Andrew Marantz gives his readers an insight
into the world of social media, especially that segment that proclaims to be
journalistic. In his introductory
comments about that landscape, he describes it as an “antipathy to the
establishment wings of the Democratic and Republican parties, but their guiding
principles seemed more temperamental than political.”[1]
The
upper echelon of this group – the VIPs – have solidified a position among the
political class and Marantz looks at what motivates them to do what they do. It seems to be a mixed bag of incentives. He writes:
They [the VIPs] made their names, and in most
cases made a good living, by generating what they called content – podcasts,
publicity stunts, viral memes – which they peddled across a variety of
platforms: a Twitter [today called X]
feed driving traffic to Patreon, a Gab feed soliciting donations through
Coinbase, a personal site racking up revenue.
This insured that, if they got banned from one platform or another, they
wouldn’t starve, and their message wouldn’t be starved of attention. Some of them knew a lot about politics; some
knew next to nothing about politics. In
every case, their main skill was the same:
a knack for identifying resonant images and talking points, and for
propelling them from the fringes of the internet into the mainstream.[2]
In summary, Marantz calls them “metamedia
insurgents.” And given this knowledge
base among these VIPs, they hit upon politics because it draws the highest ratings,
and one can suppose the highest revenues.
Of
course, all of this does not point to the federated aim of a more perfect union
or the common good, but to cause and accelerate emotive reaction at a cultural
level. And if the consequence is to
undermine existing institutions, so much the better. Marantz claims that they are motivated to eradicate
old institutions and that social media can serve as matches to burn those
institutions down.
One
target institution is the mainstream news media. Citing Mike Cernovich, a lawyer and social
media blogger, the end of mainstream news media is foreseeable – “their days
are numbered.”[3] Mainstream news’ ability to control the
national, political discourse, the nation’s narrative, has already been highly
compromised if not ended. Cernovich boasts
that everyone has a voice in current day America. And given the necessary salacious talents,
those so “blessed” have a louder voice than those that don’t.
To
the extent that this is true, it presents federated theory quite the
challenge. While federalism is all in
with people becoming involved in the politics of their lives, especially at the
local level, this over the top, over emotional form of discussion – and more
dangerously, form of journalism – is not what federated discourse looks like.
As the last posting of this blog stated, a
federated discourse is noted for being level-headed, reasoned – not jumping to
conclusions – and sensitive to the needs of fellow discussants. That discourse is not vindictive, virulent, or
valued for its shock value as the social media world too often exemplifies.
In
sum, this situation begs for a better socialization into politics and, as long
as the natural rights view holds dominance in the nation’s civics instruction –
as it does – this pandering to immature impulses – which is what this blogger
believes is going on – the future seems dim in promoting a federated citizenry;
that is, a citizenry that pictures a general sense of partnership among the
populous.
No comments:
Post a Comment