realize. I've watched it happen countless times — am watching it now in the American workplace — and we understand that people are both rational and incentive-driven.
Related: A company I worked at a decade or so ago — name redacted — went to an exec and said "you need to lay off a bunch of people so we can make numbers." He refused on moral grounds. They went back to him again, but stated it a different way: "If you want to keep your job and get your bonus next year, you need to lay off a bunch of people."
We know how it ended.
We were incentivized for a long time to "go electric." It was long enough for Tesla to establish dominance. But it wasn't long enough for the rest of the auto industry, and Trump came in and nixed the necessary regulations to get back to some sense in the industry.
Excellent breakdown of how incentive structures get ignored in favor of moral narratives. The footprint-based CAFE formula is textbook Goodhart's Law,where optimizing for a metric instead of the goal makes the metric useless. Automakers aren't villains, they're just responding rationally to poorly designed regulations that literaly reward making bigger vehicles. Most people dunno these mechanicsc exist.
Appreciate you. And it's all connected. As you've noted in previous Stack's, the dumbing down of media formats and the media consumption conditioning (indoctrination) that many of us (myself included in some cases) have succumbed to — i.e., consuming short 60-second—or less—clips as gospel—perpetuates this madness. The algorithm's Machiavellian support is so vicious that I've witnessed the unhinging of people in the most surprising ways. I hope that people will wake up and pursue the whole story and return to a place of attention that pays respect to the discernment of information and the ability to think for ourselves. In many moments, though, I find myself feeling like Pandora's box has been opened in a way that has unleashed a new set of circumstances that is bigger than us collectively. And so, I'll be responsible for my own little sphere, stay connected to the ground, and do my best to model the behavior I wished I saw more of :) Thanks for this Stack, buddy.
I'm not going to do in depth debating your general theme, but I will point out that you're doing exactly what you claim the media is out - outraging instead of informing.
1. You have a splashy headline, which generalizes from a few articles onto the entire media.
2. You point out the article doesn't include details on the CAFE standards, which is true because articles aren't long enough to include everything! The CAFE standards system hasn't changed in years, but what is changing is the fuel efficiency bar for cars which is what the story is about. It also didn't cover improvements in catalytic converters, etc.
3. You generalize, without evidence, into how an entire industry operates to make a point.
So, either this format is fine or it's not. Can't be both.
Well - the only reason someone would be outraged at this piece is because they want the media to do better. I can understand that. But it's not exactly new so there's no fresh wounds here, it's the water in which we swim.
Also a key distinction: I’m not reacting to the policy itself with moral claims or emotional certainty. I’m critiquing a framing pattern and pointing to a specific mechanism that repeatedly goes unmentioned. It's just analysis, even if it’s uncomfortable. Tone alone isn’t what separates informing from priming, intent and content matter too.
To add to your specific comments, which are good, let's discuss them:
1. I’m describing a formula that shows up across many outlets and ideologies (MSNBC, FOX, tech media, smaller sites). Obviously not everyone, and not all the time, but it’s common enough to be recognizable. Multiple large-scale studies have shown that moralized and anger-driven framing spreads meaningfully faster than neutral or explanatory content - much of the media simply optimizes for this. "If it bleeds it leads" for our tribal times.
2. I agree articles have length constraints. But linking to prior coverage or background is a deliberate editorial choice, and modern media, even tech platforms, routinely strip context instead of adding it. That omission matters when the missing context is the mechanism that explains the outcome. V easy to add links.
3. I’m not claiming every journalist or outlet operates this way universally. I’m pointing out a recurring pattern you can see regularly once you look for it.
I also regularly share and link to examples of good reporting, too, by the way. I love media professionals who don't engage in this sort of thing, and even sponsor them and vote with my ad (and subscription) dollars. The blogosphere has become a healthy check on these things, I think.
"[T]his is exactly how a complicated regulatory issue gets flattened into a moral cartoon...instead of explaining this crucial context, they frame everything like a morality play."
Bravo. I can't think of a better encapsulation of today's Media Industrial Complex. Just think: if the news is fake, imagine history!
This is gosh-darn brilliant.
Munger's line is a driving force in ways people just don't realize. I've watched it happen countless times — am watching it now in the American workplace — and we understand that people are both rational and incentive-driven.
Related: A company I worked at a decade or so ago — name redacted — went to an exec and said "you need to lay off a bunch of people so we can make numbers." He refused on moral grounds. They went back to him again, but stated it a different way: "If you want to keep your job and get your bonus next year, you need to lay off a bunch of people."
We know how it ended.
We were incentivized for a long time to "go electric." It was long enough for Tesla to establish dominance. But it wasn't long enough for the rest of the auto industry, and Trump came in and nixed the necessary regulations to get back to some sense in the industry.
Excellent breakdown of how incentive structures get ignored in favor of moral narratives. The footprint-based CAFE formula is textbook Goodhart's Law,where optimizing for a metric instead of the goal makes the metric useless. Automakers aren't villains, they're just responding rationally to poorly designed regulations that literaly reward making bigger vehicles. Most people dunno these mechanicsc exist.
What you detail here is why trust in the media is in the dumper because people are finally waking up to it. Good stuff.
Appreciate you. And it's all connected. As you've noted in previous Stack's, the dumbing down of media formats and the media consumption conditioning (indoctrination) that many of us (myself included in some cases) have succumbed to — i.e., consuming short 60-second—or less—clips as gospel—perpetuates this madness. The algorithm's Machiavellian support is so vicious that I've witnessed the unhinging of people in the most surprising ways. I hope that people will wake up and pursue the whole story and return to a place of attention that pays respect to the discernment of information and the ability to think for ourselves. In many moments, though, I find myself feeling like Pandora's box has been opened in a way that has unleashed a new set of circumstances that is bigger than us collectively. And so, I'll be responsible for my own little sphere, stay connected to the ground, and do my best to model the behavior I wished I saw more of :) Thanks for this Stack, buddy.
Thanks Lisa, and well said here
I'm not going to do in depth debating your general theme, but I will point out that you're doing exactly what you claim the media is out - outraging instead of informing.
1. You have a splashy headline, which generalizes from a few articles onto the entire media.
2. You point out the article doesn't include details on the CAFE standards, which is true because articles aren't long enough to include everything! The CAFE standards system hasn't changed in years, but what is changing is the fuel efficiency bar for cars which is what the story is about. It also didn't cover improvements in catalytic converters, etc.
3. You generalize, without evidence, into how an entire industry operates to make a point.
So, either this format is fine or it's not. Can't be both.
Well - the only reason someone would be outraged at this piece is because they want the media to do better. I can understand that. But it's not exactly new so there's no fresh wounds here, it's the water in which we swim.
Also a key distinction: I’m not reacting to the policy itself with moral claims or emotional certainty. I’m critiquing a framing pattern and pointing to a specific mechanism that repeatedly goes unmentioned. It's just analysis, even if it’s uncomfortable. Tone alone isn’t what separates informing from priming, intent and content matter too.
To add to your specific comments, which are good, let's discuss them:
1. I’m describing a formula that shows up across many outlets and ideologies (MSNBC, FOX, tech media, smaller sites). Obviously not everyone, and not all the time, but it’s common enough to be recognizable. Multiple large-scale studies have shown that moralized and anger-driven framing spreads meaningfully faster than neutral or explanatory content - much of the media simply optimizes for this. "If it bleeds it leads" for our tribal times.
2. I agree articles have length constraints. But linking to prior coverage or background is a deliberate editorial choice, and modern media, even tech platforms, routinely strip context instead of adding it. That omission matters when the missing context is the mechanism that explains the outcome. V easy to add links.
3. I’m not claiming every journalist or outlet operates this way universally. I’m pointing out a recurring pattern you can see regularly once you look for it.
I also regularly share and link to examples of good reporting, too, by the way. I love media professionals who don't engage in this sort of thing, and even sponsor them and vote with my ad (and subscription) dollars. The blogosphere has become a healthy check on these things, I think.