It took me several years to understand what I was seeing.
At first, I thought the problem was Twitter algorithms. I thought that was the explanation for why what I was calling rage-inducing simplifications spread like wildfire.
People so appreciated what I did, that I kept doing it.
I basically followed behind the rage merchants and then showed the truth behind the rage-inducing simplifications.
I could do this because I am trained in the law and I have a good grounding in American legal and political history (for example, I researched and wrote my Making of America series).
I blamed Twitter. I didn't understand what was happening with Cable News shows because I don't watch them.
Over the past 6 months, reading the research of communications scholars, I began to understand.
As I came to understand, I grew testier and testier with what I was seeing.
When what felt like the millionth person would say to me, in an irritated voice, "Teri I agree with you in part, but the truth is that there are never any real consequences," I realized something was deeply wrong.
I wrote my FAQ page explaining. I tried sending people to the pages.
(Some people complained about the fact that I sent people to my FAQ pages. What am I supposed to do? Answer the same question 1,000 times? Pretend like that garbage has a place in serious discourse?)
I was getting testy because I could see a problem.
It was was dangerous groupthink: dangerous because when thousands of people say the same untrue thing in the same words, something nefarious is happening.
"What about Fox?" is actually a propaganda technique called whataboutism. It was made famous in the Soviet Union. No matter what criticism was leveled against the Soviet Union, the answer was, "what about racial segregation in America?"
Ironically enough, whataboutism is a way to avoid accountability and deflect blame.
'We may distort the truth, but they lie more," does not excuse the fact that we distort the truth.
(also I don't like being told what I should write 😂 )
@Teri_Kanefield Have you ever asked those mouth-breathers "Why don't we try... IMPOSING consequences on them... so they can't lie?" Say it slowly to them like they are four
@Teri_Kanefield Rage drives us to want to do Something. Writing/posting out our rage gives a false sense of action. We think (or at least hope) that our voiced outrage somehow helps. Maybe we hope to whip others into a frenzy of some kind of action. I guess Rage may be our counter-force to inaction.
The best I think to do is to keep my own emotions in check. Beyond that (and occasional poll work, and sign planting, and check writing), I don't know what more to do to help.😐
Great tip I learned a long time ago on the Internet.
If it makes you angry or triggers an emotional response, go corroborate it with three other sources.
Worst case, you find out it was outright false. Best case, you get further context of the problem that affected you. But no matter what you're getting different takes to different ends, and your brain will thank you for that.
@Teri_Kanefield would be much harder for those who profit from rage farming if we had real justice, since people would have less to rage about to begin with 🤷🏽♂️. I agree, it's still not helpful though. I'd prefer if more news shows just stuck to reporting the straight facts of what's happening in law and politics and did less "analysis," since that inevitably is where people's opinions and emotions seep in.
we can see that fear can be used to control, we can recognize that intellectually
but the pavlovian conditioning still continues regardless. like how a drug addict can see they are addicted, but still seek the drug, because the process is outside their agency
we're being reduced to a doomscrolling fear-addled stupor, and then commanded like robots. and we can see it. but our stupid monkey brains are no match
@Teri_Kanefield ooh, does your book cover that history about evaluating written sources after the printing press arrived? Now I wanna read that history of potentially nefarious written sources in the early print era 😀
@Teri_Kanefield Dear Teri - I will seek out your commentary on whichever topics interest you because I value your voice and your insights. Thank you for the valiant work you have done to defuse the rage machine and to remind us of our collective civic responsibilities.
When my editor read the mansucript for my book coming out next spring on the Bill of Rights, he said, "This helps me understand what's been in the news."
IOW, the way to understand the news is not to listen to pundits, get confused, and then look for explainers.
The way to understand current events is to understand law and history.
I think what I will write over the next year will be more interesting and enlightening then if I spend time debunking the latest outrage.
I am reading a wonderful but poorly titled book by Jessie Childs on the English Civil War. It is absolutely chock full of stomach punch scale recognition. 400 years ago we see the same swirling of ideas, conflicts, muddle.
One striking example. The Puritans hated being called that name. It implied that theirs was an ideology. For them, it was fact that they were Chosen, superior. Suggesting that they dreamt it up they thought insulting. Sound familiar?
@Teri_Kanefield
I like the direction you are taking. Your explainers are like a walk in fresh air: clears my mind and calms my nerves.
I completely understand why you do not want to respond the folks on the ledge anymore. We all need to stay calm and do the work.
I look forward to your new book and refer to your blogs all the time when I feel myself creeping to the open window: don’t want to go there!
@Teri_Kanefield Thank you! You've been a great help as I've tried to understand things over the last few years. I hope you can be tempted to continue to explain what certain things in the law mean as the former guy's trials proceed. Not to mention the election.
Addressing outrage surely must be exhausting and you've provided tools and resources to help us. But there's plenty of stuff that flies above the heads of us laypeople that isn't hair-on-fire panic that I turn to you for understanding.
@Teri_Kanefield Thanks for the answer. Your points about reading the news critically and being aware of how outrage merchants try to turn attention into profit are important and timely.
I should have been more clear about what I hope you’ll still share with us non-attorneys. Which has to do with the law itself and how things work as related to current events. With your blog posts you’ve given us an excellent resource. Just hoping we’ll still hear from you from time to time!
@joeappel It's a fair question and deserves a fair answer.
This week I plan to write about the history of voting rights. I may spend a few weeks on that. The reason: I am thinking about doing a young readers book on that and it makes sense to merge the blog writing I do with my book publishing. It's more efficient for me because my writing dovetails.
What I learned from the communications scholars I've been reading (too long for one post, so I'll continue)
As soon as I start following the minutiae of the legal proceedings, I will attract readers who are also immersed in the echo chamber I described in my series.
If I keep attracting people immersed in that echo chamber, my mentions will continue to be filled with rage-inducing simplifications.
I used the word "testy" to describe how it makes me feel. That's not quite accurate. It makes me feel sad and sick the way you feel if you have to see a car wreck.
People say, "Ignore the comments." If one of my pieces gets a lot of readers, I can't sit there blocking or muting them all. It's too hard, and sometimes I misread tone and block the wrong people.
Also I don't like ignoring my readers.
I plan to keep blogging weekly, but about things that interest me: Voting rights, constitutional law, history. These things relate to what is happening now, but more indirectly.
@Teri_Kanefield it seems like a habit among those addicted to listening to the drama, fear, and outrage machine to seek a similar source for assurances, rather than reading what already exists.
i agree with your decision.
it is too exhausting to respond to those who elect to constantly require reassurances from others after electing to constantly listen to the inexhaustible machine.
it takes a tremendous toll and, in the end, since they do not stop listening to the machine, is futile.
@Teri_Kanefield we gave up cable in '06, when we built our house. We came to realize that the pundits on TV then were not people we wanted to have dinner with. Why would I let them in my house to tell what I should think. TV is an addiction just like a drug. Pay your dealer monthly fee, and get a high off of it. We've vacationed in Europe with the money we haven't spent on people I wouldn't brake bread with and are so much better for it. Printed press is the way to go!
@Teri_Kanefield Is there any podcast worth listening to that covers the latest legal developments fairly? I ask because most of the time when consuming media, I am walking (4+ hours a day) so audio is my friend.
@Teri_Kanefield I definitely listen to a lot of books!! Also, most of my pod listening is homicide trial coverage. Everyone agrees people should not be murdering each other (altho there is plenty of discussion about who done it!)
@Teri_Kanefield That's a tough one to do because even the more level headed podcasters I used to watch are becoming more over emotional perhaps due to the upcoming election. so I simply quit watching podcasters. That makes me a bit sad and disappointed but ... <shrugs> Print is easier to deal with (for the reasons you mentioned in this thread).@mmaniac90
FWIW, I listen to Strict Scrutiny (they do rip the shit out of the MAGA wing, but based on sound legal principles that reveal their abject lack of intellectual integrity and legal consistency) and Lawfare's weekly Trump Trials and Tribulations (they do a pretty good job of a straight up recounting of what has happened with a bit of likely implications and only a bit of snark).
It seems to me that it is written in accessible language. I've been reading this for a few months, and so far, I find it accurate without hype or spin.
@Teri_Kanefield I have enjoyed being able to ask questions, but I’d give that for the old sane and interesting commentary. It’s about the delivery! I can read news but I always then wanted to hear your take.
I’ll read you whatever you write, and wish you more peace and quiet on here. 3//
The other thing that bothers me (and I am afraid that I inadvertently played into) was people viewing everything through a partisan lens.
Most people wanted to know whether rulings or laws would hurt or help Trump, instead of whether the ruling was the correct one.
There is also a lot of hypocrcy. Judge McAffee just made a ruling that indicted he believed Willis didn't tell the truth under oath. Had he been a Republican, everyone would erupt with "Where are the indictments!"
This is just the kind of nugget I look for from you! Not being in the legal world, I never thought about how hard it would be to prosecute perjury, but it sure makes sense. I’m mad at the howlers because objectively what a fascinating passage of history we are in, yet it’s a struggle to stay informed through the hysteria. And obviously an overwhelming struggle for the good informers.
Honestly I think you and @GottaLaff could mute ALL responses (or just ignore them.) Most people would still get a lot out of following and your blood pressure would be lower.
I started out teaching English (college and university level) which meant calibrating the lesson to the needs of my audience.
With legal issues online, I think what made me effective was that I responded to questions.
Some people responded to troll me. "Well, Teri, what about this? Huh? Huh? What do you say now?" but some let me know when my explanation was confusing, which I need.
My issue is that the trolling has gotten worse and the ugliness is getting to me.
It's worse because people who set themselves up as legal "authorities" are misleading tens of thousands of people by having a dialogue in public, where each throws out their hot takes and they "debate." It's the MSNBC panel model and it is leaving tens of thousands of people confused and mislead.
A friend of mine who appeared on MSNBC told me that she disliked the confrontation questioning style.
I agreed to be on three popular podcasts. Two of them did not go well. One I stopped in the middle. It was being recorded, so stopped it. The other was live, so I suffered through it.
The obnxious podcasters used the MSNBC confrontational style of questioning.
I thought they were being ignorant jerks 😂 Now I see they were being MSNBC style confrontational.
I don't want to be part of the dialogue when it is conducted in this confrontational style. The commenters who irritate me are using the confrontational style.
@Teri_Kanefield
I stopped getting my news from TV and cable about 12 years ago when I realized how their voices and delivery distracted me from content. Also, I like to check earlier content and not just go from beginning to end.
@Teri_Kanefield I did a small experiment on myself recently. Mastodon is the only social media I follow and I wanted to get a taste of what 'corporate' centralized SM was like so I opened a Threads account. The contrast really opened my eyes; just a few minutes on Threads really does amplify that rage impulse, it's palpable. I assume this is probably true of the other platforms as well. It's obvious that it's healthier to simply avoid rage inducing platforms.
@Teri_Kanefield it’s a pity, I enjoyed reading your commentary, but you need to do what’s right for you and your mental health. Thank you for doing it as long as you did.
@Teri_Kanefield I will miss your comments on the latest legal development. I don't practice criminal law and I appreciated your explanations of the procedure relating to the former guy's cases.
@Teri_Kanefield I’m sad about this but I understand. Your feed would be among the first places I’d go when a new ruling came out on something. Reading legal texts is tricky for the untrained eye, I struggle with it personally.
@Teri_Kanefield Mastodon does not amplify the noise because it doesn't reward conduct that will atract attention to the creator of a post for a simple reason: there's no money in it for them. What will socia media be senlling without their spoke people, the "influencers"?
@Teri_Kanefield there have been consequences, it's just that so far they don't seem to measure up with the crimes. Attempted coups and worse, and four years later the leaders of those crimes have yet to even stand trial. And now the supreme court has inserted themselves to cause even more delay. If that was you or me we'd already be in prison long ago, never to be heard from again. That I think is what most people are upset about when they say "no consequences," because it shows that the justice system in this country treats certain people with kid gloves and others with anvils. That's what gets me mad at least, can't speak for anyone else on the topic tbqh.
@onpubcom@Teri_Kanefield The militia leaders who organized and led the violence on Jan 6 are in jail. Trump owes half a billion dollars in penalties imposed by courts for his actions of rape, defamation, and fraud. These are real consequences. He is facing 91 felony counts. A lot of money raised for political campaigns is going instead to his legal costs. If Trump were in jail now as he campaigns, would that truly satisfy you? I doubt it. Rage cannot be satisfied.
@joan_friedman@Teri_Kanefield what bothers me is the glacial pace of justice when it comes to Trump and others who enjoy similar levels of privilege in our system. Like I said, if it was me or you, we would have been locked up long before we could even have run for president, nevermind be in a position to attempt a coup. Trump has been lying, cheating and stealing for decades and continues to do so. I promise you, my own rage on the topic will stop once he actually pays those civil judgements you noted, if and finally when he's no longer allowed to run out the clock with endless motions and appeals. My rage will stop once he is actually in an orange jumpsuit and he faces actual criminal trial consequences, because that's what he is. In Georgia, they put the DA who indicted him on trial before the actual people who were indicted. Do you not have rage about that or can you afford lawyers who can help you obstruct justice too?
Given the nature of the rage-inducing simplifications in your post, I'd suggest starting with the criminal law FAQ page, and then reading the series.
The criminal law FAQ page will give you a more accurate and nuanced view of criminal law in the United States. The series will help you understand why you are repeating the same phrases as thousands of others.
@Teri_Kanefield On the sending people to a FAQ, etc, there's no good answer. (Most frustrating when it's already discussed elsewhere in a thread they're responding to). You don't have time to write a personalized answer to everyone, but some people inevitably become offended if you don't, and if you don't reply at all, others get even more offended. No win when you get a viral avalanche like that.
@Teri_Kanefield Mastodon is my first venture in social media & your voice one of the first I found. Your rational approach to explaining is balm to an engineer's heart.
I understand why you are changing focus & wish you well. I will miss your perspective.
Add comment