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.

https://terikanefield.com/can-democracy-work-in-america-part-1-there-are-no-yankees-here/

2/

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?”

3/

I am not sure why people are assuming this young woman is a "single issue voter."

Her degree is in environmental science. She works in that field. That is her passion. That is what drives her.

Why would that mean she doesn't care about anything else?

One person just told me that he hates Democrats like her. (Don't pile on that person. I already blocked him.)

4/

I think a lot of people are caught up in a relatively small partisan rage-generating bubble and don't realize they are in a bubble.

5/

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.

6/

For me, it started when people came to me in a panic about a case going to the Supreme Court called U.S. v. Gamble.

I wrote about it here:
https://terikanefield.com/misinformationoutagecycle/

In 2020, much of left-leaning Twitter was persuaded that the voting machines in Georgia would be hacked by Republicans.

Then, all through 2021, I was assured that Merrick Garland's "inaction" would doom American democracy.

7/

I have spent 5 years responding to one after another.

More recently was a meltdown over the possibility that Trump's immunity appeal may delay the trial until after the election.

(Chances of that are close to zero, but large numbers of people were in rage mode.)

I have tried to offer perspective from history. I have tried to explain how the criminal justice system works and what we can expect (and why).

But there will always be one more outrage.

8/

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.

9/

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 . . .

10/

. . . 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.

11/

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 !!!)

12/