The authors are political science professors at Stony Brook.
Their point: The biggest divide isn’t by party.
The biggest divided is by involvement in politics.
The most vocal voices from social media, who are amplified by the mainstream media, come from a relatively small group.
Echoing what Dannagal Young had to say in “Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive our Appetite for Misinformation," the authors talk about 2 sets of relatively small groups of hyper-engaged partisans.
These groups are relatively small, but because of their high profiles on social media and disproportionate representation in the media, people think the groups are larger then they are.
People who are not in this group of hyper-partisans know about politics and care about politics—but they do not spend hours watching cable news or scrolling through a politics feed.
What I've been calling the panic-outrage cycle is a symptom of these groups.
The vast majority of voters (70-80%) tune out the daily outrage.
One day I was fielding questions from people in a panic over the latest outrage.
Later, I was talking to a 27-year old family member who is a staunch Democrat and votes in every election. What drives her is the environment. She votes Democrat because of the party's stand on the environment (relative to the Republicans).
I asked her if she is following the Trump trials. She said, “Wasn’t he indicted for something?”
@Teri_Kanefield Doorknocking in Virginia 3 days before the 2012 election, I met an Obama voter who didn't know that Obama was the Democrat and Romney was the Republican. Had never voted before, and very happy to get my guidance on where to go and how to vote.
I think it could be. If these political scientists are correct (and I have no reason to think they aren't) polling questions are slanted as if everyone is in one of these bubbles, and people not in bubbles don't want to talk about politics (even though they often vote).
People not on a 24 hour news cycle may not have many opinions until they have to consider who to vote for, and even then they may not feel like talking.
@Teri_Kanefield I've been polled exactly one time in my life around 2020, and while there were quite a few generic questions - there were some extremely slanted questions especially on the topic of abortion.
I've always tried to ignore polls, but I do even more now as they seem to have become more outlandish.
@Teri_Kanefield I also find it extremely triggering when people, especially the media says "Half of Americans think X" that's not even remotely true. Half of the Americans you polled think that
@Teri_Kanefield that’s perfectly rational behavior. She probably understands that Trump is a corrupt jerk who has committed crimes, but knowing all the latest developments in the investigations/prosecutions isn’t really necessary. How exactly would it change her behavior? It’s not going to change how she votes (because she’s voting D anyway) and there’s not much the average person can do to speed up or change the outcome of the criminal trials.
Agree 100%. OTOH, I know some people who are very much un-self-aware-ly in an a-political bubble.
They've zero tolerance for anything political. Their group/list/forum will block for even the slightest hint of anything they can label as "Political", including advice about real science around protection of one's family's health.
e.g. Masking. Y'know, so grandma doesn't freaking DIE. Literally.
I've been thinking about this because I have had the role over the past 5 years of responding the latest outrage and putting it into perspective for people.
I now realize that the constant outrage is a result of a hyper-partisan media ecosystem that generates outrage for profit (and the egos of the rage generators).
I can't keep helping people see the perspective.
They have to get out of the media ecosystem so they stop getting dragged into the latest outrage.
@Teri_Kanefield What you just said there is exactly what (1) led me to (re)set my social web presence here, and (2) underlies my decision to keep no more than a lurking presence on Threads (and none at all on Bluesky). Musk taking over Twitter was just the catalyst for all that.
The larger issue you note is the news media’s conduct in an Internet based world: The news media as it existed pre-Internet held us together during Watergate; as it exists today it’s wrecking us.
@mjf_pro Just curious: Do you find Bluesky particularly bad for rage bait? (I am not on there, but most of my Twitter friends landed there. I like it here.)
@Teri_Kanefield in addition to hype bubbles, we've just been collectively through (technically still experiencing) one of the biggest, global, multiple mass-trauma events in human history. People (the Royal We), are apportioning attention and energy toward places/expertise areas where we have a modicum of comfort and control. It's a defense mechanism and entirely human. OTOH, there are those who attack such people because to attack is their defense mechanism.
I think it's the outrage machine that makes people think what we've gone through is worse than the plague (killed 1/4 of Europe) the middle ages, when the average life span was in the 30s, the era of slavery, World War I, the rise of Hitler, the Holocaust, etc.
Nothing in that list is in living memory. Most 1st world people are currently experiencing the greatest insecurity of their lifetime, while simultaneously having instant access to, and the ability to create, "content" that amplifies the insecurity.
No snark intended, I think we're talking past each other. While I don’t deny that history offers perspective, & that the world is an ever-roiling construct of fear, outrage, suffering etc., your analogy offers cold comfort to those who lack the privilege or luxury of resources. Their immediacy of pain keeps them from objectivity.
Your husband’s family notwithstanding, we (again the Royal We) can never assume by proxy the suffering of another as our own.
Listen to Tony, Y’all!!!! Social media, including the #fediverse, is heavily compromised by pro-Russian and pro-communist Chinese bad actors, trolls, bots and AI bullshitery.
Just watch the flow of posts and accounts as events happen in the world. Within minutes to hours, the coordinated inputs to social media are painfully obvious to people with any brains at all. These nefarious accounts sow discord and share propaganda nonstop. REJECT them.
@Teri_Kanefield@mckra1g My own experience in the pandemic surprised me, after a good while. 1st, I'd not noticed emotional impact on me, as I'd Zoom-escorted some isolated others through the thing. 2nd, whenever I had any self-pitying thought, it struck me that, for once, no one in the world was better off than I. The whole world was locked in the same Disaster Film. It struck me that, bad as things had been post-11/2016, they all piled on at once. & Mr. Trump deliberately worsened the threat.
@Teri_Kanefield Really grateful for you providing perspective. In part because of you, I try to ignore the outrage cycle and get involved with local elections as I can. However, I probably don't show up in the screaming masses, because I've purposefully decreased my social media use.
Anyway. I know it feels like fighting a house fire with a garden hose, but I really appreciate everything you do.
@Teri_Kanefield this podcast episode really opened my eyes to how outrage is handled by the media: https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/screaming-into-the-void/. After listening to this episode I feel more aware and suspicious if I’m feeling any form of outrage and it allows me to hit pause in that feeling until I can do more research.
The problem is that we are currently in an information disruption.
A similar thing happened with the invention of the printing press. Suddenly people were bombarded with an enormous amount of material and they had no way of evaluating the reliability.
The printing press launched religious wars. That's when blood libel took off.
The Internet and the rise of cable news has done the same.
The difference is that social media rage generators and cable news are for profit.
They feed on clicks, and outrage offers clicks.
People are consuing hours of rage-programming every day.
I am not just talking about Fox and Newsmax.
I'm talking about MSNBC.
Is everything on MNBBC rage indicting?
Of course not. I don't watch, but from what I can see on social media (and because I'm constantly shown clips and asked to respond) here is how I can see it works . . .
. . . reasonable views are aired alongside rage-inducing simplifications and things that are just plain wrong like this: "Merrick Garland is doing nothing!"
The rage-inducing stuff is what people remember.
The reasonable views are there for credibility.
It's clever and effective.
Until the rise of TV lawyers and the Internet, most people didn't have to distinguish between legal facts, well-thought-out legal opinions, and legal opinions tossed off the top of someone's head.
I have seen lawyers who take care with their briefs, have them fact checked and researched by a full team, and are careful not to utter an incorrect statement in court go on TV (or post on social media) total nonsense.
A friend who appeared on TV often once told me, "It literally doesn't matter what I say."
(He called me a few times for ideas when he hadn't been following a particular story !!!)
I've also been working against the rage machine. (I told people in 2020 that the Georgia machines were secure. I was actually doing voter protection work in Georgia.)
I told people in 2021 that the DOJ would investigate Trump's crimes but given how investigations work, we wouldn't see it for a while.
People often ask me to talk them off the ledge or put the latest outrage into perspective.
The better solution is for people to stay off the ledge.
@Teri_Kanefield
I signed up to be a Georgia poll worker for the 2020 election. Nothing lifted my spirits and soothed my brain like learning the process, meeting a bunch of very nice people who care deeply about voting access and security, and participating in living, breathing Of the People-By the People-For the People stuff.
If folks want to walk away from the ledge, they should walk toward their local board of elections.
For many of us, the ledge is the only thing in view.
I have been actively curating careful sources of analysis for years now. I found you and a handful of others by forcibly frustrating the algorithm, which I can only do because I have some insight into it from a technical standpoint.
This is way outside what most hapless consumers can do. They want to leave the ledge, BUT WHERE DO THEY GO? Newspapers are becoming useless. Even the Atlantic opts for the cocaine occasionally.
@Teri_Kanefield looking from afar, as not an US citizen, and i agree there is way too much outrage and simplification, but i get the impression to tune it out either of these things must be true.
the thing people are outraged about is false (so tiresome work of fact checking and adding nuance, which you have been doing, but also people need to read, which is harder than raging).
the things don't matter, true or false they can be ignored, sometimes, yes, but i think it's not clear cut.
@tshirtman@Teri_Kanefield I am of a mind to think of some other group The caliber of "the thing people are outraged about" can be weighty enough—but Outrage is not a solution worth trying. The things may not be ignore-able, but Outrage is not a solution worth trying. Outrage is a choice one makes, partly because it feels like it's a form of constructive action. If making me so-outraged that I take no-other action is the objective, I will Stay Calm and Look for What I Can Do.
@Gozo@Teri_Kanefield i agree, outrage feels at least effective at communicating the problem, and i think it can sometimes create meaningful result, but it is also self sustain and increase the divide about people who expense the energy to follow all the things (and typically don't get time to do anything else), and the people who back out and ignore most of it as the example voter above, missing even things that seem really important (though i'm sure that wouldn't change her vote).
@Teri_Kanefield Great point. How does someone stay informed without ending up on the ledge these days? I know you're not suggesting we just stop following the news entirely. There's gotta be some middle road somewhere, but all the internet news outlets seem to be click-obsessed, and many of us (myself included) no longer have other sources of news.
@Teri_Kanefield Thanks for taking the time to reply, and yes, I read that whole series. I've been pretty enthusiastic about reading whatever you post because, frankly, it turns down the noise - especially on specific issues. It's a refreshing perspective that I sincerely appreciate.
It sounds like you're (understandably) ready to get out of the job of playing perspective-bringer, but if I'm being honest, that perspective is critically important to people who don't have experience in a given subject to evaluate it objectively. When I read an article saying "the judge made an unexpected ruling on what is an extremely common request to blah, and now something bad could happen", I can tell it's sensational, but I have no idea whether any of it is actually something I should care about or not. Is it common that a judge rules that way? Is it common that a prosecutor makes that request? How often are these requests granted/denied? Is there context the author left off that would explain the judge's action?
Even if I knew how to find the ruling and read it myself (and I probably could), there's enough jargon in those things that it's not really possible for a layperson to provide their own perspective.
In short - we need people like you, especially during an information disruption, to help interpret the nuance in a balanced way (I try to do the same for issues in my specialty domain, but there's not a whole lot of wild outlandish conspiracy theories about tech or cybersecurity).
@Teri_Kanefield I can't say whether these posts do any good on the good-vs-evil, democracy-vs-fascim "big picture, but I can say with 100% confidence that your level-headed posts interpreting the various steps in these highly-publicized court cases do a lot of good on a personal level. I'm certain I'm not the only person who follows you because they can get a "here's the level-headed view of what happened."
Even this reply - "Yes, Cannon is a terrible judge and is biased for Trump" - I came to that conclusion based on what I'd read, but I have no idea how slanted my sources are. Your confirmation is helpful. Putting it in perspective with the other things is also helpful. As far as I know, it's perfectly normal for judges to rule this way. Or wildly abnormal and biased. I have no barometer. (all I know about Cannon is that she had a horrible ruling early on, that got swiftly overturned, and everyone was mocking her for it)
Your posts here might not be directly tanking the scales away from fascism, but they're keeping a lot of people from getting spun up and burned out on the hype train, and preventing some of us from losing faith that the system will perform the way it should. Hopelessness leads to apathy, which leads to a population who doesn't bother to show up at the polls, volunteer as poll workers, etc. Providing a level context chips away at that, which does contribute to the big picture. I frequently reply to some of my friends' "WTF we're screwed" messages with links to your threads. It's incredibly helpful.
Also - I didn't know who Tribe was until you mentioned his name, or that he was unreliable. I had to go back and ctrl+F the article to figure it out. The average person just reads the text; the bylines usually get brain-filtered out with the ads. I don't know what he did to get that unreliable reputation, but I'll keep any eye out for his name from now on. Thanks again!
@Teri_Kanefield Absolutely right. Cutting the cord to cable TV helped me cut down on outrage. I follow just a few trusted sources and I’m very happy to have your steadying perspective in my feed.
@Teri_Kanefield Yes. I want to thank you for so long being a voice of reason and calm and of teaching us to deal not just with the worst of our fears and not just our most immediate fervent hopes but with reality as slow and pragmatic as it is. You are one of my most trusted voices on these topics.
@Teri_Kanefield I actually read the Colorado court (lower and supreme) text of decisions on the Trump ballot thing. I also listened to the audio from the proceeding on the immunity thing.
I am surprised on how the media (MSNBC the worse) always spin this into a "Trump has no way out of this, Trump is done" and try to comfort their viewers that Trump is not in danger of winning. There is sometimes good analysis on MSNBC, but all too often clouded with "don't worry, Trum has no way out" slant.
@jfmezei@Teri_Kanefield I underestimated Trump in 2016. I was sure someone with his character was unelectable. That election taught me never to count him out, and that I was giving the electorate too much credit.
@Teri_Kanefield On the immunity thing, the non Fox-News media focused on the "Seal team to shoot political opponent" but while not properly stated, he Trump lawyers are forcing the judge to resolve "who has jurisdiction to decide whether an action was done by the President of USA on behalf of country (immune from Justice) or whether it was done by the individual holding office and thus prosecutable by Justice? is Impeachement in Constitution for exactly that role?
@Teri_Kanefield And more sombre: Does a court (even Supreme) have the power to decide that Impeachement is ineffective because politically biased?
(in this case allowing an insurection incited by the person holding office of President)
or will the Supreme Court find that impeachement process is independant from "Justice" in that it only deals with firing the person holding the office and has nothing to do with judicial pocess?
@Teri_Kanefield I've been saying for years: every new communication technology creates a spike in fascism. I've used your list, but also it seems you left out radio and the loudspeaker, which were instrumental in the 1920s-1930s totalitarianism.
@Teri_Kanefield I agree completely about the outrage cycle over politics, the hyper-involve$ minority on both sides, and our information disruption.
But aren’t there things we should be outraged over? Like the overt creep of fascism, threatening to swallow democracy both here and abroad. Or skyrocketing inequality, or our collective failure to deal with the climate crisis that is enveloping us. I sometimes think that the outrage cycle is a tool for distracting us from the big stories.
@Teri_Kanefield Media solely for profit definitely is the problem, with commercial social media in particular.
Did you per chance see https://www.thesocialdilemma.com/ ?
It's a bit too dramatic for my taste, but it hits home with the right message.
@Teri_Kanefield I think Kellyanne Conway actually nailed it when she used the term alternative facts (alternafacts if you will). Reality is meaningless if we decide to believe something despite the evidence to the contrary. Tribalism is alive and well politically.
@Hey_Beth interesting, because I interpret the book synopsis above as being the opposite argument. For many people when we talk about politics, they're tuning us out, not bothering to respond or listen. For the minority of us deep in political feeds are living in a discourse bubble where we're pitted against each other like teams at a lacrosse game - while most people are paying barely more attention to politics than to lacrosse.
@Teri_Kanefield God bless her. I know young people are really busy working, taking care of families and trying to have a social life. We just need to be sure they understand the stakes and that they vote!
Right, but the way to do that is to talk to them about issues that matter to them.
Political scientist also tells now that people are so disgusted with the partisan fighting that they just think it's a bunch of noise. In other words, 'The other side are a bunch of fascists" will get tuned out. "Republicans don't believe women should have access to abortions and some states are criminalizing women who get abortions. . . " has meaning.
@Teri_Kanefield Self confidence in their own certitude is possibly the unifying feature of the political activists. Real life is more nuanced. As the majority know. Often from bitter experience. Of political activists.
@Teri_Kanefield@Hey_Beth "a pox on both their houses" sums up a massive number of people in this country. But it also manifests in sooo many being so left behind and forgotten they just ignore everything just trying to survive.
Our society has failed to account for its failings and people just turn away for being ignored and forgotten at best, actively swept under the rug at worst.
Add comment