As a point of note, my editors gave it the “How Twitter Amplifies Authoritarianism” title. I personally wouldn’t have called it that.
I am curious, what would you have titled it?
But in this case, there’s a new medium and a sensational message that have combined into an effect that’s unlike anything that’s ever happened before.
Except that isn’t true. The article you wrote goes directly to Hitler and his use of radio and TV, thus proving it is not unlike anything before. But the problem isn’t limited to that. We don’t even have to leave Twitter to see it isn’t new. Obama’s use of Twitter for his politics was tremendous, enough so that research about it has been conducted — including across national lines. Simply put, no politican or political movement has had the clout and impact on Twitter that Obama has. Indeed, Obama’s use of Twitter in the 2012 race was widely regarded as a major factor in his re-election and an example of a brilliant use of “a new medium”.
What is different is that Trump is known to author his own tweets, and clearly doesn’t have a media organization running the account, whereas Obama had his account managed for growth and reach. Another difference is that Trump is arguably more efficient in Twitter use given that he gets higher retweets and “likes” than obama but with a fraction of the followers. That, however, isn’t specific to Trump. During the campaign, Hillary Clinton shares that status. Salon pointed out that when you look at the data, Clinton was far more prolific (against, probably due to management of the account) than Trump, but Trump’s tweets had higher engagement.
What is interesting and useful is looking into what could be a cause of the vast disparities between Trump’s smaller follower count but higher engagement. Analysis has been done on the content style differences between the candidates in the 2016 election, and nothing appears to be changing. For example, Trump rarely linked to his website in tweets, whereas the majority of Clinton’s linked tweets were to her campaign pages and Sanders to his own.
Another interesting difference is in what each of them retweets. While much was made about Trump retweeting various individuals what was passed over is that when yu compare the three clear patterns emerged. According to journalism.org in an article last summer (so clearly only covering data up to that time), Trump retweeted the egeneral public nearly 80% of the time, whereas Clinton retweeted her campaign account or staffers 80% of the time (Sanders about 2/3rds of the time retweeted news outlets).
These patterns are far more important than the content, assumed, inferred, or otherwise. They reveal aspects of the larger body of the public, as well as the campaign methodology themselves. Clinton ran an “I’m with her” campaign, whereas Trump ran a “He’s with me” campaign. I was pretty certain Trump would win when I realized that, as that method of campaigning is known to be far more effective. Their respective Twitter activity shows that when you realize that most of Trump’s retweets were of a public with no discernable connections to government or politics, and Clinton’s was the opposite.
I don’t see the the data to support the idea of Twitter pushing authoritarianism, whether it be Trump’s or Hillary’s, Republican or Democrat authoritarianism. If you’re going to assert this is the case, you must present evidence.
While Trump has a comparatively high engagement, he has a comparatively low reach. It is difficult to argue that this represents broad applicability or representation rather than more energized or active followers. While it is well known that a “more energized base” is important in elections, it is less clear that it matters in the general day-to-day of politics, political thought, and ideologies.
Where it does seem to matter is in the press. This is where the difference is being made. The press is amplifying Trump’s tweets much more so than his reach on Twitter. To me, this is where the more cogent and insightful investigation would lie. What would happen if the media stopped freaking out about so many of this Tweets? IMO, the media is playing to something which is clearly one of his areas of expertise and, unwittingly I presume, increasing the effectiveness of it.
If we assume every one of the ~24m followers on Trump’s Twitter account reads every one of his tweets his tweets can reach only ~24m people. But when the main news outlets hop on board with talking about them they increase, or amplify, those tweets to those who do not follow the account. This, however, is similar to Hitler’s use of the microphone.
It wasn’t the microphone or Hitler’s use of it that amplified his reach, it was the media’s focus on it; along with of course, his proclivity to invade other countries. How the media focuses on the tweets and tries to frame Trump and his administration via them is remarkably, and sometimes disturbingly, similar to how the American press of the inter-war era framed Hitler and his rise.
A key aspect then, as now, is a failure of the press to focus on the guts, and instead focus on the celebrity. They focused on his oratory, his use of language, the apparent attraction of his speeches, and for a long time discounted his potential for achieving success. That sounds quite familiar. Note the key variable here is what the press chose to focus on. Note that the American press was insistent that Hitler wasn’t going to invade anyone, arguably because they focused on the celebrity aspect of Hitler in his pre-ascension days rather than doing investigative journalism.
We see the same behavior in American press today. It focuses on tweets and what the pundit believes rather than the details and day-to-day non-celebrity activities. The American press seemingly refuses to look at the totality and instead focus on that which brings in “the hits” or “the eyeballs”. The American press of today has built a career on amplifying outrage, and are continuing to do so as if it were the only thing they know how to do. It focuses on personality and celebrity rather than substance. It infers and suggests things so it can claim later that it “never said that, I merely suggested it might be the case”. Doing this only plays to Trump’s strengths, not the press’.
Moving beyond individuals, Twitter was considered a major factor in Obamacare engagement as well — both in terms of support/opposition as well as enrollment activity. Regardless of one’s personal position in that area, it is undeniably a Big Deal, and Twitter is a part of that legacy. This brings us to an important distinction between Twitter and the Microphone.
Twitter is bi-directional, the microphone is not. Analysis of the effect of the Internet and social media in general has shown there is a significant dampening effect not present in “microphone media”, despite media claims to the contrary. If there is to be any meaningful comparison between today’s Twitter and the 1930s microphone, this must be a key aspect of it. the majority of tweets regarding Trump or “fascism” are actually opposed to or negative toward him, not in favor.
Any rational analysis of the use and effectiveness of Twitter in any regard deserves, demands almost, actual data. Your article provides none. It merely makes assertions and false comparisons between radio of the 30’s and Twitter of today. It is a faulty comparison for many reasons, and falls short in other ways. Really it reads as more of a “stop this man’s free speech” screed than any real analysis of the effect of social media. The American press’ true effective power lies in an interest and ability to ignore the surface, and dig deeper, not in assigning motive and labels but in dealing with and reporting on the details of the things not being “covered” in social media. But it is currently choosing to not do this.
An American press that focuses on the details rather than the people would be quite refreshing. Rather than trying to track down who tweeted or retweeted something deemed offensive or false, a proper media response is to talk about the substance and show why, objectively, authoritarianism is a bad thing and fails, why socialism produces the undesirable results it does, and where capitalism is or is isn’t a factor. But instead it, as your article does, focuses on the celebrity rather than the details.
Rather than focusing on accusations of Trump’s purported “-isms”, the press would do well to report on the actual ramifications — both positive and negative — of immigration and make the distinction between legal and illegal. Rather than talk about Trump’s twitter it should be talking about the commonality in language and policy on immigration shared between Trump, Obama, Bush, and Bill Clinton.
Instead of talking about Trump’s tweets about demographics, the media should be talking about the actual acts of violence and the rate of fraudulent acts of violence. Actual violence has a far more chilling effect than words, and “crying wolf” leads to increased authoritarianism.
There has indeed been a rise in authoritarianism in the United States, but it has been going on for a couple of decades — a lot of it on the left in addition to the right. The appeals to emotion, the increase in centralized control and power are not new things by Trump or his supporters. By claiming they are, and by refusing to see the arguments in favor of authoritarianism and the actual implementation of it over the last couple of decades (at least) the American press further undermines its own trust level, and appears to be merely a partisan and/or ideological tool. Twitter isn’t to blame for that. Trump being on Twitter or not will not change that.
If the press has a role in preventing authoritarianism (which, IMO, a free press must), then only by recognizing the historical trend toward a more authoritarian government, pointing these out regardless of our personal beliefs about the motivations or “rightness” of the goals, and how this feeds more authoritarianism, can the American press expose the underlying problems and shift. Or it can instead talk about Trump’s tweets while the march from republic to managed democracy to a more full-blown thirst for populism based authoritarianism continues unchallenged by those with the power and tools to do so.
