1/ No matter the issue -- be it a political campaign, policy fight or culture debate -- the way the media (newspapers, tv, online, radio, etc...) deals with it is going to greatly shape and influence the outcome.
And the right-wing has an incredible advantage.
2/ Between Fox News, talk radio, Facebook ecosystem, etc, the information asymmetry advantaging the right-wing's chicanery, extremism and bullshit is potent and destructive.
And the tempests they create don't just stay in their bubbles, but end up distorting media at large.
3/ Nothing. Not one damn thing will get better unless the right-wing noise machine is dealt with and addressed. In fact, things will only get worse and worse.
Fascism, climate crisis, racism, attacks on trans people, etc...
4/ It's almost as if...the media matters.
Seriously though. Democrats will incinerate hundreds of millions or billions on paid ads, but totally ignore or address the underlying reality that every day the right-wing dominates 55-65% of share of voice. 2-3x the left.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I want to just put a few things out there about OANN and ATT/DirecTV because in a way, the incredibly good Reuters reporting just begins to scratch the surface on how absurd and odious this deal is....
2/ Every cable company pays channels a fee per subscriber for carrying it.
Let's say cable company has 100 customers. And they want to carry a channel that has a fee of $1. They pay that channel $1 for every customer you have. So, you give them $1,000 every month.
3/ Usually the fee is a nominal fee. ATT has been paying OANN about 12 cents per subscriber. That seems small, but it's actually an incredibly huge number. The amount of revenue they give OANN every month is massive.
1/ Apropos 60 Minutes interview with Facebook whistleblower, there are two thing I want to share. media matters did a much research leading up to and around FB role in attack. But two big one jumps out…
2/ Days before Jan 6 w/in far right FB groups we track (many closed ones), we started seeing a sudden shift. People urging others to bring guns to the rally.
3/ This was notable for a couple reasons. For starters, atypical. Usually people remind others *not* to bring guns because of DC gun laws. Second, it seemed…almost calculated, coordinated or organized.
FB was advised. But nothing. No additional investigation or follow through.
1/ I'm not sure this is a good thing for a few reasons...
a) For starters, FB isn't good at defining political. For example, daily wire has spent over 10M on ads this year alone. But FB political ad library says they have spent 800k on political/social ads since 2018. C'mon!
2/ a continue) My point there is that FB will narrowly define this in ways that are overall not helpful and if past is any indicator in ways that will almost certainly unfairly advantage right-wing content.
3/
b) This will calcify and intensify an existing problem on platform.
Asymmetry on FB is intense. For ex, last weekend right-leaning content had 50.96% of all engagement, left-leaning had 12.4%. News/non-aligned content (which was majority in terms of volume) only had 36.64%.
1/ Tom Cotton working double time to get publicity RE his take on Afghanistan.
Cotton is on Armed Services Committee. There have been 2 (public) hearings solely about Afghanistan since January 2020. Cotton attended neither of them. No one in media has mentioned that.
2/ May 20, 2021: Hearing - The transition of all United States and Coalition forces from Afghanistan and its Implications
Cotton did not attend. Gosh. Ya think maybe someone who has so much to say now shoulda shown up for that one?
3/ February 11, 2020: Hearing - United States Strategy in Afghanistan
2/ Recognize that it was Facebook -- not Trump -- that appealed the ban. And, they structured they appeal in such a way that it's basically engineered to all but ensure that the oversight group restores the account.
They asked that ban only be evaluated based on 2 posts. 2.
3/ We did an analysis of every one of Trump's 6,018 Facebook posts from 2020 and found 24% of them contained misinformation about public health, elections or other extreme rhetoric.
But see, Facebook was working to cook the books here so why make that a part of the decision here