The Village, Pt. 2: Changing Elite Opinion

by Nirmal Mankani :: Filed Under Media Issues :: January 14th, 2009 @ 4:30 pm EST

Here’s why it’s important to understand how “The Village” operates: When journalists define the consensus on a particular issue, that changes the costs and benefits for elites to support their preferred position. This in turn compels them to move toward that consensus position rather than acting on their principles.

In an ideal world, people who are correct about the implications of a public policy would be rewarded, and people who are wrong get penalized. Elites who correctly predicted the effects of the Iraq war, for example, would be booked as commentators on TV more often. The President-elect would value the advice of economists who had successfully predicted the financial crisis over the “serious” ones who got us into this mess. And the list goes on.

“The Village” describes what happens in reality — an environment where being misinformed, but adhering to the consensus of the group, is less costly than breaking from the herd. Consider an elite deciding whether to publicly oppose going to war with Iraq in 2002: Opposing the war meant being cast into what Daniel Hallin described as the “sphere of deviance,” which is what journalists perceive as the fringe of a public policy debate. On the other hand, staying silent or supporting the war meant avoiding being ostracized from the in-group. If the war turned out to be a bad idea, at least everyone was wrong together. In other words, even considering all of the possible outcomes of the Iraq war, “The Village” creates an atmosphere for elites where being wrong is less costly than being right, even when the person suspects their position is wrong. On Wall Street, similar group pressure discouraged people from acknowledging the housing bubble. Again, being wrong was less costly than breaking with the consensus opinion. This dynamic changes the tone of our public policy debates.

Initiatives like “Get Afghanistan Right” are effective because they challenge conventional wisdom by pointing out that dissenting views exist. Moving viewpoints from the “sphere of deviance” to the “sphere of legitimate debate”, or shifting the Overton window, can have a tremendous impact on public policy by lowering the cost for elites to change their publicly stated opinion. When elites move toward a consensus position it strengthens that consensus, causing a self-reinforcing loop. On issues where we don’t agree with journalist-created consensus, we need to break it.