That's one crowd. The bias also impacts on other crowds. That's what advertising is for.
16 Jan 2024
346
-
I think that is ‘old rules’ thinking. Y’know, if it’s about a Bush or a Romney doing standard Republican shit but with an air of deniability so that people open to persuasion can go either way. Is anyone voting for Trump really unaware of what he is and what the project is?
The other crowd has to know what Trump is, even if they’re not getting the full picture. SURELY?
-
I think you are giving people far too much credit for understanding stuff.
-
You may be falling into the old 'everyone thinks like me' trap. The reality is that we are all wired up differently, and environmental factors mean that we all address our attention towards different things, and differently. It's, as so often, a bell (end) curve. Those who look at it clearly might very will love it or hate it in a very binary way...and you are not going to change that opinion. But there are loads of people, at either ends of the curves (level of analysis, understanding, engagement) who can be swayed by messaging. 'They're all the same', and 'Sleepy Joe Biden can't hold a thought' can do enough not getting people to vote, that the percentage of nutters becomes more significant and allows fascism to triumph over democracy.
For me the question isn't whether biased coverage can affect opinion. It's why that bias exists, and isn't called out. Why isn't the objective truth actually addressed? That's because of the way that I'm wired...not getting why other people don't apply critical thinking to the issues. Progress depends on the unreasonable man. The reality is that relatively few people are wired unreasonably. Socialisation means that for collaboration to exist on a mass scale, most people are wired to accept orthodoxy and conform to 'normal' behaviours.
People don't like to confront an uncomfortable viewpoint that challenges their orthodoxy. This is definitely being exploited by the cynically unreasonable who can utilise that conformance to gain advantage.
We are not all the same, any more than politicians are.
-
No, clearly they do not.
That seems pretty circular. Yes, the problems with non-MAGA media are rife and the reasons for it run deep. It’s not like they’re not telling people enough about what MAGA is all about, but they certainly seem to enjoy the whole show far too much. Just like with grifters like Farage and Johnson. Great for the people involved because they’re pretty insulated from it all so, at the end of the day, they’re happy to sit and chug popcorn while the world burns. They’re not exactly going to come out and tell everyone why they are bad at their job though, right?
So is it about affecting opinion or isn’t it? And how the fuck do you get the people who are sufficiently unengaged with it all to be able to be swayed to go three levels deeper and engage with the structural issues of the media that sways them? Obviously you can’t, they are always going to be consumers of what is easily available.. so if it’s going to change it’s from getting people who are engaged in it all to look at the root problems and do something about them. And they are trying.. but they aren’t going on CNN or writing for The Washington Post.. by definition. So they are nowhere near your swayables. They are irrelevant as a media force, but tens of thousands of people.. maybe hundreds of thousands.. will be making calls and knocking on the doors of the persuadable people to try and explain what is at stake and cover the gaps that the professional media has left.
-
It is about affecting opinion. Persuading people that all politicians are the same, and that you can't change anything, is changing the opinion about actively engaging their democratic rights of those people who otherwise might engage with the democratic process and change things. Get those people out of active voting, and what you are left with is the polarised...and increases the chances of a victory handed by all those people who actively embrace the fascism (which of itself is often earned by wholly fallacious narrative).
You don't have to effect a full quantum change of energy state to get a different outcome. A bit of heat into the system can still knock a few electrons out....and that can make all the difference when it comes to a conduit to power.
I mean, if you are going to get absolutist about it, who in their right mind is buying any of the messaging propagated by the right....including largely unchallenged economic messaging and the fallacy that the markets provide innovation and competition, and best function in an absence of scrutiny or rules. Total guffy hokum easily evidentially disproved....and yet. Here we are.
-
First I'd heard of JD Vance couch fucking and twitter did not disappoint. You need sound for the the full effect
-
There should be some sort of sliding scale agreed as to what is worse. Things like dead pig head, and sheep fucking, in the mix.
Where's guru and his formulae when you need him.
Or a poll?
-
Holidaying in Bhutan last we heard.
-
Namibia, actually. But I’m back now.
And Vance is definitely setting a searing pace for lunacy. No formula required. Couch-fucking and searching for dolphin lesbian porn. Childless cat ladies and racist diet Mountain Dew. I am beginning to think the tactic is actually to make Trump look vaguely sane by picking an utterly batshit VP.
-
I love that this is believable, but also that his appeal is exclusively to people who already likeTrump.
-
Them and tech bros who are also in that camp. It’s turning out to be a bad choice so far, which makes the fact that it was largely the choice of his sons, particularly Don Jr., all the more satisfying.
-
Maybe Don Jr picked him as one of the few people less pleasant than himself.
Peter Thiel's baleful influence continues.
-
The Vance choice is a taste of how bad the second Trump term will/would be.
First time around he was surrounded by plenty of pre Maga mainstream Republicans who, to some degree, restrained some of his worst impulses. If he’s re-elected, it’ll be full on Trump doing whatever he wants, especially if they get the house and senate.
-
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is the pick for Harris's VP. Seems to be a widely liked choice.
They might just fucking do this, you know.
-
I would have picked Mark Kelly from Arizona as he was a sitting Senator and not up for re-election so Arizona wouldn't lose the seat if he lost or won. Arizona has a democratic Governor and would have replaced him with a Democrat. Kelly is more conservative and tough on immigration and also white like Walz.
Anyway, the pick is in and they have gone more progressive. This might not sway third party voters but we shall see.
At least the Dems will be using the words "weird" a lot on the campaign which is amusing.
Chicago: Pollster.
