Alternate Realities

“This reality-fracturing is the result of an information ecosystem that is dominated by platforms that offer financial and attentional incentives to lie and enrage, and to turn every tragedy and large event into a shameless content-creation opportunity. This collides with a swath of people who would rather live in an alternate reality built on distrust and grievance than change their fundamental beliefs about the world. ” —Charlie Warzel, in The Atlantic

Reprinting here what I put out to my Substack newsletter, Hu’s Letter, this morning.

This edition is gonna be a little different from the usual fare, given we’re headed into another four years of a Trump administration! I am not going to share poetry because all the poetry being passed around in the wake of the decisive re-election of criminal/con man/rapist/racist/dumb dumb Donald J. Trump has somehow made processing the grim reality we’re in harder for me. Instead, this particular TikTok worked better on me, h/t Friend Doree:

Speaking of TikTok… imho the single most important thing to understand about this election is a tech/culture story. It’s the complete realignment of cultural power away from “trad media” and toward right-leaning or extreme right podcasters and influencers. The story of the 2024 election is that of political technology.

Heather Cox Richardson sets it up this way, emphasis mine:

[Racism and sexism] were amplified by the flood of disinformation that has plagued the U.S. for years now. Russian political theorists called the construction of a virtual political reality through modern media “political technology.” They developed several techniques in this approach to politics, but the key was creating a false narrative in order to control public debate. These techniques perverted democracy, turning it from the concept of voters choosing their leaders into the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing.

In the U.S., pervasive right-wing media, from the Fox News Channel through right-wing podcasts and YouTube channels run by influencers, have permitted Trump and right-wing influencers to portray the booming economy as “failing” and to run away from the hugely unpopular Project 2025. They allowed MAGA Republicans to portray a dramatically falling crime rate as a crime wave and immigration as an invasion. They also shielded its audience from the many statements of Trump’s former staff that he is unfit for office…

We all ignore Joe Rogan and the manosphere to our peril. When I say manosphere, I mean the algorithmic amplification/reinforcement of a right wing fictional universe (via small batch Substacks and Rumble, up through podcasters and YouTubers, OANN, Fox News). It is a mirror industry of social media platforms built specifically to amplify right wing voices and cannot be ignored, because it lures in apolitical/typically fence-sitting participants, notably any man under 30 who has a hobby:

I want to point you to a few useful follows and pieces that are clarifying. Because yes white dudes broke for Trump (as they have before). But Kamala Harris also underperformed with almost every kind of young person: young white women, young Black voters, and young Latinos. And Democrats will never claw their way back to power without understanding how a powerful disinformation infrastructure works to advantage billionaires and what they want. Links and follows:

The so-called Breitbart Doctrine stated that “politics is downstream from culture”—that is, the ideas conveyed by popular entertainment shapes consumers’ worldviews. This proposition called for conservatives to build a shadow Hollywood that tells conservative stories and raises up conservative stars (Duck Dynasty’s un-P.C. patriarch, Phil Robertson, won an award named for Breitbart in 2015). In the long run, though, the doctrine’s biggest impact has been encouraging the right to get creative with online culture.

They instead built that “shadow Hollywood” where it really matters: not in film and TV, but online.

“This imbalance when it comes to online influence is no accident. It is the result of massive structural disadvantages in funding, promotion, and institutional support. And understanding why Democrats can’t (or really won’t) cultivate an equivalent independent media ecosystem that rivals what the right has built is crucial for anyone who hopes to ever see the Democrats back into power…

Leftist channels do not receive widespread financial backing from billionaires or large institutional donors, primarily because leftist content creators support policies that are completely at odds with what billionaires want.

Left leaning influencers argue for things like higher taxes on the rich, regulations on corporations, and policies that curb the power of elites. Wealthy mega donors aren’t going to start pouring money into a media ecosystem that directly contradicts their own financial interests.”

tl;dr I think it is futile to analyze any of the 17,000 campaign tactics or strategies or decisions that could have gone differently. The key factor in 2024 was the strength of a fictional cinematic universe that holds extreme sway among young people and men in America (and frankly, more and more in other parts of the world as well).

Now What?

The Washington Post has this great long read from 2023 on responding to the “crisis of masculinity,” writing:

If the right has overcorrected to an old-fashioned (and somewhat hostile) vision of masculinity, many progressives have ignored the opportunity to sell men on a better vision of what they can be.

George Conway, writing in The Atlantic, says our one hope is Trump’s incompetence:

He represents everything we should aspire not to be, and everything we should teach our children not to emulate. The only hope is that he’s utterly incompetent, and even that is a double-edged sword, because his incompetence often can do as much as harm as his malevolence. His government will be filled with corrupt grifters, spiteful maniacs, and morally bankrupt sycophants, who will follow in his example and carry his directives out, because that’s who they are and want to be.

Okay, before the next Trump administration starts, Brian Beutler, writing in Off Message, offers another glimmer.

“Is there any reason not to despair entirely?

One source of hope is that the future is unwritten.”

Finally, paraphrasing Elizabeth Warren here: On the road ahead, there will still be opportunities to fight back. We might not win most of them. But when we arrive at each of those moments, we will have a choice to give up or fight forward. Extremists are counting on us to point fingers at each other and lose trust in our ability to make change. We will continue to fight for each other.

We will return to regular newsletter programming next time.

Journalism Next

Spent the last 36 hours in and around Arlington, TX, home of the JerryDome and University of Texas at Arlington, Stiles’ alma mater. We talked about journalism nonstop for hours; I’ve never considered or discussed journalism with that length or breadth since maybe college, and back then I wasn’t in class that often so maybe I’ve topped myself.

Yesterday we spent the afternoon with the staff of UTA’s student paper,  The Shorthorn, giving a short talk and then training (Stiles on computer assisted-reporting, me on multimedia/video). This morning we took part in back-to-back panels at a Society of Professional Journalists Career Conference for students and young professionals, where we talked convergence journalism (one of my fave topics, as you know). Apologies to the students who had to see us twice. Goodgod.

The Hu-Stiles traveling roadshow often starts with this piece from CBS’ Jeff Greenfield, which is a great introductory explanation of what convergence is, and what it means. (So much for CBS understanding the sea change though, they still don’t allow their videos to be embedded elsewhere so I had to link you instead of show you the story on this page.)

The bottom line is, distinctions between print reporters, TV reporters, radio reporters and others are quickly melting away. We’re all hybrid, multi-platform journalists now – or should prepare ourselves to be – and students should embrace it or be left behind. “It’s the cost of admission these days,” said our fellow panelist, CBS11 web editor Kent Chapline.

Here’s a sample slide… and the full audio from one of our panels is available thanks to a forward-thinking future journalist named Brooks, who is also a Plano Senior High grad. (Go Wildcats.)

My favorite part of Stiles’ slide is “don’t be evil”. He can better explain it, but this is something we both feel very strongly about as journalists. Being evil, to us, means hoarding information because you can. Not connecting audiences to the best resources because you only want them to be on your website. Not telling certain stories because it’s difficult or not sexy or doesn’t tie to revenue goals. That’s evil. Not allowing your video to be embedded other places is evil. Not linking out to other blogs and helpful sites is evil. Not using open source and free journalism tools like Google Docs and Flickr or Audacity because you only want to use your own stuff is silly, and if it’s keeping good info from viewers and readers, it’s evil. Using social media solely to push your own stuff and not have a conversation is not quite evil, but it’s a poor use of social networks.

We, as journalists, are information sharers. In a time when information is everywhere all the time, we oughta be information finders and sorters and filters – people who help provide greater context, explanation, digging – to help news make better sense to people or help it better connect to their worlds. We can’t do it if we believe other finders and sorters and diggers out there aren’t worthy of linking to or promoting or teaming up with. Don’t be evil.