I'd like to add a bit more to what I said about this week's blog post:
https://mastodon.social/@Teri_Kanefield/112067724816108715
Invented Narratives and the Outrage Industry
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.
1/
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.
2/
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.
3/
But it was an avalanche.
(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.
4/
One feature of fasicsm is group chants.
How is "There are never any real consequences!" chanted by tens of thousands of people in chorus not a group chant?
I can guarantee that if I wrote this on Twitter, someone would say, "But there ARE never any real consequences."
On Mastoston there is 1 in 10 chance that I'll get that comment 😂
An improvement? I don't know.
At least a half dozen people responded to my post with irritation asking, "Why are you focusing on MSNBC and not Fox?"
5/
Why indeed?
"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 😂 )
6/
I intend to continue my blog, but instead of responding to the latest rage, I will write about what interests me:
Who is included in 'we the people' and why?
How did our criminal justice system develop?
I'm also interested in voting rights history.
What I won't do anymore: offer commentary on the latest legal or political development.
Why? Because the moment I do, someone will tell me that there are never any real consequences and I will get testy and that testiness is a sign. . .
7/
It's a sign that something is wrong. That it's taking a toll on me.
I am sure it is taking a toll on a lot of people who are feeling anxious and unwell without knowing why.
Others are anxious because they are victims of the rage machine.
I am getting testy because I am completely disgusted by the rage machine.
I will put the finishing touches on my series, pin it to the top of each of my social media accounts.
8/
So it will be there as a resource.
Here is a fantasy: If people stop consuming rage content, it will stop being profitable.
It is a fantasy because it is too addicting.
Today's teachers and communications professors are teaching young people how to navigate information on the Internet and cable talk shows.
Similarly, people had to learn to evaluate written sources after the invention of the printing press.
9/
I get my news from print media because in print I am better able to skip the hype and opinions.
Also, in print, I can spot when a headline is misleading.
I have never gotten news from TV or cable. I don't like those talking heads.
On election night, I am generally working (I do voter protection work) but I watch the numbers and figure out which districts are reporting first.
I tried once to listen to the elections pundits and after 10 minutes I wanted to throw something at the TV.
10
For the people asking if I can find a way to continue offering explainers my answer is this:
If you stop listening to pundits you won't feel confused and you won't need an explainer.
If you stop listening to partisan pundits you'll stop viewing everything through the lens of "will this help Trump" and you will be more objective.
I didn't address a few of the more recent invented narratives. I may do that.
I'll let you all know when the series is in final form.
11/
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.
12.
@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.
I think I'll respond to this for everyone, if you don't mind.
@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)
1/
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.
2/
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.
I'd rather have fewer readers.
Make sense?
Teri Kanefield
joeappel