How Did False Information Become so Popular
Columnist David Brooks addressed the problem that has become common in the U.S. It is huge numbers of people believing information that is not true. While the problem has many sources, it has happened significantly because of what I have always thought is a driving force cultural change, the demographic variable called urbanization. Everyone knows this is the continuous migration of people from rural areas to cities. People in cities tend to have higher education and the majority do not to feel as left behind by economic and technical advances.
Brooks discusses how a great funnel of information should work. In a society with freedom of press and speech, all kinds of information, both true and false, float around. Through debate, forums, universities, political campaigns and all the rest ideas completely false fall over the side and mostly sound information gets through the funnel.
This funnel worked to some extent when attorney Sidney Powell's completely false accusation the Biden election happened because Hugo Chavez designed voting machines that could be manipulated from Venezuela. The Trump propaganda machine itself had to push this one off the cliff. This is no centralized control of voting computers.
But still over 70% of Trump supporters still believe the election was corrupt. It is fed by propagandists like Newt Gingrich. In an article on the web today he repeats the entirely false claim of centralized computer tampering. Then he goes through the right wing drill of voting sites that called voters who had not used security envelopes properly and were called and allowed to correct them. If this happened more often in Biden sites than Trump sites (which has not been verified), it could not have not have caused a huge change in votes. It is too labor intensive to influence large numbers. Gingrich knows this. But he has become wealthy, a net worth about $10 million, by engaging in misinformation.
Columnist Brooks suggests false information would play a smaller role is somehow urban people could have more exchanges with rural constituencies. That is unlikely to happen when so much money is made peddling false information.
This will be fun. Tremendous evidence on Trump side. The complaints are lengthy with exhibits following. Zero evidence from Jon on his false claim hypothesis. Dominion better get Hillary's bleach cloth and hammer and wipe the server in Frankfurt, Germany. Oh, whoops. Can no longer do that. Somebody is already one step ahead of them and has it in custody already. Sucks to be them. Gee, why did Dominion abandon their offices immediately following this event? They all must have earned a cruise and are now enjoying the sun.....This will be fun indeed.
ReplyDeleteHenry--"...why did Dominion..."
DeleteSounds a too much like the forever missing and never found "weapons of mass destruction."
Very much like the Iraq WMD's. I remember when Hillary wanted to go in and get those WMD's. Then all of a sudden, when convenient to make cheap shot political points, she said there were no WMD's. Then, North Dakota's own soldiers deployed to Iraq using Bobcat skidsteer loaders made in the mighty Gwinner factories, uncovered some of the reported WMD's. Then, the next day, we are back to "no WMD's, no WMD's". Nothing there, nothing there. The cabal learned well from this deceit, and the narrative was repeated so often that those with weak minds quickly forgot about the WMD's that were actually found even when local soldiers found them. No WMD's, no WMD's.
DeleteYou are right. This will be handled the same way, and the new deceitful mantra will be "no fraud, no fraud."
As a side note, I love how the gaffe-ridden "Office of the President Elect" keeps on giving. Yesterday's was awesome in the manner the "devout" Catholic was reading to us from "Palms", otherwise known as Psalms. You just can't make this stuff up.
Henry--"..uncovered some of the reported WMD's."
DeleteYou need to pass that along to ex President W. Bush. He thinks they were never found. I just finished reading a new long book about what led up to the invasion of Iraq including the claim there were WMD's. It's "To Start a War" by Robert Draper. He spent the last two years interviewing all the principals who were in the White House and Congress leading up to the invasion. None of them found the WMD's either. You have some earth shaking information there.
Just relying on the local news that occurred 15 years ago.....old news. But, the repetitive mantra of "no WMD's, no WMD's" overcame all this. People don't like hearing this. Doesn't fit the established narrative.
DeleteHenry Nov 26, 2020 at 10:07 AM. “WMD”
DeleteWhat type of WMD did our North Dakota soldiers uncover? It has been reported Rumsfeld, back in ‘83, sold Saddam some binary nerve gas artillery munitions and Anthrax to use against the Iranians. I have no idea if that’s true. The post-truth era goes way back. Maybe our boys and girls dug up some of Rummies stuff. We obviously trust different sources for our disinformation. Our alternate facts, fake news, and bulls**t doesn’t align. At least I don’t think Hugo Chávez has turned up yet. But then there’s Elvis.
Jon, “But still over 70% of the public still believes the election was corrupt.”
ReplyDeleteCiting the David Brooks article linked in your post the sentence above should read over 70% of “Donald Trump’s bakers” believe the election was corrupt should it not?
Ardy B--Thanks for catching that.
ReplyDeletey'all might be interested in knowing that Mn's purplish senior senator has publicly questioned the reliability and design of Dominion Systems election ware.
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "...questioned the reliability and design of Dominion Systems election ware."
DeleteHere we go picking away at one issue which nothing to do with the other. I don't know anything about the reliability of Dominion Systems software. I do know this, which is what Trump's technology head knows also and said publicly. He said each machine is individual and free standing, not run by some central system somewhere. Then he was fired by Trump. So the opportunity for someone at some secret remote location, some foreign country, to switch millions of votes from Trump to Biden does not exist.
Trump, of course, needs a grievance. The only one he can come up with right now is that he was really elected and it was stolen from him by fraudulent vote counting. It does not matter at all to him this did not happen. What matters is that he says this and millions of his worshippers believe whatever cockamamie tale he comes up with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is some news from last night. The "journalists" still have not reported.
ReplyDelete"Pennsylvania Judge Files Memorandum Stating 2020 PA Election Likely Unconstitutional – Trump Case “Likelihood to Succeed” – Gives State Legislators Power to Choose Electors!"
Hook is set. Reeling is in motion. CNN, MSNBC, ABCNEWS....all are going down the rabbit hole of fake news......"All is well. Biden is President Elect....Biden had record breaking election, people were so enthused with him".
Henry--This case has been covered everywhere. The Judge is a state judge. It is whether a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling, made before the election, was constitutional. Every vote cast was legal. I think that is why no large news organization considers it important. I don't understand why Trump supporters did not take that decision to the Federal courts BEFORE the election. Or, maybe they did and lost.
DeleteVery good, Jon. However, in the eye's of the Court, fraud CANNOT be based on a future event. Keep that in mind next time when you are wheeling and dealing with a bank or cagey developer. Maybe at this stage in life, you could profit by parroting that nugget of truth in some paid expert witness testimony.
DeleteThe most recent case I am referring was only filed late Wednesday night with memorandum written late last night. I believe the one you are talking about has been filed for some time and is now set to go to SCOTUS. News media hasn't reported on the one I am talking about. The news at this point is not favorable to Biden to bury these problems.
As far as cases before the election, the dems filed over 300 cases. These lawsuits set the table for the fraud that we can now look backwards onto.
Henry--So, why hasn't this been a big story? It took awhile to figure out who this judge, Patricia A. McCullough is. She is a member of a court in PA that is unique to PA. It is called the Commonwealth Court. It's "primary responsibility is matters involving state and local governments and regulating agencies." It or individual members can also hear cases against the Commonwealth of PA which happened here. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, a decision by her can be appealed to the "Superior Court" in PA. Above the Superior Court is the PA Supreme Court. It was the body that made the decision she is complaining about. I fail to understand how her decision is important. I guess the circumstances, votes have been cast, is a little different because several people on the ballot won and several others lost. The evidence has been summarized in front of Federal Judges and they did not think it was strong enough to take emergency action. It seems to me that is far more important than this lower level state judge's memo.
DeleteHenry--"..fraud CANNOT be based on future events." I think you are intentionally mixing things up. Judge McCullough does not allege fraud. She is arguing about the state constitution. The whole thing the losers in PA are arguing about, that the Supreme Court in PA should not have ruled as it did, is going to fail because it was not challenged right after the ruling was handed down. They didn't start their legal war until they saw it cost them the election. The two Republican clowns bringing the case forward now didn't complain earlier.
DeleteIn any event, Judge McCullough's decision has been stayed pending appeal to the State Supreme court where it will fail. Then those making the case have to appeal the PA State Supreme court's rejection to a Federal Judge. I can't see how this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court. Incidently, the McCullough story was covered in PA newspapers and Forbes among other sites.
Henry--A review of the case:
Deletehttps://thespectator.info/2020/11/28/pa-judges-stay-order-on-certification-argues-mail-in-ballots-challenge-a-viable-claim/
The "losers" in PA have brought a number of important points to the attention of the Court, one of them being 1.8 million mail-in ballots being given to voters by the State of PA with a resulting 2.5 million mail-in votes collected. That and other egregious acts will not play favorably to the "winners". That kind of discrepancy makes the in-person voter three-fifths (3/5) of a citizen. There is so much disinterest in the corruption, I do think your team Jon will likely prevail.
DeleteHenry "..so much disinterest in corruption.."
ReplyDeleteRudy said in court the Trump case was not about fraud. The PA's judge case was not about fraud. All the talk outside of court is about fraud but none inside the court is about fraud. It's clear to me why this is happening. The Trump circle knows there was not fraud. But Trump needs something to talk about now that he has lost. As always, he needs a grievance to complain about. Write this down, he will use the word "fraud" 100 times a week from now until he fades into the past. And, he will collect lots of money from supporters who will believe forever more there was fraud.
Jon: "Rudy said in court the Trump case was not about fraud."
DeleteThe only place I keep hearing that is from you, Jon. Whenever I listen to Rudy, the opposite context is presented. I think if he did say something like that, he is pulled completely out of context. I have heard many claims of fraud from Rudy.
As far as a conspiracy theory of the "Trump circle" knowing it wasn't fraud, this claim is very much a leap. There is much observable circumstantial evidence that gives the average citizen adequate info to assess that the election in the battleground states was manipulated.
Henry "The only place I keep hearing that is from you, Jon."
DeleteThat's amazing. The only place I keep reading Giuliani said "This is not a fraud case..." is when I read what he told a Judge.
"Just like other Trump campaign lawyers before him, Giuliani would later candidly admit to the judge of the election lawsuit: “This is not a fraud case,” but not before packaging it otherwise in an evidence-addled opening argument."
As to "gives the average citizen (made to think)...battleground states was manipulated", I agree with that. That is exactly what I posted above. If the Trump lawyers can avoid actually going into court and losing they can continue for years to claim Biden was elected due to "fraud." I guarantee you, double your money back, that is exactly what will be playing out. They will not get into court because they do not have what they wish they had but Trump can claim "I was robbed."
After a little study, I do understand what your disconnect is, and it is what I originally suspected. You are several cases back in timeline. Where Giuliani said "this is not a fraud case" was one of the first post-election cases concerning canvassing observation. You cannot apply that comment germane to that case to another case that actually discusses and argues fraud such as the Kelly case filed much later. That IS a fraud case. Everything in its context is a very helpful thing.
DeleteHenry "After a little study..."
DeleteSince neither of us is an attorney nor were present we can argue forever. I only know this, when he appeared in that early time he rambled on about all the same things he has talked about in news conferences and other times before judges. He made the statement after the judge challenged him about the definition of fraud. He, and others, have rambled on about the same things in front of other judges. In every one of those cases judges, including at least one who was appointed by Trump, have decided there is no reason to look into it further. As I pointed out Judge McCullough did not make a case for fraud.