Thread by @DempseyTwo

Here is the thing about the Tucker Carlson types. It is easy to simply dismiss something due to ‘lack of evidence’. This is a semantics tool. ‘Evidence’ is something that can be used in court of law. Tucker argues in the court of public opinion. A wee 🧵👇🏻

You see, in a court of law, there are procedures. Protections. 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 6th amendment. Lots of amendments to protect people from, well people like Tucker in a court room. But Tucker isn’t in a court room.

We saw this during the first impeachment trial as well. Doug Collins, Jim Jordan. It is easy to cherry pick facts. Facts can serve your purpose. If your purpose is to call election interference a hoax, you can say, there is no ‘evidence’ to back it up. Why?

Because without a court case, there is no ‘evidence’. There can be an investigation. That might lead to evidence. But if you recall, we have no court cases from say the Mueller report. Well, there were a few. They all resulted in evidence based convictions. Oh, and pardons.

Court takes time. Think of it this way. If a crime is committed today, the news hears about it and reports it. Let’s say the first court appearance for the defendant is in 30 days. Tucker now has 30 days and nights to tell you there is no evidence against the defendant.

And there is nothing the police or prosecuting attorneys can say to the contrary. Because they present evidence in court not on TV and there are rules. If they break those rules, there are consequences. Then the narrative will be ‘see, they’re corrupt.’ ‘Leakers!!’

So from a messaging perspective, in the court of public opinion where Tucker operates, he can create, disseminate and repeat any narrative he wants by twisting the facts and using semantics.

He can tell you for 30 days, there is no evidence. By day 21, you’re developing a new habit around his message. It has become true to you. Because you keep hearing it. You might repeat it to your friends. You’re friends have also heard it and now you’re in the echo chamber.

But on day 30, when the evidence comes out and our hypothetical defendant is convicted, Tucker’s already moving on to the next topic. To create the next narrative. The information is designed to both distract and disinform. Repeated over and over, until the truth is lost.

And each time a new message is created, it begins with blaming those from prior messages. For instance, our hypothetical defendant ‘was only caught because of Pelosi or @AOC or Hillary’ (it’s usually a woman you’ve noticed, right?). So he created a boogeyman for you to blame.

This helps to solidify the message. You’re already primed to react a certain way when you hear AOC. This makes it easier for Tucker Carlson to break down any remaining idea of you thinking for yourself when it is time to create a new message.

Create a boogeyman, blame the boogeyman for your guy getting caught, say there is no evidence to support the crime committed, blame the boogeyman when the evidence is presented and your guy is convicted. Repeat. This is a science at this point. It is predictable and it works.

We have to stop thinking about these guys as news and more like defense attorneys who operate in the court of public opinion. Just look at their clients. These are people in need of defending. They defend Manafort (convicted, pardoned), Stone (convicted, commuted sentence)

And to be fair, the crimes they were convicted of, weren’t even the ones Doug Collins and Jim Jordan told us were a hoax.👇🏻

https://twitter.com/dempseytwo/status/1300998953614401540

To further illustrate this point, this goes back to the night just before the election. Think about what was happening then and take a look at where we are now.

https://twitter.com/DempseyTwo/status/1323280175048568835

Disinformation travels fast. The truth is evidenced based, and evidence takes time. We can all strengthen our democracy by being patient, letting the facts lead where they lead and most importantly be responsible consumers of information. Form your own opinions.
END