3 ms·

I don't understand your comparison.

• PaulHoule 1y ago
  There's a theory that "the meaning of a communication is it's effect". If I make a message that I think is a left-wing message but it causes sufficient right-wing backlash to motivate opponents to oppose me, my message wasn't really a left-wing message but a right-wing message from that viewpoint -- one that benefits my enemies. Isn't that what you're saying here? The author pretty obviously thinks that Altman and company are horrible bullshitters and that's a bad thing, but you seem to think that somebody could come to the conclusion that they are actually really good bullshitters.
  • alganet 1y ago
    My original comment included a political example, but I removed it before posting precisely to avoid confusion between what I said and simple polarization schemes. It's not about backlash. Media has several ways to deliver a different message, to different audiences, using a single piece. What I mean by "audiences" is much more granular than "against" or "in favor". The article attempts to do that (there are hints of this granularity of target profiles all over it), but it's not very subtle at doing it.