I’d suggest that the mediasphere is no longer stable, and that different people get their news in vastly different places. There is no one “authoritative news source” any longer, I’d argue. The whole “internet bubble” (which is probably stronger on places like FB, but IDK, as I’m not on FB) only serves to reinforce our own world views, even those views that understand how we get our news. So, maybe it’s more like FB is the primary news source for many people, but that’s only going to further mediate people’s access to news, it’s yet another layer of fragmentation. So maybe (if you’re on FB, you might not be) you’re feed has plenty of CNN stories, but that might not be true for everyone.
I assume this is a reference to the general election, should he win the Repub nomination. If he does, I would think that a lot of people, including many Republicans, would turn out to vote against some as appalling as Trump. But maybe I have too much faith in the American voting populace.
Anyway, it’s clear to many that Hillary’s not all that much of a better choice, so if it comes down to that, this year’s even worse version of the evil of two lessers might also keep a lot of people home. A bit hard to blame them, really.
Directly from CNN, though? I don’t know about Facebook, but when I see shared news items online in other contexts, they may have originated with some traditional news outlet, but the story’s been passed through a click farm or two (or three) before it gets shared, at which point it may be in a pretty warped form. (I’ve seen a few viral news items, that if you followed it back to the source, pretty much said the opposite of what the viral form was claiming.)
Right? That’s another aspect, that things that come through FB, etc,are actually just as biased as whatever shows up on the cable channels anyway,because of things like “click farms”… I think the internet bubble stuff is partially from our own mode of internet surfing, but also influenced by corporate interests that are seeking to shape the internet to their own liking…
The contrast between how much attention the media pays to Trump and how little it pay to Sanders is redonk. What does he need to do, put on a dress and marry a Kardashian?
The comparison just shows that the whole thing is rigged for the right.
Trump’s outrageous comments get atttention; Sanders’ outrageous-but-actually-sensible ones (we need cheaper, universal health care; we need free college education, etc.) get dismissed as pie-in-the-sky, if they even get listened to.
In the current polling that I’ve seen, Trump vs. Hillary was very close whereas Trump vs. Sanders had Sanders winning by a decent margin. Of course, with the general election so far away, those numbers are likely not all that accurate.
Yes… and those were after the Kennedy-Nixon debate. Lots of folks are pointing out the power of newspaper and radio, but I’m not convinced either one decided an election the way that debate did. I’d love it if somebody comes up with an interesting counter-story.
The very nature of Facebook itself distorts things, too. I was reading about some studies that were done: a very small number of highly connected people sharing things make fringe views appear to be popular opinions, and things like conspiracy theories spread more widely than the information debunking them, etc. It becomes a kind of recipe for creating low-information voters.
The Kennedy-Nixon debate was shaped by the medium, not The Media. It’s not like they gave JFK a hidden platform to make him look taller, or put extra-hot lights on Nixon to make him sweatier.
