It's amazing how the same media outlets will play both sides for maximum views. Sometimes (though not this time) from the same author.
Hype up a 'movement' or protest until it is able to hit critical mass. Have nothing but encouraging words to share. Then when it is mostly self-sustaining and has a large group of people who have invested too much to back down, start fighting against the movement. Fan the flames to create two groups on both extremes ("pro-movement" and "grow up already") shouting over each other, not accomplishing anything and reaching no agreements.
Neutrality doesn't sell as well as extremism. This has happened with every protest/movement in recent memory. They jump from one movement to the next because as the fire dies out the clicks stop coming in.
its a fair point though not sure its purposefully manipulative as many magazines like The Atlantic for example try to give voice to various sides of an issue, even before the internet and click-bait existed... then you have "extremists" like Slate who can spin every single story to their far-left wing schedule no matter what, even when it makes absolutely no sense
I feel there is a difference between giving both (or all) sides a voice and setting up a fire only to fan the flames.
1) Release 3-5 articles all supportive and encouraging and downtalking any other sides. Fire them off daily or weekly at the start of a movement.
2) Spin around a month or two later and post little positive coverage and now post the other side(s) arguments while downtalking the movement. A complete tailspin from the first step.
If 1 & 2 don't have that month period between and happen at the same time - I see it as giving a voice to both sides. If 1 and 2 have a large time gap between them, it's setting up a fire then fanning the flames.
In recent memory, outside of "fringe" or "everyone discards it as a right wing nutjobs newspaper" (Breitbart) there has never been negative/critical coverage of any school "protests". All MSM has nothing but positive things to say until the movement is dying out/people are forgetting about it at which point they become highly critical, piss off those in the movement, and fan the flames a while longer.
It's something I see time and time again. It's the timing that is suspicious. Not necessarily the articles themselves.
3 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 10.9 ms ] threadHype up a 'movement' or protest until it is able to hit critical mass. Have nothing but encouraging words to share. Then when it is mostly self-sustaining and has a large group of people who have invested too much to back down, start fighting against the movement. Fan the flames to create two groups on both extremes ("pro-movement" and "grow up already") shouting over each other, not accomplishing anything and reaching no agreements.
Neutrality doesn't sell as well as extremism. This has happened with every protest/movement in recent memory. They jump from one movement to the next because as the fire dies out the clicks stop coming in.
1) Release 3-5 articles all supportive and encouraging and downtalking any other sides. Fire them off daily or weekly at the start of a movement.
2) Spin around a month or two later and post little positive coverage and now post the other side(s) arguments while downtalking the movement. A complete tailspin from the first step.
If 1 & 2 don't have that month period between and happen at the same time - I see it as giving a voice to both sides. If 1 and 2 have a large time gap between them, it's setting up a fire then fanning the flames.
In recent memory, outside of "fringe" or "everyone discards it as a right wing nutjobs newspaper" (Breitbart) there has never been negative/critical coverage of any school "protests". All MSM has nothing but positive things to say until the movement is dying out/people are forgetting about it at which point they become highly critical, piss off those in the movement, and fan the flames a while longer.
It's something I see time and time again. It's the timing that is suspicious. Not necessarily the articles themselves.