I think Dr. Malone had it right. Its "collective" (group/herd) thinking vs "individual" thinking.
WaPo and NYT deliberately set out to reinforce and reward (with ego strokes and reassurances) the folks that remain in the herd. I'm guessing that helps retain readers, who may have a greater psychological need for stroking and reassurance.…
I think Dr. Malone had it right. Its "collective" (group/herd) thinking vs "individual" thinking.
WaPo and NYT deliberately set out to reinforce and reward (with ego strokes and reassurances) the folks that remain in the herd. I'm guessing that helps retain readers, who may have a greater psychological need for stroking and reassurance. Possibly as a result of all that free-floating anxiety? "Read WAPO and we'll tell you just how right and good a person you are. There. Doesn't that feel better?"
Although the deaths from the shot (are we on booster #5 yet?) in this group is probably higher than the average, so at some point, killing or injuring your readership will end up backfiring. But that's probably a year or so in the future.
I think Dr. Malone had it right. Its "collective" (group/herd) thinking vs "individual" thinking.
WaPo and NYT deliberately set out to reinforce and reward (with ego strokes and reassurances) the folks that remain in the herd. I'm guessing that helps retain readers, who may have a greater psychological need for stroking and reassurance. Possibly as a result of all that free-floating anxiety? "Read WAPO and we'll tell you just how right and good a person you are. There. Doesn't that feel better?"
Although the deaths from the shot (are we on booster #5 yet?) in this group is probably higher than the average, so at some point, killing or injuring your readership will end up backfiring. But that's probably a year or so in the future.
Maybe the CEO's have been promised a fleet of personal jets and an island or two by the time most of their readers have died.