That seems like it should hold true, generally. However, it doesn't seem to hold true in present day US politics. Most people who pay attention aren't any less punished than those who don't. Very little of the political news has to do with policy or issues that are up for meaningful debate, and when it does it lacks nuance. Sometimes when unpopular legislation is in the pipeline there's not even an adequate description of what it is in popular media, let alone meaningful debate. Mostly I see divisive partisan propaganda and finger pointing. There's evidence to suggest voters preferences don't really impact policy in the long term, such as the Princeton study.
> There's evidence to suggest voters preferences don't really impact policy in the long term, such as the Princeton study.
The dirty little (open) secret of US politics: nothing, nothing an individual does really matters unless they put in tons of time (time doing things, not reading Twitter), tons of money, or both. And even then it's a crapshoot unless you've got serious cash.
Less true at a very local level. Definitely true of anything past the county level or so.
In 2019, Be careful about what kind of news you uncritically believe. The punishment to those who ignore due skepticism, is being governed by those who will manipulate.
Too true... I can't stand Trump on a personal level... but he's right about one thing. There's a lot of manipulation and outright falsities in news, and almost no research or fact checking in the twitter sphere.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's the one benefitting the most from the lack of fact checking.
Not safe at all. (Covington Kids, for one thing.) The groupthink among the left-leaning media, particularly the news, is pretty egregious. The degree to which they communicate with each other using electronic networks and create their thought bubbles is well documented at this point. If you "follow the money," to figure out who benefits, then it turns out, it's Far Left activists who benefit by getting to push their agenda and set the narratives. This even results in monetary benefit through fundraising.
I wasn't going to dive into far right conspiracy theories.
SO isntead let's keep it simple: Take all the live footage and public statements by Donald Trump during his presidency - from rallies, in front of the white house, or even the rare press events - and have his claims analyzed by fact checkers. I'm not sure if he'd make it even remotely to a 50% truth-score. Countless obvious, easily disprovable lies on a daily basis.
That's what I meant by "benefitting the most". You might dismiss it as the left-leaning media you mentioned, but this should be a good starting point to keep track of Trump's false claims: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
Two wrongs don't make a right... it's generally considered the media/news organizations that are supposed to fact check and limit bias. They absolutely don't right now, and that is a huge problem when the news media becomes more about pushing an agenda, than any single politician that should get fact checked (even the cheeto in chief).
Not following the news daily doesn't mean you can't do research before elections to makes a decision. It also doesn't mean people are trying to fool you into voting for them - I can reject lots of candidates based on what they're most proud of / what they put on their plans.
