A thing that @PeteButtigieg said at TribFest has made me think a bunch over the past few weeks: what if we have seen the summit of protections for individual rights & freedoms and it's now passed? What if that was it and things only get worse from here? 😨
And it reminds me of this thread, now more than ever:
Who gives Leonard Leo all that cash? (unlocked) Dark money is not speech and rich people shouldn't get to buy power. We have no idea who (from where?) is influencing American politics: nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/…
They would like for you to believe that money is speech, but that's just a thing that rich people say to get more power. Read more here: citizen.org/wp-content/upl…
May more irresponsible communicators be brought to justice.
Alex Jones turned American politics into the infowars. He showed rightwing extremists how to pollute the public sphere with conspiracy & lies for profit. He told Trump what to say in 2016 (literally), including Stop the Steal. He uses communication as a weapon.
Anti-democratic communication is "treason to the democratic way of life" (John Dewey, 1939). Propaganda is communication for warfare, using communication as a weapon. It is anti-democratic communication. #amwriting
There are two important propaganda models: 1) manufacture consent: keep public docile via messages that support status quo/elite leadership; 2) manufacture dissent: keep public engaged and outraged via messages that spread distrust, polarization, and frustration.
Most of us are "tune-outs" who don't pay attention to political news & aren't highly engaged in politics, but for those of us who are highly engaged in politics the manufacture dissent model enlists us as propagandists too, turning us into what Orwell called "screaming lunatics."
Media researchers have noticed this pattern for a long time: people's perception of high crime comes from media portrayals of high crime. Like, crime reports in the news and tv shows that focus on crime. Media scholars call it "cultivation theory"--media cultivates reality.
Classic example of how politicians can hide behind a appeal to authority to claim legitimacy for their preferred policy. Typically the argument that there are dueling experts allows politicians to claim they get to choose which one to believe. Stewart does fantastic work here.
Not only does he expose the appeal to authority game, but he deploys a very useful parallel case (why follow those same experts on cancer, but not gender care) that further undermines the credibility of the appeal to authority. Really great work.
I don't know if journalists are supposed to be debaters or interviewers or what, but this is excellent debate cross x.
Good news! No, really, a whole newsletter of nothing but good news about climate change, inequality, and health around the world: 🫶futurecrunch.com/good-news-us-c…
"We're amazed at the bravery of the protestors in Iran at the moment. Have you heard Baraye yet? It's the anthem of the movement, a song that reached 40 million views in two days before being taken down by the authorities." Wow >>
What a compelling long train of abuses and usurpations and beautiful song.