Sadly hammering it home means nothing - this is an idea which belongs to a news media environment where something like the fairness doctrine and bi-partisanship existed.
On The Right of the media economy, you surface the best narratives, and there are no penalties for being inaccurate. Because everything is opinion and rhetorical tricks, saying “It’s terrible what happened in this Dem state. Here’s how the dems caused it” and then being able to say “we never said that dems were monsters”, while platforming fringe theories like pizza gate.
If you go against the narrative you just dont get airtime and attention - meaning you get no revenue or political power. Worse, you might get primaried.
Hammering the truth means nothing, because you would only be selling it back to the center and the left.
The right is interested in facts, only to the point that they support their goals. It’s a protected market.
You can’t really outcompete rackets, but you can’t really restrict speech without getting hit by free speech arguments.
It’s a problem worth solving though, and its a problem worth learning about.
One thing that seems to work isn’t counter speech, its angry speech. It’s not the pro-vax group that gets credence vs the anti-vaxxers, it’s the anti-anti-vaxxers who do it.
I wish people had better ideas, but its hard to even realize the specifics of the market failure.
On The Right of the media economy, you surface the best narratives, and there are no penalties for being inaccurate. Because everything is opinion and rhetorical tricks, saying “It’s terrible what happened in this Dem state. Here’s how the dems caused it” and then being able to say “we never said that dems were monsters”, while platforming fringe theories like pizza gate.
If you go against the narrative you just dont get airtime and attention - meaning you get no revenue or political power. Worse, you might get primaried.
Hammering the truth means nothing, because you would only be selling it back to the center and the left.
The right is interested in facts, only to the point that they support their goals. It’s a protected market.
You can’t really outcompete rackets, but you can’t really restrict speech without getting hit by free speech arguments.
It’s a problem worth solving though, and its a problem worth learning about.
One thing that seems to work isn’t counter speech, its angry speech. It’s not the pro-vax group that gets credence vs the anti-vaxxers, it’s the anti-anti-vaxxers who do it.
I wish people had better ideas, but its hard to even realize the specifics of the market failure.