I came across an article which tries to explain why the majority of the media seems to move in lock step often in spire of evidence that they may be wrong. From this perspective it is more about social pressure and perhaps insecurity of the media members themselves.
I not sure I buy all of his conclusions but it does go a long way toward explaining why mainstream media seems to underreport things which go against the current “mainstream” narratives. Social pressure it seems, trumps the requirement of accurate reporting – something we have been missing for a decade or more now.
Below is a summary of the article and you can see the whole thing here
Why the Media Moves in Unison
The media often appears to move in unison on certain topics, not because of any centralized directive or conspiracy, but due to social pressures that influence journalists’ decisions. Yascha Mounk argues that this phenomenon stems from a deep-seated human need for social approval, which can trump other motivations like the pursuit of truth or professional success.
Mounk highlights the case of the COVID-19 lab leak theory to illustrate his point. Initially dismissed as a conspiracy, the theory later gained traction and was eventually covered seriously by mainstream media. This sudden shift, Mounk suggests, was not due to new evidence alone but was also influenced by the social dynamics within the media industry. Journalists, like anyone else, are part of social circles where certain views are acceptable, and others are not. Expressing a viewpoint that is taboo within these circles can lead to social ostracism or professional setbacks, which most journalists are keen to avoid.
This desire to fit in socially leads to what Mounk calls “dinner partyism,” where journalists are more concerned with avoiding awkward questions at social events than with challenging prevailing narratives. This can create an environment where media outlets reinforce each other’s biases and avoid covering certain topics until it becomes socially acceptable to do so. Once a critical mass of journalists begins to break from the consensus, others follow suit, leading to a rapid shift in the media’s stance on an issue.
Mounk’s analysis draws on the work of economist Timur Kuran, who has explored how “preference falsification”—where individuals hide their true beliefs to avoid social penalties—can lead to sudden and unexpected changes in public opinion. In the context of the media, journalists may privately doubt the dominant narrative but refrain from expressing those doubts publicly until it becomes safe to do so. This dynamic can explain why the media often seems to change its tune on major issues abruptly.
The social pressures that drive media conformity are amplified by the concentration of journalists in major cities like New York and Washington, D.C., where they are more likely to interact with each other and share similar social circles. This creates an echo chamber effect, where certain viewpoints are reinforced, and others are marginalized, not because of any explicit coordination, but because of the implicit social norms that govern these communities.
In conclusion, the media’s tendency to move in unison on certain issues is not the result of a grand conspiracy but is driven by the same social forces that influence behavior in any other group. Journalists, like everyone else, seek social approval and fear social ostracism, leading them to conform to the prevailing views within their social circles.
