3 ms·
I think what we see here is the result of social media A/B testing on how to get votes, and this playbook is now followed by the rest of the world. In a democr
by dakna 6y ago
I think what we see here is the result of social media A/B testing on how to get votes, and this playbook is now followed by the rest of the world.
In a democratic society, you have to influence the public opinion to stay/get in power. Propaganda is free, information costs money.
If the majority of voters are not willing to pay for quality journalism, you have to get them engaged by fueling outrage and projecting fear. It doesn't matter what side, as long as there are sides you can join and identify with.
Combined with the fact that American politics do have an effect on the quality of life in other parts of the world (trade wars and refugee crisis for example) and the working (aka non-capital) class suffers in most western societies, it is very easy to project similar fears and foster divisiveness.
- themaninthedark 6y agoWho says that paying for journalism would fix this problem? Both CNN and FOX are cable news, not broadcast for free. Go back to the start of the Second Gulf war and you had the NYT and other media outlets complicit in the WMD lies.
- dakna 6y agoIt seems to work in other countries. Neither CNN nor Fox is quality journalism, "quality" being the adjective you left out. The NYT also issued an apology for their coverage about WMD which was not rigorously fact checked. One of the reporters, Judith Miller, later joined Fox News. Quality doesn't mean 100% correct all the time, it means significantly better than the alternative. Comparing the coverage of different sources is part of how you can reach your own conclusions, instead of blindly adopting whatever opinion is broadcasted to you.