Were we born under a bad sign?
The Ink and Adam M. Lowenstein this morning consult with a researcher on “the internet and social media shape the intersection of politics, propaganda, and people.” Renée DiResta, an associate research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown has assembled some of her conclusions in “Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality.”
DiResta’s and colleagues’ work for the Stanford Internet Observatory pissed off House Republicans enough that Stanford pulled the plug on the research after five years. Let that be a lesson to libtards everywhere:
The shutdown comes amid a sustained and increasingly successful campaign among Republicans to discredit research institutions and discourage academics from investigating political speech and influence campaigns.
SIO and its researchers have been sued three times by conservative groups alleging that its researchers colluded illegally with the federal government to censor speech, forcing Stanford to spend millions of dollars to defend its staff and students.
(I just grabbed the audiobook. It’s how I “read” books these days.)
Her book, DiResta says, is not about social media per se, but about how “Propaganda evolves to fit the technological and communication landscape of the day.” She continues:
The content is different, the style is different, and the messages often largely remain the same, because they appeal to people psychologically. But you can’t really separate the medium and the message. That was one of the things that I wanted to highlight.
It’s also one of the things leading Democrats don’t understand. Yes, they have a problem finding a message that reaches people, but leaders who cut their political teeth in the pre-internet era of network news don’t understand how to interact with the public via any medium more relatable than a press conference.
There was a funny interview I read with Jamelle Bouie, who’s a New York Times columnist. It was saying he really cracked the TikTok code. It’s talking about him just walking around the neighborhood talking, and how this is not a thing that most journalists do. Here’s somebody who’s quite clearly “media” in his day job, but as he’s describing it in this interview, he’s not seen as media when he’s on TikTok doing his walk-and-talks. He’s just a guy. There is that almost performing-by-not-performing component of it. How can you be as relatable as possible?
Relatability connects, and most Democrats don’t come across as relatable. There’s more in the interview about the “bespoke reality” many people inhabit these days. Trying to present accurate data to refute conspiracy theories is pointless when congressional bad-faith actors are ” just going to move the goalposts, and whatever you did turn over, they’re going to find six words to hang you with.”
But the relatability problem is why Democrats are long overdue to turn over their top leadership to a younger generation. (Younger than 50, please.) Many of our politicians have not drawn private-sector paychecks in years. As soon as most leave office, some of the side gigs that supplement their congressional salaries will dry up unless they become lobbyists or pundits. So there are strong incentives to hang on into senility. But as much as we may respect their experience and accomplishments, they clearly are not equipped to press the attack on ideological adversaries in the 21st-century media battlespace.
Happy Hollandaise!