4 ms·

Matt Taibbi talks about all this in his book Hate Inc. The 24/7 news networks needed new stuff to sell since the USSR was out. Turns out just general outrage at

Matt Taibbi talks about all this in his book Hate Inc. The 24/7 news networks needed new stuff to sell since the USSR was out. Turns out just general outrage at every little thing works good.

technofiend 6y ago
Oh, thanks. I'll put that book on the to-read pile.
rconti 6y ago
I noticed this last night. I mostly watch local news, but I put on CNN during the voting last night, and while the BBC was sorta talking over the voting going on in the background, CNN gave up on it entirely and it was just 5 people spouting outrage. Even when it's outrage I agree with, it angers me.
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  And indeed who voted and who spoke and how they spoke was far more consequential to our country than hot air from 5 random commentators. I was watching PBS NewsHour and saw people like Representative Cawthorn give very calculated speeches that were very disturbing if you read between the lines.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    This is why I spent the night watching the C-SPAN streams, where they prioritized (and seem to always do) live footage, both of the debates and the chaos. They also spent most of the rest of the time taking phone calls from randos on a public line, and the views expressed in those calls really illuminated the breadth of public opinion at the moment (obviously with selection bias of who felt inclined to call in). Down the line, I can read other people's thoughtful analysis of what people said and how people voted and evaluate it in the context of having seen it live, rather than from having heard Michael Barbaro's quick-cut package in the morning.
olivermarks 6y ago
I rate everything Taibbi writes and says very highly, his substack is very of the moment, informed and perceptive. Regarding Facebook indefinitely suspending Trump, #bigTech can modulate exposure of politicians and aspects of their personalities and platform positions highly effectively - suppressing and amplifying for unknown 'fairness doctrines' of their own making. An example is Gabbard's response to Clinton on Twitter, whose 'likes' are modulated down to circa 250k regularly. You can 'like' it dozens of times but each time you return your 'like' has usually been removed. https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464 https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464 The bigger point regardless of whether you approve of Gabbard or Clinton - #bigTech is able to amplify or sideline anyone as the Trump blackballing illustrates. This is alarmingly like the anti communist witch hunts and blackballing in the 1950's
- olivermarks 6y ago
  https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-trump-the-capitol-and-the-division https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-trump-the-capitol-and-the-d...

Matt Taibbi talks about all this in his book Hate Inc. The 24/7 news networks needed new stuff to sell since the USSR was out. Turns out just general outrage at every little thing works good.

technofiend 6y ago

Oh, thanks. I'll put that book on the to-read pile.

rconti 6y ago

I noticed this last night. I mostly watch local news, but I put on CNN during the voting last night, and while the BBC was sorta talking over the voting going on in the background, CNN gave up on it entirely and it was just 5 people spouting outrage. Even when it's outrage I agree with, it angers me.

jschwartzi 6y ago
And indeed who voted and who spoke and how they spoke was far more consequential to our country than hot air from 5 random commentators. I was watching PBS NewsHour and saw people like Representative Cawthorn give very calculated speeches that were very disturbing if you read between the lines.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  This is why I spent the night watching the C-SPAN streams, where they prioritized (and seem to always do) live footage, both of the debates and the chaos. They also spent most of the rest of the time taking phone calls from randos on a public line, and the views expressed in those calls really illuminated the breadth of public opinion at the moment (obviously with selection bias of who felt inclined to call in). Down the line, I can read other people's thoughtful analysis of what people said and how people voted and evaluate it in the context of having seen it live, rather than from having heard Michael Barbaro's quick-cut package in the morning.

olivermarks 6y ago

I rate everything Taibbi writes and says very highly, his substack is very of the moment, informed and perceptive. Regarding Facebook indefinitely suspending Trump, #bigTech can modulate exposure of politicians and aspects of their personalities and platform positions highly effectively - suppressing and amplifying for unknown 'fairness doctrines' of their own making. An example is Gabbard's response to Clinton on Twitter, whose 'likes' are modulated down to circa 250k regularly. You can 'like' it dozens of times but each time you return your 'like' has usually been removed. https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464 https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464 The bigger point regardless of whether you approve of Gabbard or Clinton - #bigTech is able to amplify or sideline anyone as the Trump blackballing illustrates. This is alarmingly like the anti communist witch hunts and blackballing in the 1950's

olivermarks 6y ago
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-trump-the-capitol-and-the-division https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-trump-the-capitol-and-the-d...