YES!! i’ve been banging this drum for years! as a political consultant i’ve witnessed this problem for years, e.g. funders developed “software that mimics personas,” which obviously resulted in psyching themselves out in 2016 and 2024.
the strategy starting in 2017 onwards was that funders wouldn’t fund their own media, instead they’d use fake social media “software that mimics personas” and celebrities to push out their raw messaging—they literally said they “had” to do this b/c “Russia,” and called for “informational hygiene” while at the same hiding all this electioneering b/c it’s not law to disclose.
Now they have the gall to whinge about needing “their own Joe Rogan,” which Kulinsky has obviously been auditioning for since 2024 😝
Just curious - how much $$ are CNN, MSNBC, et al paying their commenters? Or even disclosing their "professional" bio and why they might be vigorously nodding their heads with Rachel when they are providing us with the "new."
It has felt like the US has been brought to you by Pfizer, that is until the truth starting leaking out, their stocks fell, Fauci left, and RFK, Jr. threatens to end the monopoly.
Yes, Lee, you can't expect social media influencers to be any more or less transparent than their mainstream media counterparts. There are few if any on air commentators on CNN, MSNBC, Fox et al who don't derive other income from full time jobs or freelance gigs as lobbyists shilling for interests on one or both sides of the aisle.
Exactly. I find it almost laughable to wring our hands over paid social media influencers when the legacy media shills have been paid (directly or indirectly) for years.
The whole warfare/welfare scam to centralize power in Washington DC is built on media manipulation leveraging a gullible public. The scam is alive and well.
Appreciate your concern, but asking for more government regulation of speech is never the answer. And yes, disclosing financial relationships in relation to your free speech, is compelled speech. The answer is for whistleblowers, investigative reporters, whomever, to find out what’s going on and let the rest of us know. Then the market will work as it should.
That tribal draw to be in line with the influencer is such a hard thing for people to withstand. Exposing their financial motive without full disclosure is a welcomed antidote.
There’s very little that’s “similar” about the two covert campaigns. One was small and narrow; perpetrated by a specific industry; and was called out, apologized for and stopped in its tracks almost immediately. The other was enormous and broad; perpetrated by an entire political party on behalf of a wide array of corrupt interests; and still to this day has inspired zero admission, contrition or reform.
And the small and narrow one was perpetrated by, as far as I can tell, all of three fairly minor X "influencers"in the conservative space whereas the campaign on the other side was perpetrated by hundreds.
I vaguely recall seeing something on Revolver about Nick Sortor calling out the people who had posted identical remarks on EBT cards and soda.
I never even heard of any of those MAGA accounts that posted that stuff, but then I'm not on X.
We really can't trust much of anything nowadays, because we always need to be pondering whether the person pushing a certain point of view is being paid off.
Public sentiment and shared reality, which drive collective action, likely stem from shared facts and individual engagement. However, I reject the idea of collective decision-making—only individuals can make decisions.
The process that shapes arguments upon which truth and shared reality are founded should not be understood as a corruption of the marketplace of ideas. Assuming some methods are ‘organic' or ‘authentic' while others are not limits our perspective. All public sentiment is manipulated, but nevertheless, it creates the space—the marketplace—wherein individual decision-making can sometimes facilitate thriving and survival.
All theoretical and theological belief systems demand transparency about their sources of ‘truth', regardless of their practical value. Authenticity itself doesn’t determine the survival value of public sentiment. History often shows inauthenticity serving survival. That said, some public sentiment can seem self-destructive, but as a boomer, I may be biased.
Good article with good possible solution: "We should support influencers who voluntarily disclose their financial relationships and conflicts of interests, and question those who don’t" . Just to be clear, does that mean supporting genuine influencers - ones that disclose financial support - that have a different supporting political view than one's own view(which in the US means 'other side of the aisle' or effectively speaking 'them')? If Yes, that's a pretty big psychological shift, especially in the US.
There is also the aspect of suspicion, "Oh he must be someone who is funded by a rich ulterior folk."
But in essence is correct. I don't think the suspicion aspect is too big of a problem, but the psychologically being fair "to all sides"(or especially, the political concept 'of the other' in the US) relative to an honor system of sorts is.
People are sheep.
YES!! i’ve been banging this drum for years! as a political consultant i’ve witnessed this problem for years, e.g. funders developed “software that mimics personas,” which obviously resulted in psyching themselves out in 2016 and 2024.
specifics here: https://www.brookhines.com/p/neoliberals-glamping-in-death-valley
the strategy starting in 2017 onwards was that funders wouldn’t fund their own media, instead they’d use fake social media “software that mimics personas” and celebrities to push out their raw messaging—they literally said they “had” to do this b/c “Russia,” and called for “informational hygiene” while at the same hiding all this electioneering b/c it’s not law to disclose.
Now they have the gall to whinge about needing “their own Joe Rogan,” which Kulinsky has obviously been auditioning for since 2024 😝
Just curious - how much $$ are CNN, MSNBC, et al paying their commenters? Or even disclosing their "professional" bio and why they might be vigorously nodding their heads with Rachel when they are providing us with the "new."
What's interesting is how many "news" programs were sponsored by Pfizer, as shown in the intro to Russell Brand's show ("Brought to you by Pfizer!").
That explains all their enthusiasm over the Covid shots, as well as their collective disdain for any "alternative" Covid treatments.
It has felt like the US has been brought to you by Pfizer, that is until the truth starting leaking out, their stocks fell, Fauci left, and RFK, Jr. threatens to end the monopoly.
Yes, Lee, you can't expect social media influencers to be any more or less transparent than their mainstream media counterparts. There are few if any on air commentators on CNN, MSNBC, Fox et al who don't derive other income from full time jobs or freelance gigs as lobbyists shilling for interests on one or both sides of the aisle.
Exactly. I find it almost laughable to wring our hands over paid social media influencers when the legacy media shills have been paid (directly or indirectly) for years.
Maybe we learn to do more critical thinking. Not jumping on a band wagon.
Mind manipulation of a highly gullible public has been going on a long time
Operation Mockingbird represented the pinnacle of the CIA's efforts to
covertly infiltrate and manipulate the media to control information flows
and serve government interests. At its height in the 1950s-70s, the
CIA had cultivated relationships with hundreds of journalists, news
executives, media organizations, and front groups that it utilized to
disseminate propaganda, plant stories, influence coverage, and shape
public opinion in its favor. This expansive apparatus enabled the CIA
to dictate narratives, distort facts, influence foreign perceptions, and
obfuscate misdeeds - all cloaked behind a guise of objectivity.
https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/the-modern-legacy-of-operation-mockingbird
The whole warfare/welfare scam to centralize power in Washington DC is built on media manipulation leveraging a gullible public. The scam is alive and well.
Appreciate your concern, but asking for more government regulation of speech is never the answer. And yes, disclosing financial relationships in relation to your free speech, is compelled speech. The answer is for whistleblowers, investigative reporters, whomever, to find out what’s going on and let the rest of us know. Then the market will work as it should.
That tribal draw to be in line with the influencer is such a hard thing for people to withstand. Exposing their financial motive without full disclosure is a welcomed antidote.
Totally unsurprising but appreciate your well-written article on this, Lee. Agree with other commenters calling for people to leave social media.
There’s very little that’s “similar” about the two covert campaigns. One was small and narrow; perpetrated by a specific industry; and was called out, apologized for and stopped in its tracks almost immediately. The other was enormous and broad; perpetrated by an entire political party on behalf of a wide array of corrupt interests; and still to this day has inspired zero admission, contrition or reform.
And the small and narrow one was perpetrated by, as far as I can tell, all of three fairly minor X "influencers"in the conservative space whereas the campaign on the other side was perpetrated by hundreds.
Influencers should all let viewers know when they’re being paid- even if they agree with the politicians. That includes the msm.
Thanks, Lee! Interesting article.
I vaguely recall seeing something on Revolver about Nick Sortor calling out the people who had posted identical remarks on EBT cards and soda.
I never even heard of any of those MAGA accounts that posted that stuff, but then I'm not on X.
We really can't trust much of anything nowadays, because we always need to be pondering whether the person pushing a certain point of view is being paid off.
How about not supporting any 'influencers'.
Public sentiment and shared reality, which drive collective action, likely stem from shared facts and individual engagement. However, I reject the idea of collective decision-making—only individuals can make decisions.
The process that shapes arguments upon which truth and shared reality are founded should not be understood as a corruption of the marketplace of ideas. Assuming some methods are ‘organic' or ‘authentic' while others are not limits our perspective. All public sentiment is manipulated, but nevertheless, it creates the space—the marketplace—wherein individual decision-making can sometimes facilitate thriving and survival.
All theoretical and theological belief systems demand transparency about their sources of ‘truth', regardless of their practical value. Authenticity itself doesn’t determine the survival value of public sentiment. History often shows inauthenticity serving survival. That said, some public sentiment can seem self-destructive, but as a boomer, I may be biased.
Yet another reason I’m glad I don’t engage with social media.
Good article with good possible solution: "We should support influencers who voluntarily disclose their financial relationships and conflicts of interests, and question those who don’t" . Just to be clear, does that mean supporting genuine influencers - ones that disclose financial support - that have a different supporting political view than one's own view(which in the US means 'other side of the aisle' or effectively speaking 'them')? If Yes, that's a pretty big psychological shift, especially in the US.
There is also the aspect of suspicion, "Oh he must be someone who is funded by a rich ulterior folk."
But in essence is correct. I don't think the suspicion aspect is too big of a problem, but the psychologically being fair "to all sides"(or especially, the political concept 'of the other' in the US) relative to an honor system of sorts is.
Social media free America. The environmental movement of the mind.