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/

@geophany Once weekly I get this in my box from the Post about the Trump trials:
https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?trackId=5986a242ae7e8a68160e418f&s=65ee1f8537548053961dc39a&linknum=2&linktot=48

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//

@geophany

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!"

@geophany Then I would explain that charging people with perjury is difficult because of the standards so it is rarely done.

Then they will start howling about how rule of law is dead and favors the rich and there are no real consequences.

It's all gotten too predictable and tiring: Fani Willis does nothing wrong. Merrick Garland does nothing right.

The echo chamber is too far gone and it's hard for me to comment on current issues without attracting people mired in in it.

@Teri_Kanefield

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.

@geophany

Maybe I should write for you and mute everyone else :)

@Teri_Kanefield @geophany
Most of the people not interested in hype don't reply!

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.

@dingodog19 @geophany @GottaLaff

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.

(I write quickly then come back to edit for style 😉 )

@dingodog19 @geophany @GottaLaff

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.

It's an ego rush for them.

I can't stomach the ugliness they are creating.

@dingodog19 @geophany @GottaLaff

I don't want to be part of the dialogue any more.

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 I could call it off. The other was live, so I suffered through it.

The third (that went well) was Politics Girl.

I won't name the other two. . .

@dingodog19 @geophany @GottaLaff

. .. but I now understand what went wrong.

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.

It's not how academics works.

And it's not how serious lawyers discuss the law.

@dingodog19 @geophany @GottaLaff

So, as I keep saying, I will switch my focus.

I will have a blog post on voting rights ready today.

I think this way I'll keep the people who want to think about interesting issues and lose the people who want to fight over which commentator is right, which is impossible to do honestly because part of the "game" is that they never admit when they are wrong.