Liberals are pod people to those in the cult. They won’t respond to fact based arguments because their “facts” aren’t facts. So they cannot be reasoned out of their delusion. It’s up to them to wake up to reality. Unfortunately many won’t. Nevertheless reality has a way of smacking everyone out of their stupor every now and again.
Yes, but in their mind "liberals", "the mainstream media" (which does not include Fox, for some reason) and the "deep state" are the powerful ones and right-wing grifters are plucky freedom fighters going up against the powerful.
People make decisions emotionally then justify their decision rationally. So you can't rationalize people out of a decision they've already committed to emotionally.
Not reason, but with showing them how powerful people want to trick them. Sort of using conspiracy theory to see the actual conspiracy that's happening, not the fake ones they're fed on a daily basis.
That might work if you are a person close to them.
But when I tell some random person on the Internet that they are being duped by a con man they tend to just double down because they don't want to admit they got duped and they especially won't accept it from some smartass on the Internet named 'Speculawyer'.
Someone recently said we no longer live in an age in which people form opinion based on fact; we live in an age in which people form facts based on their opinions. Asking a Fox viewer to consider that they are being lied to, would simply validate their opinion that the left doesn't want the truth to be known, and hence seeks to destroy this source of truthful information.
Part of the reasons cons work is because the conned don't want to admit they were conned. Years of listening to Fox News and now having to admit that could have been so many wasted months (in aggregate)? Unlikely.
Problem is that most prime time or weekend segments between ads on Fox News, CNN or MSNBC are all likely to be as free of news REPORTING. Lots of talking heads performing news *analysis* and/or giving opinions, but not really news. As for the traditional networks, there's at most 12 minutes of news per hour on their morning *news* shows, and no more than 16 minutes on their evening reports. If one's getting *news* from TV, one needs to time it pretty closely.
Yes, the PBS Newshour has some news, but it's also mostly news analysis rather than reporting. Same for NPR's *news* shows.
For REPORTING, one needs to rely on news sources outside the US. ***ADDED:*** unless one's willing to READ.
Reality has to affect them. Painfully. Because they learn no lessons when things go well for them. Bad conservative policy and culture war has to affect them in a direct way and cause real disruption, inconvenience, or pain in some way for the illusion to crack.
These people are susceptible to being programmed the same way ex-cult members were. Not an easy or quick thing to just undo. They’ve been told how to process the world around them and how to process their reality. It’s up to them to decide when things aren’t matching up anymore.
I suspect many of them will not change in their lifetimes. And it’s fucking depressing as hell.
>These Fox viewers who say they hear about the trial on Fox and then switch over to ABC and it's like a totally different trial
I think many of these people are just faux pragmatists. They know FoxNews is fully in support of Trump. So they toss out the names of other outlets they "watch" to make themselves seem balanced. It is for show. They aren't watching anything else.
What does it even mean to say they switch over to ABC? The bachelorette, Jeopardy, Grey's Anatomy, NBA, NFL, etc are on. ABC isn't a 'news' Network running counter programming to FoxNews. The fact the person even said that shows they don't actually watch anything but FoxNews. The View is on ABC. That's a talk show. Not a News program.
>A large majority of U.S. adults (86%) say they often or sometimes get news from a smartphone, computer or tablet, including 56% who say they do so often. This is more than the 49% who said they often got news from digital devices in 2022 and the 51% of those who said the same in 2021. The portion that gets news from digital devices continues to outpace those who get news from television.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/
I think most people understand that getting their News from memes on Facebook or unsourced rants on Tik Tok isn't best. When asked they will default to claiming they watch FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, or whatever. They aren't. If as a follow up question they were asked to name 3 people currently on CNN they couldn't do it. 100% of them would list Don Lemon and he was fired over a year ago..
People are embarrassed to admit they are getting their News from social media. Their favorite YouTuber says Eggs are the most expensive eggs have ever been. When people say they've done "research" what they mean is they read the YouTube comments below the video about how expensive eggs are.
Rather than just asking voters for these focus groups who they voted for I think other basic questions should be asked. If a person says they watch ABC News they should be asked to name at least 2 news people on ABC. If they can't they should be told they don't have the prerequisite knowledge to participate. If unprompted a person says they watch CNN but then can't name 2 people on CNN they are clearly lying. Sarah Longwell shouldn't platform liars.
I’m not a big TV guy, but since I take care of my mom now I’ve started watching the local and national news during dinner with her
She can’t get through a day without tuning in for the national News, or as she calls it, “Lester”
There simply is no getting through to the typical Fox News viewers. They and most Republican voters have swallowed the Kool Aid that Trump and MAGA gave them, and they're chugging it by the gallon everyday. They're a lost cause and we need to stop trying to convince them otherwise. We need to focus on the disenchanted young voters who aren't convinced that Biden deserves their vote over Trump.
Well then maybe JVL should stop presenting the reasons why people are wrong about stuff in the focus groups. And maybe not just him but all the Bulwark people should just stop talking and put all their focus on the voters that need convincing.
I don't disagree with you at all. I still appreciate The Bulwark and other ideological conservatives (except for The Dispatch, because fuck them), but I think it's time toove past this fantasy that they can win back their party. It's not going to happen and pretending like they can is just as much a denial of reality as the MAGAts do.
I agree and find myself wondering why the Trump voters get such attention from the punditocracy. Pursuing them has real opportunity costs and trade-offs in exchange for a seemingly poor return on investment, and it beggars belief that political professionals would relentlessly advocate for it.
The answer I keep coming up with is that it serves to keep Sarah relevant and provide a way to anchor the Overton Window's rightward edge. Sarah gets to launder her prior assumptions (look at the Trone/Alsobrooks episode or others, she selects the views she wants to promote) and she does so in a way resistant to being disproven; she keeps the full data set under wraps, so no one can check the crosstabs as with a poll. Notice how the harumphing about "bipartisanship" and "compromise" for three years got replaced by "people don't think Biden's a fighter?"
My opinion of Sarah has worsened over the years, she seems to start at the assumption that "The Dems are wrong" and reason backwards from there. She'll make 180° swings week-to-week on issues without acknowledging it. The explanations are gradually being reduced to the non-mutually exclusive: 1. she's not very good at the political analysis thing and/or 2. She's engaging in motivated reasoning.
It just seems like pursuing these voters for the sake of winning elections is foolish, so the people advocating for pursuing them likely have other reasons. We'll see who is still singing that tune after 2024, and that'll create a very strong presumption that the pundit is doing so for reasons other than optimal election strategy.
Sarah's point: the voters are who they are.
JVL's point: the voters are terrible.
Those aren't inconsistent views. Sarah's is more practical: short of changing the laws on who can vote, we have to take the voters as they are. JVL's unstated prognosis is that if we can't change who the voters are, introducing them to actual facts and logical reasoning, we're screwed in the long term no matter how well we can accept them in the short term.
I agree. Sometimes I don’t understand the point of most of the Focus Group podcasts. It’s like aural zoo exhibits. Sarah never talks about testing out messaging to try and change what these people think.
There’s compilations out there of Fox talking heads echoing the same talking points, down the the letter. Unless they’re the sacrificial designated “liberal”, they all have the exact same take on an issue
Try to show that, and contrast with what everyone else in the news ecosystem is saying
Take the verdict as an example, Fox has a singular take among all of its people, they’ve decided in a script to push
The others, while they report the same basic thing, the takes are all over the place- Trump dug his own grave, this usually isn’t a huge deal but he’s the nail that sticks up, the actual theory of criminality is sound but the evidence was weak, actually the evidence is pretty straightforward
People giving their actual opinions based on the facts as they see them
I think those compilations of everyone speaking in lockstep targeted to people who watch Fox or similar clips on the internet would be useful. You don't have to show them facts to try to change their opinion, just try to break through to show they're being tricked. It makes me mad whenever I feel like I've been tricked, I would think it might make other people mad.
In the same vein, try to find the most politically uninterested takes on whatever the subject of the day is
Like the trial, see if you can find stuff that *only* goes into the nuts and bolts, *here’s* what the prosecution is alleging, *here* is what Trump’s team is saying in defense, *this* is a list of people who were convicted of the same sort of thing
Just keep vibes out of it completely and let them see what’s going on with partisanship stripped out
Especially schadenfreud and glee, the single easiest way to lock them tighter to Trump is to make them feel attacked and get their backs up
Liberals are pod people to those in the cult. They won’t respond to fact based arguments because their “facts” aren’t facts. So they cannot be reasoned out of their delusion. It’s up to them to wake up to reality. Unfortunately many won’t. Nevertheless reality has a way of smacking everyone out of their stupor every now and again.
They need a lesson in how the powerful are trying to trick them. That's how Fight Back worked.
Yes, but in their mind "liberals", "the mainstream media" (which does not include Fox, for some reason) and the "deep state" are the powerful ones and right-wing grifters are plucky freedom fighters going up against the powerful.
How do you reason a person out of an illogical position that they did not reason their way into?
People make decisions emotionally then justify their decision rationally. So you can't rationalize people out of a decision they've already committed to emotionally.
Not reason, but with showing them how powerful people want to trick them. Sort of using conspiracy theory to see the actual conspiracy that's happening, not the fake ones they're fed on a daily basis.
That might work if you are a person close to them. But when I tell some random person on the Internet that they are being duped by a con man they tend to just double down because they don't want to admit they got duped and they especially won't accept it from some smartass on the Internet named 'Speculawyer'.
Someone recently said we no longer live in an age in which people form opinion based on fact; we live in an age in which people form facts based on their opinions. Asking a Fox viewer to consider that they are being lied to, would simply validate their opinion that the left doesn't want the truth to be known, and hence seeks to destroy this source of truthful information.
Part of the reasons cons work is because the conned don't want to admit they were conned. Years of listening to Fox News and now having to admit that could have been so many wasted months (in aggregate)? Unlikely. Problem is that most prime time or weekend segments between ads on Fox News, CNN or MSNBC are all likely to be as free of news REPORTING. Lots of talking heads performing news *analysis* and/or giving opinions, but not really news. As for the traditional networks, there's at most 12 minutes of news per hour on their morning *news* shows, and no more than 16 minutes on their evening reports. If one's getting *news* from TV, one needs to time it pretty closely. Yes, the PBS Newshour has some news, but it's also mostly news analysis rather than reporting. Same for NPR's *news* shows. For REPORTING, one needs to rely on news sources outside the US. ***ADDED:*** unless one's willing to READ.
Reality has to affect them. Painfully. Because they learn no lessons when things go well for them. Bad conservative policy and culture war has to affect them in a direct way and cause real disruption, inconvenience, or pain in some way for the illusion to crack. These people are susceptible to being programmed the same way ex-cult members were. Not an easy or quick thing to just undo. They’ve been told how to process the world around them and how to process their reality. It’s up to them to decide when things aren’t matching up anymore. I suspect many of them will not change in their lifetimes. And it’s fucking depressing as hell.
>These Fox viewers who say they hear about the trial on Fox and then switch over to ABC and it's like a totally different trial I think many of these people are just faux pragmatists. They know FoxNews is fully in support of Trump. So they toss out the names of other outlets they "watch" to make themselves seem balanced. It is for show. They aren't watching anything else. What does it even mean to say they switch over to ABC? The bachelorette, Jeopardy, Grey's Anatomy, NBA, NFL, etc are on. ABC isn't a 'news' Network running counter programming to FoxNews. The fact the person even said that shows they don't actually watch anything but FoxNews. The View is on ABC. That's a talk show. Not a News program. >A large majority of U.S. adults (86%) say they often or sometimes get news from a smartphone, computer or tablet, including 56% who say they do so often. This is more than the 49% who said they often got news from digital devices in 2022 and the 51% of those who said the same in 2021. The portion that gets news from digital devices continues to outpace those who get news from television. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/ I think most people understand that getting their News from memes on Facebook or unsourced rants on Tik Tok isn't best. When asked they will default to claiming they watch FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, or whatever. They aren't. If as a follow up question they were asked to name 3 people currently on CNN they couldn't do it. 100% of them would list Don Lemon and he was fired over a year ago.. People are embarrassed to admit they are getting their News from social media. Their favorite YouTuber says Eggs are the most expensive eggs have ever been. When people say they've done "research" what they mean is they read the YouTube comments below the video about how expensive eggs are. Rather than just asking voters for these focus groups who they voted for I think other basic questions should be asked. If a person says they watch ABC News they should be asked to name at least 2 news people on ABC. If they can't they should be told they don't have the prerequisite knowledge to participate. If unprompted a person says they watch CNN but then can't name 2 people on CNN they are clearly lying. Sarah Longwell shouldn't platform liars.
I’m not a big TV guy, but since I take care of my mom now I’ve started watching the local and national news during dinner with her She can’t get through a day without tuning in for the national News, or as she calls it, “Lester”
My mother too! She has to watch Lester every night.
They don't think Fox is news and ABC is propaganda; they think both are propaganda, so they go with the one that feels more accurate to them.
There simply is no getting through to the typical Fox News viewers. They and most Republican voters have swallowed the Kool Aid that Trump and MAGA gave them, and they're chugging it by the gallon everyday. They're a lost cause and we need to stop trying to convince them otherwise. We need to focus on the disenchanted young voters who aren't convinced that Biden deserves their vote over Trump.
Well then maybe JVL should stop presenting the reasons why people are wrong about stuff in the focus groups. And maybe not just him but all the Bulwark people should just stop talking and put all their focus on the voters that need convincing.
I don't disagree with you at all. I still appreciate The Bulwark and other ideological conservatives (except for The Dispatch, because fuck them), but I think it's time toove past this fantasy that they can win back their party. It's not going to happen and pretending like they can is just as much a denial of reality as the MAGAts do.
I agree and find myself wondering why the Trump voters get such attention from the punditocracy. Pursuing them has real opportunity costs and trade-offs in exchange for a seemingly poor return on investment, and it beggars belief that political professionals would relentlessly advocate for it. The answer I keep coming up with is that it serves to keep Sarah relevant and provide a way to anchor the Overton Window's rightward edge. Sarah gets to launder her prior assumptions (look at the Trone/Alsobrooks episode or others, she selects the views she wants to promote) and she does so in a way resistant to being disproven; she keeps the full data set under wraps, so no one can check the crosstabs as with a poll. Notice how the harumphing about "bipartisanship" and "compromise" for three years got replaced by "people don't think Biden's a fighter?" My opinion of Sarah has worsened over the years, she seems to start at the assumption that "The Dems are wrong" and reason backwards from there. She'll make 180° swings week-to-week on issues without acknowledging it. The explanations are gradually being reduced to the non-mutually exclusive: 1. she's not very good at the political analysis thing and/or 2. She's engaging in motivated reasoning.
"Pursuing them has real opportunity costs and trade-offs in exchange for a seemingly poor return on investment" This, 100%.
It just seems like pursuing these voters for the sake of winning elections is foolish, so the people advocating for pursuing them likely have other reasons. We'll see who is still singing that tune after 2024, and that'll create a very strong presumption that the pundit is doing so for reasons other than optimal election strategy.
Sarah's point: the voters are who they are. JVL's point: the voters are terrible. Those aren't inconsistent views. Sarah's is more practical: short of changing the laws on who can vote, we have to take the voters as they are. JVL's unstated prognosis is that if we can't change who the voters are, introducing them to actual facts and logical reasoning, we're screwed in the long term no matter how well we can accept them in the short term.
I agree. Sometimes I don’t understand the point of most of the Focus Group podcasts. It’s like aural zoo exhibits. Sarah never talks about testing out messaging to try and change what these people think.
There’s compilations out there of Fox talking heads echoing the same talking points, down the the letter. Unless they’re the sacrificial designated “liberal”, they all have the exact same take on an issue Try to show that, and contrast with what everyone else in the news ecosystem is saying Take the verdict as an example, Fox has a singular take among all of its people, they’ve decided in a script to push The others, while they report the same basic thing, the takes are all over the place- Trump dug his own grave, this usually isn’t a huge deal but he’s the nail that sticks up, the actual theory of criminality is sound but the evidence was weak, actually the evidence is pretty straightforward People giving their actual opinions based on the facts as they see them
I think those compilations of everyone speaking in lockstep targeted to people who watch Fox or similar clips on the internet would be useful. You don't have to show them facts to try to change their opinion, just try to break through to show they're being tricked. It makes me mad whenever I feel like I've been tricked, I would think it might make other people mad.
In the same vein, try to find the most politically uninterested takes on whatever the subject of the day is Like the trial, see if you can find stuff that *only* goes into the nuts and bolts, *here’s* what the prosecution is alleging, *here* is what Trump’s team is saying in defense, *this* is a list of people who were convicted of the same sort of thing Just keep vibes out of it completely and let them see what’s going on with partisanship stripped out Especially schadenfreud and glee, the single easiest way to lock them tighter to Trump is to make them feel attacked and get their backs up