3 ms·
Yeah. I mean, there were literal pro-Clinton astroturfing efforts that tried to pressure the media into covering the news in ways that favoured her, crafting a
by makomk 10y ago
Yeah. I mean, there were literal pro-Clinton astroturfing efforts that tried to pressure the media into covering the news in ways that favoured her, crafting a narrative that any negative media coverage of her or perceived sluggishness in running anti-Trump stories was proof of shameful Trump support: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-media-david-brock.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/hillary-clint... From what I saw, it worked; this became the dominant narrative on at least the parts of Twitter I saw. Yet there were no breathless headlines about Democrat "propaganda networks" that were "waging war on mainstream media", even though that's clearly exactly what they were doing.
- mistermann 10y ago"That's different!" Both sides have no idea how alike they are.
- oh_sigh 10y agoAlso see the media reporting on Trump's "voter suppression efforts", which were targeted advertisements to, say, Haitian-US citizens about some horrible things the Clinton Foundation did in Haiti. Apparently informing people of bad things a candidate is associated with is 'voter suppression', because it will increase the odds that the people won't go out and vote for that candidate. Using the same terminology, the Trump Access Hollywood tape was far more of a voter suppression effort than any targeted facebook advertising, but that for some reason falls under the guise of relevant and informative information.
- dreamfactory2 10y agoThey were a late and poor response to the surprisingly effective Kremlin troll factories that have been astroturfing wildly for Trump (and Brexit and Ukraine and across Europe)