Do candidates often get the same ego boost? Does receiving widespread coverage for saying egregious things in front of a microphone also feed a same need? Speech like calling people garbage, labeling them, such as Little Marco, low IQ, piggy, or speech like bragging “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters”. Is the end result of coverage on this similar?
Yes...you’re pointing at a real parallel...but the mechanism is similar...not identical, and the differences matter.
At the level of psychology...the ego reward loop is absolutely there. No question.
Widespread coverage for outrageous political speech can:
*Deliver instant recognition
*Signal dominance and power
*Reward norm-breaking
*Reinforce identity through attention
*Create a sense of invulnerability
So...in that sense, yes...media amplification can feed the same underlying need for validation and significance...that we see in other notoriety-driven behaviors.
Thank you, Tom. So tragic. And, while losing a loved one is always painful...when something like this happens two weeks before Christmas, and during the Holiday season...there is something even deeper that most family members and loved ones must process.
Michael...I agree...and think that frustration is understandable...AND widely shared.
And...let me offer this additional thought...about how and why that failure happened...because intention and structure aren’t the same thing.
Most of the damage hasn’t come from a coordinated effort to mislead or harm. It’s come from incentives that quietly drifted out of alignment...with the public good.
And, what is painfully clear...is that the consequences have been the same, no matter the reasons/incentives. No question about it.
Exactly, if I hear you right, incentives, as you note, that no longer are allow for a conscious consideration of where a said story will lead to the demise of the public good. We are certainly experiencing that across the expanse of our culture. Thanks for your staying power in the fray.
If only, Jack. I see the 24/7 "news" cycle as a detriment any way. This amplifies that. So very sad that the "news" megabusiness thinks only money and clicks are the answer. What the hell happened to moral clarity in this forsaken country?
Pamela...I don’t think moral clarity disappeared...I think it was priced out.
When news shifted from informing citizens...to capturing attention...the incentives changed. The 24/7 cycle didn’t just add noise...it eliminated reflection.
Outrage travels faster than nuance...and clicks became a proxy for truth.
Most people inside the system aren’t immoral...they’re constrained by a machine that punishes slowing down.
Clarity still exists.
It just no longer lives...where we were taught to expect it...sadly.
Mary E beat me to it. Yes...Return on investment. I actually had a fleeting thought...as I wrote that, "Maybe some people won't know what that means," but ignored it. I shouldn't have. ;)
Breaking News starting Broadcasts is a addicting when sold as news for clicks. All the urgent media blasts we are hearing as "just in" or "happening now" are way too frequent.
John Smith...you’re right...and that phrasing is doing real psychological work.
“Breaking News” used to mean something had genuinely changed the world. Now... it often just means something new exists...that can capture attention.
When everything is urgent...nothing actually is.
The constant “just in” framing...hijacks the stress response. It keeps people in a low-grade state of alert...which is addictive for clicks...but corrosive for judgment.
Over time...urgency becomes the product...not the information.
That frequency doesn’t inform...it conditions. And a conditioned audience is easier to manipulate...easier to exhaust...and harder to ground.
Real news still happens.
It’s the false emergency wrapping...that’s broken.
couldn't help but wonder if Trump gets the same thrill out of the attention he gets for saying horrible things about people and his outrageous orders etc. He stops the normal news cycle and watches the world watch him. This is one reason I've turned off the news on television. There is so much to report on here and internationally, but we get Trump almost all day long. I can't stand it.
I’m for the No-Notoriety repetition cycle. The Media should report the event factually with proper restraint. The media using these dramatic reports time and time again creates a vicious cycle of copycats.
In a similar fashion, I remember seeing the media helicopters following the OJ Simpson in the white Bronco chase. In the years to follow, at least around the Southern California area, the car chases by criminals or gang members became prevalent on the airwaves in part perhaps as an initiation rite or their 15-minutes claim of fame (“Look at me! I’m on tv!)
In short, the media needs to take some responsibility.
Jack, just before I read your piece I read one from People about the Australia mass murder. I swear they must have seen your article and followed it. Yes, the headline mentions the shooters, but not by name. The hero who jumped the one shooter and saved countless lives was named. The horror of the shooting was addressed, and then at the bottom of the article it mentions the murderers names, just once.
And both of them, father and son, should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Analysis right on the button! It’s a complicated subject, but you make so clear - and evidence-based - that anyone can follow it. And doesn’t apply only to the USA. And not only the Anglosphere. By any means. You do a great service
Recentering the narrative toward the aftermath with focus on what/who has been lost and methods of recovery would be so much more interesting to read about.
Do candidates often get the same ego boost? Does receiving widespread coverage for saying egregious things in front of a microphone also feed a same need? Speech like calling people garbage, labeling them, such as Little Marco, low IQ, piggy, or speech like bragging “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters”. Is the end result of coverage on this similar?
Mary E...that's a great question.
Yes...you’re pointing at a real parallel...but the mechanism is similar...not identical, and the differences matter.
At the level of psychology...the ego reward loop is absolutely there. No question.
Widespread coverage for outrageous political speech can:
*Deliver instant recognition
*Signal dominance and power
*Reward norm-breaking
*Reinforce identity through attention
*Create a sense of invulnerability
So...in that sense, yes...media amplification can feed the same underlying need for validation and significance...that we see in other notoriety-driven behaviors.
Again, great question, Mary.
-Jack
Thanks (again), Jack.
Thank You Jack, great job, hope it spreads far & wide….
Formidable reasoning Jack. Hope attention gets dialed down. Shootings are an epidemic.
Thank you, Tom. So tragic. And, while losing a loved one is always painful...when something like this happens two weeks before Christmas, and during the Holiday season...there is something even deeper that most family members and loved ones must process.
-Jack
I’m afraid getting the media to coordinate less attention might be just as difficult as firearm restriction.
I know there are some networks that will not name the person responsible so they do not reward them.
You are absolutely right, Dayna...and kudos to them. Thank you for pointing that out!
-Jack
As always you make me a better person and definitely better informed.
Deborah...that's such a kind thing to say. I appreciate that. Having you here...commenting and interacting...makes ME a better person.
-Jack
The media has not served the citizens of this country well, well meaning life enhancing ways for decades now.
Michael...I agree...and think that frustration is understandable...AND widely shared.
And...let me offer this additional thought...about how and why that failure happened...because intention and structure aren’t the same thing.
Most of the damage hasn’t come from a coordinated effort to mislead or harm. It’s come from incentives that quietly drifted out of alignment...with the public good.
And, what is painfully clear...is that the consequences have been the same, no matter the reasons/incentives. No question about it.
-Jack
Exactly, if I hear you right, incentives, as you note, that no longer are allow for a conscious consideration of where a said story will lead to the demise of the public good. We are certainly experiencing that across the expanse of our culture. Thanks for your staying power in the fray.
Egggzactly.
If only, Jack. I see the 24/7 "news" cycle as a detriment any way. This amplifies that. So very sad that the "news" megabusiness thinks only money and clicks are the answer. What the hell happened to moral clarity in this forsaken country?
Pamela...I don’t think moral clarity disappeared...I think it was priced out.
When news shifted from informing citizens...to capturing attention...the incentives changed. The 24/7 cycle didn’t just add noise...it eliminated reflection.
Outrage travels faster than nuance...and clicks became a proxy for truth.
Most people inside the system aren’t immoral...they’re constrained by a machine that punishes slowing down.
Clarity still exists.
It just no longer lives...where we were taught to expect it...sadly.
-Jack
I give up—what is ROÍ?
Mary E beat me to it. Yes...Return on investment. I actually had a fleeting thought...as I wrote that, "Maybe some people won't know what that means," but ignored it. I shouldn't have. ;)
-Jack
Thanks so much!! I love your column and even bought my husband a subscription for it.
Return on investment
Very insightful article. Hopefully we can find a way to move in this direction! #HoldFast
Thank you, Robert. #HoldFast...indeed!
-Jack
Multi-causal and media contagion.
Without question, Jane.
-Jack
Breaking News starting Broadcasts is a addicting when sold as news for clicks. All the urgent media blasts we are hearing as "just in" or "happening now" are way too frequent.
John Smith...you’re right...and that phrasing is doing real psychological work.
“Breaking News” used to mean something had genuinely changed the world. Now... it often just means something new exists...that can capture attention.
When everything is urgent...nothing actually is.
The constant “just in” framing...hijacks the stress response. It keeps people in a low-grade state of alert...which is addictive for clicks...but corrosive for judgment.
Over time...urgency becomes the product...not the information.
That frequency doesn’t inform...it conditions. And a conditioned audience is easier to manipulate...easier to exhaust...and harder to ground.
Real news still happens.
It’s the false emergency wrapping...that’s broken.
Great observation, John.
#HoldFast
-Jack
#HoldFast
couldn't help but wonder if Trump gets the same thrill out of the attention he gets for saying horrible things about people and his outrageous orders etc. He stops the normal news cycle and watches the world watch him. This is one reason I've turned off the news on television. There is so much to report on here and internationally, but we get Trump almost all day long. I can't stand it.
Wonderful and thoughtful article Jack
I’m for the No-Notoriety repetition cycle. The Media should report the event factually with proper restraint. The media using these dramatic reports time and time again creates a vicious cycle of copycats.
In a similar fashion, I remember seeing the media helicopters following the OJ Simpson in the white Bronco chase. In the years to follow, at least around the Southern California area, the car chases by criminals or gang members became prevalent on the airwaves in part perhaps as an initiation rite or their 15-minutes claim of fame (“Look at me! I’m on tv!)
In short, the media needs to take some responsibility.
Jack, just before I read your piece I read one from People about the Australia mass murder. I swear they must have seen your article and followed it. Yes, the headline mentions the shooters, but not by name. The hero who jumped the one shooter and saved countless lives was named. The horror of the shooting was addressed, and then at the bottom of the article it mentions the murderers names, just once.
And both of them, father and son, should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Sue
Analysis right on the button! It’s a complicated subject, but you make so clear - and evidence-based - that anyone can follow it. And doesn’t apply only to the USA. And not only the Anglosphere. By any means. You do a great service
Recentering the narrative toward the aftermath with focus on what/who has been lost and methods of recovery would be so much more interesting to read about.