It has become right-wing conventional wisdom that the January 6 insurrection was not the work of Trump supporters but of antifa and BLM agitators. The New York Times reports that this all started with a tweet from a right-wing radio host named Michael Brown:
Only 13,000 people follow Mr. Brown on Twitter, but his tweet caught the attention of another conservative pundit: Todd Herman, who was guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh’s national radio program. Minutes later, he repeated Mr. Brown’s baseless claim to Mr. Limbaugh’s throngs of listeners: “It’s probably not Trump supporters who would do that. Antifa, BLM, that’s what they do. Right?”
....By day’s end, Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin had shared it with millions of Fox News viewers, and Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida had stood on the ransacked House floor and claimed that many rioters “were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.”
This is a good example of how social media works. Its direct reach in this case was tiny: 13,000 followers is nothing, and they probably shared the tweet mostly with other true believers who are already so far down the rabbit hole that they hardly matter.
But social media also acts as a kind of laboratory for more conventional media. Most of the really outrageous stuff stays buried in the nether regions of Facebook and Reddit, but occasionally one of the big guns decides to amplify a likely looking conspiracy theory. This time it was Rush Limbaugh's program, followed quickly by Fox News. From there it took on a life of its own.
That's how this stuff works. There are exceptions here and there, but for the most part there's surprisingly little evidence that social media has very much real-world impact on political views. It becomes important only when something that's swirling around the fever swamps gets picked up by media figures with truly vast audiences. This usually means Fox News, where it reaches millions of people and acquires the patina of reliability. After all, a news program wouldn't lie about something like this, would it?
By itself, social media isn't generally all that harmful. Its conspiracy theories mostly get shared within a bubble of other true believers and never make it to the outside world. It's only when something gets picked up by Fox News that it takes on a life of its own. This is why we should worry less about Facebook and more about the real threat to democracy. That's Fox News, and it always has been.
I have been amazed at the logic.
Trump states repeatedly that Antifa is the greatest threat to America since, something.
Trump has expressed his desire to destroy Antifa repeatedly.
Trump calls McCarthy to tell him that Antifa and BLM are attacking the Capitol.
Trump does not call the National Guard to destroy Antifa.
Why would Trump allow Antifa to ransack the Capitol?
Same reason he allowed Epstein to traffick in girls. Had to let their evil manifest before he could stop them.
Just a strict constitutionalist like El Jefe honoring the 4th, 5th, & 8th amendments.
I am amazed that the media won't simply point out that people who call Antifa terrorists are fascists.
They're not confused people, they're actually fascists, every one of them.
Why can't we talk about that?
Upvoted.
You hardly have to be a right-wing genius to come up with the idea that it was Antifa that stormed the Capitol. "False flag operation" is the "argument" of choice with these guys whenever an undeniable fact doesn't fit the right wing worldview. So even if doofus X with 12,000 Twitter followers hadn't been the first to say this, someone else would have thought of it. It was 100% inevitable that a sizeable portion of the Trump party would be spouting this by end of day on 1/6.
Yes, these particular claims were inevitable. To see how media works, you would have to trace some really weird and unique claim, like pizzagate.
This process wouldn't be so bad if once the real truth becomes obvious, the GOP/Trump base would then understand and accept the facts. The problem is that once the idea is planted, and the idea makes their side look better, they'll believe it anyway. Fact checking to the contrary is Fake News. Trump taught them well - believing BS and lies is okay. Facts are whatever feels right.
We are supposed to have wiser citizens than this.
It's worth noting that the progenitor of this particular conspiracy theory - Michael D. Brown - is, in fact, the Michael Brown of Hurricane Katrina infamy. "Heckuva job, Brownie." I live in the Denver area, where this guy has a show on one of the local right wing talk radio stations, and it's unlistenable even by the appalling standards of that genre. Brownie's radio voice is awful, he has basically nothing intelligent or insightful to say about anything, and he has none of the charisma of someone like, say, Rush Limbaugh.
I did not know that. Thanks for the info.
Heckuva job, Brownie!
Brains ro ij feather stick together shal ul polluted tezna.
(as per this Orcish translator, https://funtranslations.com/elvish)
We radicalized him by being so mean about his feckless response to Katrina.
Figured it must be our fault, somehow.
Before 2016, the people who ran social media barely considered the threat of amplification of false narratives and propaganda on their platforms. Would eliminating Section 230 push them to do a better job?
If the problem was always Fox News, why not the reinstate (or codify) the Fairness Doctrine under the FCC and once again reclassify the internet such that the Fairness Doctrine apply to all platforms?
The Federal Government owns the airwaves, and the Courts allow the government to restrict what is transmitted over those airwaves. The Federal Government does not own the internet or the cable television infrastructure that distributes Fox News, so there's no exception to the First Amendment that would allow the government to impose the Fairness Doctrine on the internet or on cable television. Any attempt would be struck down by the courts.
This may be true for the population that doesn't do much on social media - but everybody's on social media these days. There is also a cancer working on the reverse vector of this and I think it's just as bad, if not worse, because it deals in "light touch" contacts that subtly influence people with low levels of information. They scroll past their local Fox (or Sinclair) news station having an outrage story in their feed and that makes an impact on their general perception of the world, much like just glancing at newspaper headlines used to do. Meanwhile, to be exposed directly to Tucker Carlson's latest raving on video, one has to actively seek that out in most cases (whether by turning on the TV or finding it online somewhere). And so, in the end, it still is social media (really just facebook) because it circles right on back where it gets exposure to millions of people. Some idiot tweets something demonstrably false, some right-wing hatemonger picks it up and amplifies it, which then gets a blurb on Fox News or something like that, which then gets a small write-up, which then gets posted to Uncle Bob's wall with a shrill 3-paragraph anti-government screed that triggers an avalanche of hate and links to other misinformation in the comments.
The conspiracy theories of the 1990s were just as bonkers as QAnon: Hillary murdered Vince Foster; Bill runs drugs out of the Mena Airport; UN black helicopters are prowling the skies of America; and many more.
The big difference is that today, social media gives conspiracy theorists a platform to spread their crackpot ideas.
Kevin just can't bring himself to admit that his beloved California tech companies made of mess of things.
"Unmarked Helicopters" by Soul Coughing still slaps.
Good points. The Vince Foster stuff was 100% mainstream in the right wing too--possibly even more mainstream than the current bonkers nonsense. Remember that this was all part of the endless Starr investigation.
Oh, I very much believe that old conspiracy theories were every bit as bad as modern ones. They were also equally widespread, which is one reason I don't think social media is really to blame.
This pattern existed for a while now. Even before social media, you would see them try new talking points on talk radio shows before moving them to Fox and then getting them into the mainstream press. It just happens a lot faster and a lot more efficiently, now.
That's why there have been several times where Trump did something shockingly bad, and for about 8 hours, it seemed like he was in real trouble with Republicans in Congress, but after they saw that the base was still supporting Trump, they'd latch on to the latest right wing lie to excuse it (in this case, that the REAL troublemakers on 1/6 were antifa.)
It's lousy, but I don't see it going away until more of the public stops falling for it.
Kevin - the extrapolation based on ad revenue - is that your's or Pew's?
Mine. I would like to find better audience data but I haven't been able to.
Took a trip to West By Gawd Virginia to see some older (mid-70's) rtelatives. Well educated. Always liberals. On this trip the old man started in on "those people." Surprised the hell out of us. Followed him around one day and sure enough, his news network of choice was Fox. He believes it all.
Hard to believe the last Democrat to win West Virginia handily was Michael Dukakis.
Mountaineers love Willie Horton.
Sorry, but a tweet from the President of the United States is read by tens of millions of people more or less instantly, once it gets retweeted by countless followers. Moreover when it triggers rants from hundreds of talk-back radio hosts with a collective audience in the tens of millions, plus innumerable posts and comments on the internet including Facebook, it dwarfs any impact a Fox News show on cable TV might have had.