In re the Media Matters chart of online shows: I am reminded of research that I conducted in the early 1980s, along with my colleagues George Gerbner, Stewart Hoover, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli, on the then new and widely celebrated [on the right] and feared [on the left] explosion of TV-based evangelical programs [Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, etc.]. Mainstream churches were worried that they would lose their congregants, and their donations, to these electronic competitors; liberals were worried that they would push the country to the Right [Falwell et al claimed major responsibility for Reagan's election]. We were asked to study this new phenomenon and determine what sort of role they might play. At the time the electronic church programs were frequently described as reaching an audience of tens of millions every week. However, this audience figure was determined by adding together the viewership of these individual programs, and our research showed that most of these programs attracted the same core audience. In other words, rather than a combined audience of, say, 50 million, the actual audience was closer to 15 million folks, most of whom watched several of these programs. The question I have here, then, is whether the astounding audience figures for many of these online programs might in fact encompass many of the same folks, who tune in to several programs. This doesn't diminish the seriousness of the situation noted but it might dramatically reduce the size of the actual combined audience.
This is a well thought out essay, but it leaves out an essential part. The tech billionaires who are powering this regime are scooping up all of the data in our federal systems, training AI on it, and preparing to use that to control us and the information flow to us. We are now in an age where fascist can invent their own reality and have it look realistic with generative AI videos. But what is worse is that they can single out those of us who have communicated in a way that our data can be found on the Internet and correlate that with our most personal data stored in federal systems to control our communications and us. We are in the middle of an AI coup. Read the writings of Gil Duran and his blog, The Nerd Reich, to learn more.
Incredible point. I think right now my piece is kind of a "pre-AI" look at things, and I'd need to update my thinking on all this to keep up with it. So much more work to do, and I really appreciate your insight into this.
As Marshall McLuhan said even before the internet: "The medium is the message."
Your point about the Democrats using antiquated "top-down" unified messaging rather than "grassroots-up" viral communication is critical. Authoritarianism and fascism become attractive options when people experience they have no "voice" in politics. The illiberal Right, not owning the traditional "liberal media," adopted a guerrilla alternative electronic media network that felt more personal and aligned with the media habits and short attention spans of younger citizens.
I remember the glory days of the Counterculture Movement where our message of radical change was a smorgasbord of mediums - music, concerts, underground newsletters, and non-mainstream celebrities such as Mohammed Ali, etc. The message was anything but top-down unified and it carried the wild spirit of novelty and creativity.
Yes, the Right has hijacked democracy and is bending it to its authoritarian agenda. Can the Left reclaim its rightful ownership of being the "voice of the people" and learn again how to speak their language in their preferred media?
In re the Media Matters chart of online shows: I am reminded of research that I conducted in the early 1980s, along with my colleagues George Gerbner, Stewart Hoover, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli, on the then new and widely celebrated [on the right] and feared [on the left] explosion of TV-based evangelical programs [Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, etc.]. Mainstream churches were worried that they would lose their congregants, and their donations, to these electronic competitors; liberals were worried that they would push the country to the Right [Falwell et al claimed major responsibility for Reagan's election]. We were asked to study this new phenomenon and determine what sort of role they might play. At the time the electronic church programs were frequently described as reaching an audience of tens of millions every week. However, this audience figure was determined by adding together the viewership of these individual programs, and our research showed that most of these programs attracted the same core audience. In other words, rather than a combined audience of, say, 50 million, the actual audience was closer to 15 million folks, most of whom watched several of these programs. The question I have here, then, is whether the astounding audience figures for many of these online programs might in fact encompass many of the same folks, who tune in to several programs. This doesn't diminish the seriousness of the situation noted but it might dramatically reduce the size of the actual combined audience.
Just saying.
Larry Gross
This is a well thought out essay, but it leaves out an essential part. The tech billionaires who are powering this regime are scooping up all of the data in our federal systems, training AI on it, and preparing to use that to control us and the information flow to us. We are now in an age where fascist can invent their own reality and have it look realistic with generative AI videos. But what is worse is that they can single out those of us who have communicated in a way that our data can be found on the Internet and correlate that with our most personal data stored in federal systems to control our communications and us. We are in the middle of an AI coup. Read the writings of Gil Duran and his blog, The Nerd Reich, to learn more.
Incredible point. I think right now my piece is kind of a "pre-AI" look at things, and I'd need to update my thinking on all this to keep up with it. So much more work to do, and I really appreciate your insight into this.
As Marshall McLuhan said even before the internet: "The medium is the message."
Your point about the Democrats using antiquated "top-down" unified messaging rather than "grassroots-up" viral communication is critical. Authoritarianism and fascism become attractive options when people experience they have no "voice" in politics. The illiberal Right, not owning the traditional "liberal media," adopted a guerrilla alternative electronic media network that felt more personal and aligned with the media habits and short attention spans of younger citizens.
I remember the glory days of the Counterculture Movement where our message of radical change was a smorgasbord of mediums - music, concerts, underground newsletters, and non-mainstream celebrities such as Mohammed Ali, etc. The message was anything but top-down unified and it carried the wild spirit of novelty and creativity.
Yes, the Right has hijacked democracy and is bending it to its authoritarian agenda. Can the Left reclaim its rightful ownership of being the "voice of the people" and learn again how to speak their language in their preferred media?