Loading...
Title : Do "Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote"?
link : Do "Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote"?
Do "Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote"?
I just finished reading "The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote," by Sharyl Attkisson. About half way through I was saying "This book would make a lot more sense if Hillary Clinton had won the election," because the the "shady" operatives Attkisson scrutinizes (notably David Brock) were working to elect Hillary, and Trump was on his own, making it up as he went along.I imagine that Attkisson had already done the majority of the work that went into this book before she had to account for the fact that Trump won. The activities she describes are important to understand, but they don't "Control What You See, What You Think, [or] How You Vote," because Trump got elected.
We weren't limited to mainstream media, which are (as Attkisson describes in detail) passing along propaganda generated by political operatives. We could go to Trump rallies or watch them on YouTube. We could read Trump's tweets and retweet them. We could read and write on Twitter and Facebook and blogs (often ripping into the MSM propaganda). The "shady political operatives and fake news" were not controlling what we saw and certainly not what we think or how we vote. That's what they wanted to do, and they threw (and are still throwing) a fit that we didn't restrict ourselves to the propaganda they wanted to feed us, but in 2016, more and more people decided what MSM were serving is toxic.
It's still very useful to read Attkisson's account of how those people operated. It worked to some extent, it might have worked if the GOP candidate were anyone other than Trump, and it's important to figure out how it failed, because there will be efforts to re-rig the corrupt system to get it to work again somehow.
In the second half of the book, Attkisson does address the Trump's beat the system that had seemed so formidable. Here's a sampling of how she incorporated the Trump phenomenon into the thesis of her book (and I think she did this much better than the book's subtitle suggests):
Wildcard is the name of a fictional superhero in Marvel comics. He was unpredictable because he didn’t have just one superpower. He could copy the superhuman powers of anyone else. It was impossible to foresee what he might be able to do from one moment to the next. He became mighty among men. Amid all the attacks, Trump proves as incalculable as Wildcard. A bully one moment, kindhearted the next. Brash and unapologetic. He’s savvy yet reckless, reliable only in terms of his unpredictability. There’s no way to accurately poll his popularity or place odds on his voter appeal.
He throws the whole “establishment” into disarray. His strengths and vulnerabilities fuse together and manifest as an erratic character that strikes fear into the hearts of his enemies; they cannot eliminate him because they can’t begin to understand him....
In fact, I think Trump was elected partly because of the smears. He was put into office by supporters steeled by criticism from Clinton, who had called them “the basket of deplorables... Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” Seeing themselves mischaracterized in the news media, Trump’s supporters learned to view the media’s criticism of Trump with skepticism. With dislike for and distrust of the media so widespread, perhaps the most effective thing the press could have done to thwart Trump would have been to embrace him. But they just couldn’t see it...
If Democrats believe they can create and own an anti-fake news campaign and use it to crush Trump, they once again sorely miscalculate. Trump begins flagging incidents of what he views to be fake news in the mainstream media. To an outsider, it almost looks like toddlers slinging peas at one another: as fast as reporters manage to call out Trump for supposedly committing fake news, he hits them back with his own examples of their supposed false reports. Pretty soon, Trump has effectively co-opted the phrase. At a news conference on January 11, 2017, CNN reporter Jim Acosta tries to ask a question and persists when Trump doesn’t call on him. “You are fake news,” Trump declares, pointing a finger at Acosta. “It’s all fake news. It’s all fake news,” Trump tells reporters at a February 16, 2017, news conference. A week later, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, he tells the cheering audience, “I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. It’s fake, phony, fake.”
The wild card.
I just finished reading "The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote," by Sharyl Attkisson. About half way through I was saying "This book would make a lot more sense if Hillary Clinton had won the election," because the the "shady" operatives Attkisson scrutinizes (notably David Brock) were working to elect Hillary, and Trump was on his own, making it up as he went along.
I imagine that Attkisson had already done the majority of the work that went into this book before she had to account for the fact that Trump won. The activities she describes are important to understand, but they don't "Control What You See, What You Think, [or] How You Vote," because Trump got elected.
We weren't limited to mainstream media, which are (as Attkisson describes in detail) passing along propaganda generated by political operatives. We could go to Trump rallies or watch them on YouTube. We could read Trump's tweets and retweet them. We could read and write on Twitter and Facebook and blogs (often ripping into the MSM propaganda). The "shady political operatives and fake news" were not controlling what we saw and certainly not what we think or how we vote. That's what they wanted to do, and they threw (and are still throwing) a fit that we didn't restrict ourselves to the propaganda they wanted to feed us, but in 2016, more and more people decided what MSM were serving is toxic.
It's still very useful to read Attkisson's account of how those people operated. It worked to some extent, it might have worked if the GOP candidate were anyone other than Trump, and it's important to figure out how it failed, because there will be efforts to re-rig the corrupt system to get it to work again somehow.
In the second half of the book, Attkisson does address the Trump's beat the system that had seemed so formidable. Here's a sampling of how she incorporated the Trump phenomenon into the thesis of her book (and I think she did this much better than the book's subtitle suggests):
I imagine that Attkisson had already done the majority of the work that went into this book before she had to account for the fact that Trump won. The activities she describes are important to understand, but they don't "Control What You See, What You Think, [or] How You Vote," because Trump got elected.
We weren't limited to mainstream media, which are (as Attkisson describes in detail) passing along propaganda generated by political operatives. We could go to Trump rallies or watch them on YouTube. We could read Trump's tweets and retweet them. We could read and write on Twitter and Facebook and blogs (often ripping into the MSM propaganda). The "shady political operatives and fake news" were not controlling what we saw and certainly not what we think or how we vote. That's what they wanted to do, and they threw (and are still throwing) a fit that we didn't restrict ourselves to the propaganda they wanted to feed us, but in 2016, more and more people decided what MSM were serving is toxic.
It's still very useful to read Attkisson's account of how those people operated. It worked to some extent, it might have worked if the GOP candidate were anyone other than Trump, and it's important to figure out how it failed, because there will be efforts to re-rig the corrupt system to get it to work again somehow.
In the second half of the book, Attkisson does address the Trump's beat the system that had seemed so formidable. Here's a sampling of how she incorporated the Trump phenomenon into the thesis of her book (and I think she did this much better than the book's subtitle suggests):
Wildcard is the name of a fictional superhero in Marvel comics. He was unpredictable because he didn’t have just one superpower. He could copy the superhuman powers of anyone else. It was impossible to foresee what he might be able
Loading...
to do from one moment to the next. He became mighty among men. Amid all the attacks, Trump proves as incalculable as Wildcard. A bully one moment, kindhearted the next. Brash and unapologetic. He’s savvy yet reckless, reliable only in terms of his unpredictability. There’s no way to accurately poll his popularity or place odds on his voter appeal.
He throws the whole “establishment” into disarray. His strengths and vulnerabilities fuse together and manifest as an erratic character that strikes fear into the hearts of his enemies; they cannot eliminate him because they can’t begin to understand him....
In fact, I think Trump was elected partly because of the smears. He was put into office by supporters steeled by criticism from Clinton, who had called them “the basket of deplorables... Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” Seeing themselves mischaracterized in the news media, Trump’s supporters learned to view the media’s criticism of Trump with skepticism. With dislike for and distrust of the media so widespread, perhaps the most effective thing the press could have done to thwart Trump would have been to embrace him. But they just couldn’t see it...
If Democrats believe they can create and own an anti-fake news campaign and use it to crush Trump, they once again sorely miscalculate. Trump begins flagging incidents of what he views to be fake news in the mainstream media. To an outsider, it almost looks like toddlers slinging peas at one another: as fast as reporters manage to call out Trump for supposedly committing fake news, he hits them back with his own examples of their supposed false reports. Pretty soon, Trump has effectively co-opted the phrase. At a news conference on January 11, 2017, CNN reporter Jim Acosta tries to ask a question and persists when Trump doesn’t call on him. “You are fake news,” Trump declares, pointing a finger at Acosta. “It’s all fake news. It’s all fake news,” Trump tells reporters at a February 16, 2017, news conference. A week later, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, he tells the cheering audience, “I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. It’s fake, phony, fake.”
The wild card.
He throws the whole “establishment” into disarray. His strengths and vulnerabilities fuse together and manifest as an erratic character that strikes fear into the hearts of his enemies; they cannot eliminate him because they can’t begin to understand him....
In fact, I think Trump was elected partly because of the smears. He was put into office by supporters steeled by criticism from Clinton, who had called them “the basket of deplorables... Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” Seeing themselves mischaracterized in the news media, Trump’s supporters learned to view the media’s criticism of Trump with skepticism. With dislike for and distrust of the media so widespread, perhaps the most effective thing the press could have done to thwart Trump would have been to embrace him. But they just couldn’t see it...
If Democrats believe they can create and own an anti-fake news campaign and use it to crush Trump, they once again sorely miscalculate. Trump begins flagging incidents of what he views to be fake news in the mainstream media. To an outsider, it almost looks like toddlers slinging peas at one another: as fast as reporters manage to call out Trump for supposedly committing fake news, he hits them back with his own examples of their supposed false reports. Pretty soon, Trump has effectively co-opted the phrase. At a news conference on January 11, 2017, CNN reporter Jim Acosta tries to ask a question and persists when Trump doesn’t call on him. “You are fake news,” Trump declares, pointing a finger at Acosta. “It’s all fake news. It’s all fake news,” Trump tells reporters at a February 16, 2017, news conference. A week later, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, he tells the cheering audience, “I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. It’s fake, phony, fake.”
The wild card.
Thus articles Do "Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote"?
that is all articles Do "Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote"? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Do "Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote"? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/07/do-shady-political-operatives-and-fake.html
0 Response to "Do "Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote"?"
Post a Comment