Mediaboss Marketing

For three days this week an American think tank called the Edmund Burke Foundation has been hosting a conference in London to talk up what it calls national conservatism in the hope of signing up the British right.

So what? The NatCons didnt exactly set the town alight some spoke to a nearly empty hall but they did draw a few big names and they represent a defiant new brand of Christian nationalism that

Who are these guys? The Edmund Burke Foundation is named after Britains leading voice against the French Revolution but was set up in Washington in 2019. Its funding is opaque, but key figures include the Jerusalem-based academic Yoram Hazony and Christopher DeMuth, a former adviser to Ronald Reagan.

The NatCon UK audience is less easy to identify. Of the conference delegates who would speak to journalists this week and many were told not to none were Tory party members. Several had flown in from the US, keen to see if Trumpian politics could be exported.

Much of the focus was on social issues. One delegate said he was a socialist and not that keen on capitalism. There were clerics and theologians who believe faith should play a greater role in public life and want bishops to be willing to die on the hill of gender identity.

For this group, social conservatism trumped immigration as a priority.

God squad. The NatCon conference was held in a church and many of its speeches were shot through with religion. Does that mean England is ready for a US-style Christian right or a version of Germanys Christian democracy? In pockets of the electorate, perhaps. Danny Kruger MP, a former aide to Johnson, spoke of normative nuclear families with a mother and a father. Miriam Cates, a fellow backbencher, said the biggest problem facing the country was a decline in birth rates and a cultural Marxism that is systematically destroying our childrens souls.

Right flank. For Suella Braverman, appearing at the conference had more to do with politics than philosophy. The home secretary attacked government policy in defiance of the usual rules on collective responsibility and her resignation from Cabinet is now baked into expectations back in Westminster. She used the event to draw a line between the right she seeks to lead and relative moderates whore now openly calling her unfit for office.

Lost in translation. If England and America are two countries separated by the same language, NatCon underscored where the division lies. There is limited appetite, among MPs or the wider public, for politics laced with religion and a state that seeks to intervene in peoples private lives.

Meanwhile in Bournemouth, A separate one-day event, run by the Conservative Democratic Organisation and funded by Lord Cruddas, aimed explicitly to take back control of candidate selection and policy formation, and give it to members. Its implicit aim is to restore Johnson to the premiership.

Four days of soul-searching left three questions hanging:

The short answers are yes, yes / no and yes. Tory leaders always have to worry as much about their right flanks as their left. But for now Sunak can probably sleep easy. Neither conference had huge numbers of attendees. And while the CDO had a quaint Englishness to it, NatCon felt like an attempt to transplant a Christian alt-right movement that (so far) doesnt carry weight in the secular UK.

Thanks for reading. Please tell your friends to sign up, send us ideas and tell us what you think. Email sensemaker@tortoisemedia.com.

Photograph Leon Neal/Getty Images

Choose which Tortoise newsletters you receive

IN OUR MEMBERS APP

The man behind ChatGPT has warned the US Senate that there is an urgent need for AI regulation. What might that look like?

Read more here:
The American alt-right wants to set up shop in the UK - Tortoise Media

The following is a guest contribution and reflects the authors views alone. For information on how to submit an article to the Opinion Section, click here.

At the first-year activity fair, you may have come across a booth for the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions (JMP), where fellows advertised the program as an opportunity for those interested in American politics and constitutional thought to hear from a range of perspectives. You may have even read that it doesnt matter whether you regard yourself as on the right or left, progressive or conservative, or none of the above, as the Madison Programs Undergraduate Fellows Forum application form proclaims. All of this would, quite reasonably, lead you to believe that the James Madison Program is a Princeton program for those across the political spectrum to get involved with political thought on campus. One of us thought so, and joined JMPs Undergraduate Fellows Forum under this pretense, leading them to be listed as part of the program throughout their Princeton career.

Over our four years at Princeton, however, we have both come to understand that the Madison Program acts quite differently from how it markets itself. While the Madison Program represents itself as a non-partisan center on campus to engage with American constitutional law and Western political thought as Princetons center for American Ideals, the Madison Program in fact exists to further conservative viewpoints on campus, and in recent years, has increasingly provided a platform to far-right and extremist individuals.

For academic freedom to genuinely exist, groups such as the Madison Program must be honest about the ideas they favor. While we have no say over how the Madison Program operates, we hope to use this platform to alert students to where the Madison Program stands within the marketplace of ideas, a basis on which students can form their own opinions and engage with the program as they wish. The Madison Program has frequently invited speakers and research fellows who are affiliated with the far-right, some of whom have endorsed categorically disproven conspiracy theories, promoted and advanced antidemocratic policies, and espoused shockingly bigoted rhetoric. In addition, the programs sources of funding suggest a deeper level of connection between the program and organizations around the country working on heavily right-wing and anti-queer policies. Those may very well be relevant factors for individuals evaluating the credibility of the programs offerings and their desire to engage with it. Students, faculty, and staff should know what theyre buying into.

Professors Eldar Shafir and Uri Hasson recently highlighted the significant problems with the JMPs decision to invite Ronen Shoval the founder of an ultranationalist Israeli organization who has previously campaigned to silence academics and even shut down the program in political science at Ben Gurion University to be a lecturer at Princeton this year. Unfortunately, Shoval is only the most recent in the James Madison Programs history of repeated invitations to hateful and unreliable visitors.

Notably, in 2022, the James Madison Program hosted Stephen Wolfe, author of The Case for Christian Nationalism, as a visiting fellow for the program. In his book, written while he was still a fellow with JMP, Wolfe argues that Christian Nationalism is Americas way forward. Wolfe calls for a Great Renewal of Christianity in every facet of American life and governance and a return to what he calls Old America. He also affirms for his readers that violence would be a morally permissible way to create a Christian Nationalist state. According to Bradley Onishi, a faculty member at the University of San Francisco who focuses on tracking white Christian nationalism, Wolfes resonances with Hitlers view of the nation are uncanny, specifically in his calls to institute a Christian head of the people, his emphasis that nationality can only be rooted in racial identity, and his musings on interracial marriage that groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves.

Further back, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the JMP hired known right-wing couple Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying as visiting fellows who made headlines for supporting ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 which has since been thoroughly discredited and for denouncing COVID-19 vaccinations. We should be able to trust that our professors and our faculty will listen to the experts, especially when it comes to a national emergency where their own students and peers are in harms way.

In addition, Ronen Shoval is not the first right-wing Israeli to come to Princeton through the JMP. In 2020, the program brought Benjamin Schvarcz on as a postdoctoral research associate, and then in 2021 as a fellow. Schvarcz was hired directly from the Kohelet Policy Forum, an Israeli right-wing think tank credited with driving the judicial reforms in Israel, which have been heralded by many Israelis and policymakers as a threat to democracy.

The James Madison Programs list of advisors includes extremist individuals as well. Harlan Crow, who was recently found to have given undisclosed donations to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and who owns an extensive collection of Nazi memorabilia, including a signed copy of Mein Kampf, is on the list as a civic volunteer, as is his wife Katherine Crow 89. Crows Nazi and Hitler memorabilia, as well as a garden filled with statues of historical dictators and despots, demonstrates his ties to and support of hateful, alt-right politics.

Additionally, the James Madison Program has clear ties to the Witherspoon Institute, located just down the street from Princeton. The James Madison Program advertises seminars and summer programs hosted by the Witherspoon Institute and actively encourages students to attend their programming. The Witherspoon Institute, a right-wing think tank, has a long history of funding research that supports far-right objectives, including the notorious and widely-discredited Regenerus Study arguing against same-sex marriage based on a pseudo-scientific conclusion that children fare worse in queer households.

We also have to analyze the influence of conservative donors on the JMP. JMP was founded with $525,000 in support from the John M. Olin Foundation, which, as investigative journalist Jane Meyer writes, aimed to establish conservative cells, or beachheads at the most influential schools in order to gain the greatest leverage. The formula required subtlety, indirection, and perhaps even some misdirection. JMP has continued to receive financial support from other partisan institutions.

Over 20 years ago, the conservative nonprofit Philanthropy Roundtable advised donors who looked to shift campus to the right to support JMP and copy its model elsewhere.

Because the program receives no money from the university and has forgone any part of Princetons endowment, it has avoided entanglement in any ideological strings the university might attach, the article explained. At the slightest threat to the programs integrity, the foundations and philanthropists supporting it can pull their money.

It is not conjecture to suggest that these donors right-wing ideologies influence the operations of the James Madison Program, including the lectures it hosts, the fellows it hires, and the classes those fellows teach. As Professor Robert George the director of the program stated early in the programs tenure, You should reject the money if you cant follow a donors intent. You have a moral obligation to follow the donors intent. If the James Madison Program was supposed to achieve a goal other than advancing conservative ideology in academia, its founding donors certainly missed the memo.

We do not object to the James Madison Program merely taking right-wing funding or having conservative-leaning Ph.D. and postdoctoral fellows. But they should be transparent about it. The National Council of Nonprofits states that a fundamental financial transparency practice is to make it easy for visitors to a nonprofits website to find information about the nonprofit's budget-size and its sources of revenue, as well as information about board composition, programs, outcomes/impact, staffing, and donors (protecting the identity of those who wish to remain anonymous). Transparency on funding is important for non-profits and educational institutions especially because it often signals the organizations ideological leaning and goals. The Madison Program, meanwhile, provides no information about any donors in any of its annual reports.

A diversity of ideological perspectives is an asset to campus, and our aim is not to undermine that. However, it is essential that when engaging with the James Madison Program, students and faculty know exactly which values the program holds dear in its operation. JMP touts itself as Princetons program on American Ideals and Institutions, but it is clear they are choosing to platform an extremist, right-wing conception of American ideals.

Rooya Rahin is a senior from Highlands Ranch, Colo. studying politics. She is the emeriti chair of the Editorial Board and Financial Stipend coordinator of the Prince and an incoming Princeton MPA student through the SINSI program. She can be reached at rrahin@princeton.edu.

Dylan Shapiro is a senior from Atlanta, Ga. in the School of Public and International Affairs. He is an incoming 1L at Yale Law School and can be reached at dylan.shapiro@princeton.edu.

The rest is here:
What you need to know about Princeton's James Madison Program - The Daily Princetonian

John Farnham

The singers career was flagging when a strange, effusive protest track landed on his desk. A new documentary details how his best-known song came to be bagpipes and all

Wed 17 May 2023 11.00 EDT

Listen to any classic rock station in Australia, continental Europe and much of the rest of the world and youre likely to hear Youre the Voice. John Farnhams 1986 track is one of Australias most enduring global classics a pop song thats both sentimental and forceful in its convictions, and seemingly nonpartisan enough for alt-right groups to try to co-opt it. It hasnt been as heavily memed as, say, Daryl Braithwaites The Horses, another Australian hit of a similar vintage but its just as ingrained in the cultural memory among people young and old.

As far as immortal hits go, you could absolutely do worse: aside from being a musically strange, ineffably genius work, its also a song with a strange history that seems to act as a proof of concept.

By 1986 Farnham was out for the count, according to much of the Australian music industry. The then-38-year-old had been recording under his own name for nearly 20 years at that point, having broken out in the late 60s with a string of dinky but popular hits. As Johnny Farnham he had built a reputation as a gangly, grinning teen idol performing versions of tracks such as Raindrops Keep Fallin on My Head and Acapulco Sun on TV shows such as Hit Scene and Happening. By the 70s he had begun to appear in musical theatre and was hosting roles on television, the relative shine of his early success quickly beginning to dull.

In the 80s after changing his stage name to John Farnham, the singer tried to pull off what so many teen idols have tried to do and which most fail at: a pivot to serious music. The relative lack of success of his first grown-up record, 1980s Uncovered, confirmed that Farnhams attempt to move away from the relatively cloistered world of cabaret and musical theatre would be harder than it may have first seemed. Salvation seemingly arrived in 1982, when Farnham was asked to join Melbournes successful soft-rock outfit Little River Band after the departure of its vocalist Glenn Shorrock. Rather than revive both careers and kill two birds with one stone, it sent each act into a relative downslide, the groups two albums with Farnham failing to reach the same commercial heights as their records with Shorrock in Australia or the US.

Farnham found his time in the band difficult, and there was acrimony at the centre of the group for his relatively short time fronting them. In Finding the Voice, a new documentary about Farnhams life and career, Glenn Wheatley, the manager of Little River Band at the time, describes working with them as akin to managing world war two a perhaps over-the-top but nonetheless evocative descriptor. By the time the bands final album with Farnham was released, 1986s No Reins, he had already left the group not with the resuscitated career he had hoped for but with a drive to create something under his own name that would.

Salvation finally came in the form of Youre the Voice: a huge, effusive and strangely timely single that would single-handedly reorient Farnhams career. Written by the British songwriter Chris Thompson, Icehouses Andy Qunta, Procol Harum songwriter Keith Reid and singer-songwriter Maggie Ryder, Youre the Voice was inspired by a 1985 nuclear disarmament rally in London that Thompson missed; saddened that he hadnt been there to lend support, he began writing a song that he felt captured the spirit of the massive protest.

Eventually the tape was passed to Farnham and his team, supposedly through Qunta. Although Farnham had previously been trying to hone a more rock-oriented sound, Youre the Voice is the product of mod-cons: producers David Hirschfelder and Ross Fraser used walls of samplers and synthesisers to create the songs trademark sound a rich, glossy universe of metronomic blips and synth sighs that sounds like one of Kate Bushs off-kilter hits given a buff and polish.

Although the track is deeply familiar now, at the time it was considered profoundly off-piste for a centrist pop song, using a sample of a car door slamming to form part of the drum track. (Finding the Voice dedicates much of its generally quite dull runtime to talking heads including Celine Dion and Robbie Williams saying why they love the track; the most thrilling sections, no doubt, are when Hirschfelder is mapping out the array of unwieldy synths he used to put the song together.) The songs most recognisable feature its bagpipes solo is still its masterstroke; a downright strange innovation suggested by Farnham that required the entire song to be redone in B-flat, the only key the bagpipes play in.

The tracks graceful, soaring intensity perfectly mirrored Thompsons guilelessly aspirational lyrics, which are decidedly softer and more amenable than more strident protest songs of the decade, such as Midnight Oils Beds Are Burning. And then, of course, theres Farnhams voice for much of the song, its little more than a wordless, mellifluous wail, occasionally pushing itself into an outright howl. Its the embodiment of the songs striver sensibility an instrument being pushed, arguably, to its limits.

Listening now, its almost funny to think of Youre the Voice as a protest song: capturing the profound individualism of the 80s, history has all but buffed away the tracks anti-nuke origins. Instead, it just feels as though it may have been written as a kind of battler anthem, or a simple call for unity. (In contrast to other hits of 1986, of course decidedly apolitical songs including Diana Rosss Chain Reaction or Starships We Built This City you can understand its resonance.) For Farnham, it was a lifeline.

Although it was initially rejected by radio stations because of its associations with Johnny Farnham, the track became a huge success, totally revitalising the singers career and leading to its associated album, Whispering Jack, becoming Australias all-time highest-selling album by an Australian artist. Its a once-in-a-lifetime success story to match a once-in-a-lifetime anthem.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Go here to read the rest:
Make a noise and make it clear! How John Farnhams Youre the Voice became Australias anthem - The Guardian

Succession: episode by episode

Adult diapers at the ready! Its election night and the results are unimaginably disastrous. Will revenge be sweet for Shiv?

Mon 15 May 2023 17.10 EDT

Spoiler alert: this recap is for people watching Succession season four. Dont read on unless youve watched episode eight.

A pressure-cooker episode, largely set in ATN HQ on its first post-Logan election night, saw the quad squad at war. Here are the exit polls for the eighth episode, titled America Decides

We began with ATN boss Tom Wambsgans (Matthew Macfadyen) juggling a chaotic newsroom with demands from his in-laws to deliver blockbuster ratings. He admitted to being a little bit tense from last nights marital strife. Comfy shoes, adult diapers and double shot coffees were required, as was a bump of cocaine from cousin Greg (Nicholas Braun). Definitely no bodega sushi, though. Not for Tightrope Tom-Woms refined palate.

Greg was not-so-fresh from his night on the tiles with GoJo mogul Lukas Matsson (Alexander Skarsgrd), whod made him visit unseemly venues, dance with a confused old man and drink things that arent normally drinks. He had, however, learned about Shivs secret alliance with the striking Viking. Knowledge is power, said Tom, but tonight he wanted the leggy princeling Gregging for me again. Latest polling predicted a tight race, with Democrat candidate Daniel Jimnez (Elliot Villar) edging it but a night is a long time in politics. Its even longer on a rolling news channel with malfunctioning touchscreens and micro-managing CEOs.

Upstairs in the VIP suite, the Roy siblings clashed over consequences of the result for themselves, for the firm and, far less importantly, for the country. Shiv (Sarah Snook) was texted an optimistic four smileys by Jimnezs running mate, Gil Eavis. Roman (Kieran Culkin) received eggplant, eggplant, flag from alt-right rival Jeryd Mencken (Justin Kirk). This would become a running theme: liberal Shiv scurrying off to check in with the Dems, Romulus flirting with the neo-Nazis. He wanted ATN to Trumpishly claim voter fraud. She wanted it to report on civil unrest and voter intimidation. He took impish delight in winding up his sis by dismissing such concerns as false flags.

If Jimnez won, his administration would probably wave through Waystars acquisition by GoJo, leaving the brothers with the board and shareholders nixing the deal as their last hope of retaining ownership. Good for democracy and great for us, Shiv told co-conspirator Matsson. When Kendall (Jeremy Strong) wished Jimnez luck and nudged him to rein in tech once in power, he got short shrift. Roman had more joy with kindred spirit Mencken. They agreed on what assholes would call a narrative. If he lost, Mencken wanted it characterised as a huge victory, laying groundwork for the next election. If he won, hed refer the sale to regulators in exchange for ATNs explicit backing. So it came to pass.

Amid the mayhem, Shiv collared Tom for a corridor tte--tte. Roys rarely apologise, but she said sorry for some of the things I said last night and gave Tom the opportunity to retract too. Except he didnt. Emotionally detached Tom sneered that she was merely worried hed blab about her Matsson alliance, cruelly adding: You hated your dad and kind of killed him.

As a last resort, reeling Shiv shared the news she has been sitting on for four episodes: Also, actually, Im pregnant. By you. Thats one question answered. Tom blankly asked if it was even true or a negotiating tactic. Poleaxed by his cold, sadistic reaction, Shiv stormed off. She took out her frustrations on punchbag Greg, wrongfooting the babbling beanpole by asking if he found her attractive, before threatening him to keep her double-dealing on the downlow. But as we know, morally flexible Gregs hardly rock solid.

When a Milwaukee voting count centre was firebombed and evacuated, ATNs touchpaper was similarly lit. Roman waved it off as antifa or an electrical fire. Shiv and old flame Nate Sofrelli (Ashley Zukerman), part of Team Jimnez, wanted it pinned on pro-Mencken extremists. Caught in the middle, Tom desperately tried to keep the Roys off the newsroom floor.

But Roman had had enough of experts. He steamrollered resident polling guru Darwin (British actor Adam Godley) into calling Wisconsin for Mencken, despite ballots being lost in the blaze. To add injury to insult, human abacus Darwin got wasabi in his eyes, which hapless Greg tried to wash out with lemonade. The slapstick came as a respite from the relentless tension. While Jimnez urged the media to respect the process and wait until all votes could be counted, Romulus ordered ATNs Nazi-sympathising anchor Mark Ravenhead (Zack Robidas) to go full Tucker Carlson, ranting on-air about woke conspiracies against traditional values. As Shiv watched aghast and Kendall seemed depressively inert, ATN lurched even further to the right.

When Arizona went red too, Roman pushed hard to call the election for Mencken. Kendall urged caution but Roman argued that putting their man in the West Wing was what their father would have done. It would kill the deal and was all upside, bar the small matter of the country burning. Dwelling on his daughters recent brush with a racist Ravenhead acolyte, Kendall consulted his sis. Except Shiv secretly had skin in the game.

Roused from his stupor, Kendall levelled with Shiv. He admitted he was tempted to seize sole control of the company and felt threatened by Romans relationship with Mencken. However, stopping Matsson remained his priority. Shiv warned against giving Mencken the legitimacy to declare himself president, not least because if the courts reversed the Wisconsin result, theyd be discredited as a news organisation. She reassured Kendall he was a good guy, appealing to his sense of decency. He asked Shiv to see one last time if the Democrats could block the GoJo takeover too. Cue a killer twist. Wanting to preserve the deal in exchange for a powerful position in the newly merged company, Shiv only pretended to phone Nate.

Under pressure to make a decision, Kendall tried Nate himself. Horrified Shiv was powerless to stop him. In a squirm-inducing scene that seemed to unfold in slow motion, Kendall realised shed lied and got confirmation from Greg that she was aligned with Matsson. Partly out of expediency and partly to spite her, he agreed to call it for Mencken. Cue a chillingly fascistic victory speech, with Hocus Potus saying hed been anointed by an authority of known integrity. Ahem.

Everyone except Roman was shellshocked. PA Jess (Juliana Canfield) looked fearful. Kendall wanted to reassure his kids. Tom was scapegoated by left-leaning Pierce Global News (ATN head blasted for premature projection). We just made a good night of TV, shrugged Roman nihilistically after taking a grateful call from Mencken. Thats all. Nothing happens. Things do happen, Rome, said Shiv, eyes ablaze. She advised Matsson to go public with GoJos subscriber scandal, burying bad news amid the election fallout, and vowed to do a number on her brothers. The sibs were on a war footing. Again.

Whither the dynastys own White House wannabe? Egged on by wife Willa (Justine Lupe), spare part sibling Connor (Alan Ruck) complained that ATN were filming him but the footage wasnt making it to air. Well, duh. His best bet for making his paltry supporter base count was Kentucky. When Mencken won it, Connor asked Roman if a cushy job might still be on offer. In return, he could concede in Menckens direction.

Keen to maintain momentum, Mencken agreed to make Connor ambassador to Slovenia. Now all he needed to do was make a statesmanlike concession speech live on-air. It soon descended into Father Ted-style swipes at those whod wronged him and defiance about his inherited wealth (The politics of envy are ugly. I happen to be a billionaire, sorry). He couldnt even do defeat properly.

With kingmaker Roman set to have a direct line into the Oval Office and an agreement from Mencken to block the takeover, he came out on top. Kendalls reverse Viking plan remains cooking on the back burner.

Roman wisecracked at warp speed and Kendalls goose trying to shit a housebrick merits a mention. Yet the prize goes to Toms advice to Greg: Information is like a bottle of fine wine. You store it, you hoard it, you save it for a special occasion and then you smash someones fucking face in with it. Hopefully its not biodynamic German red with the bouquet of wet dog.

This episode was written by Jesse Armstrong, who steers his ship home by penning the final three instalments. Next weeks is titled Church and State, set at a certain funeral.

A low profile for the greybeards again, with Frank, Karl and Hugo reduced to heckling from the balcony like Statler and Waldorf. Gerri will presumably return for the funeral, alongside exes Marcia and Lady Caroline.

Note how Connors campaign slogan, with delicious double meaning, was Enough already!. Jimnezs was the Obama-esque Lets do this!.

Will Menckens mob storm the Capitol? Will revenge be sweet for Shiv? Rejoin us here next Monday. In the meantime, normalists, stay hydrated and leave your thoughts below.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Continued here:
Succession recap: season four, episode eight nothing is more sadistic than the words Is that even true? - The Guardian

Editor's Note:

In this series we look at how younger voters are likely to impact future elections and American politics going forward.

As we have seen in other articles in these pages, social media has become a key driver of the widening gap in voting behavior between voters over and under 45 years of age. In this article, we look at how the media habits of old and young voters contribute to and enable this gap.

Compared to news delivery systems in the past, news on social media is highly decentralized at its origin and destination. Rather than relying on executives, anchors, and editors to decide what news is fit for consumption, social media places that power directly in the hands of the user. This power allows users to seek out news that interests them and aligns with their concerns, resulting in a fragmented news landscape not defined by political polarization. With this greater access to personalized news feeds comes greater diversity in political perspectives.[1]

According to Pew, over 40% of Americans aged 18-29 say that their primary source of news comes from social media. Twenty-two percent of Americans aged 30-49 say the same. That number plummets to 6% and 3% respectively for those aged 50-64 and 65+. A greater percentage of 1829-year-olds get their news from social media than 65+ year-olds do from cable news shows.

This remarkable skew between older and younger generations has implications beyond just delivery methods because the experience of getting news from social media differs so drastically from the experience of getting news from legacy media.

Viewership among legacy news outlets (national network and cable news, radio, newspapers, and magazines) splits into two different ecosystems defined by party. Recent Pew research could not find a single news outlet that was watched by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Pew was able to identify a number of legacy news sources used almost exclusively by one party.

Social media platforms, by contrast, have users from both parties. The two most popular social media platforms, YouTube and Facebook, are used by the majority of adults in both parties and have almost no partisan split.

Source: Pew Research Center

Source: Pew Research Center

Source: Pew Research Center

There are still some party differences within the social media ecosystem, however. Younger Democrats are more likely to be on every major platform excluding Facebook. Instagram has an especially large gap between parties. But unlike legacy media, what isnt present in the data is a widely used platform just for Republicans or just for Democrats.[2]

The world of legacy media is bifurcated. The world of social media is fragmented.

The world of legacy media is bifurcated. The world of social media is fragmented.

The social versus traditional news usage patterns hold when looking specifically at those who report getting news from a platform, not just using it.

[3]Although there are differences by party, they are nowhere near the disparities we see in usage patterns by party in legacy media, and no single legacy media outlet approaches the consensus shown in the use of YouTube as a news source.

This is not to say that the experiences of Republicans and Democrats are at all similar on YouTube. A 34-year-old Democrat living in Detroit sees roughly the same thing on NBC News each day as a 68-year-old Republican living in Seattle because the news content is curated by the network, not the user. But a 26-year-old Republican living in Birmingham may have a dramatically different YouTube feed than a 26-year-old Democrat living across the street.

Social media is designed to intentionally fragment user bases into ever narrower groups defined by specific personal interests. A single social media user could belong to a climate change collective on Instagram, an anti-tax Facebook group, and a Southeast Asian cooking community on TikTok. This varied news diet is virtually impossible to receive through legacy medias bifurcated news landscape.

This same characteristic of hyper-personalized news feeds can lead to echo chambers, which happen when a pocket of like-minded individuals forms and fosters distrust of outside sources. But this same phenomenon of pocket formation is also how Internet fandoms develop and how BookTok or Black Twitter or a Zelda subreddit forms.

In short, those who get their news from social media have a greater diversity in opinion than those who primarily get their news from legacy media.

Recent survey data from Pew shows how the relationship differences in social media usage by age relates to peoples political ideology. Pew refines political ideology by splitting the public into nine distinct groups: four on the left, four on the right and one with those too uninvolved politically to be classified.

Source: Pew Research Center

Within the four groups that make up consistent Democratic voters, older Democrats are much more likely to cluster in just two of Pews typologies either Democratic Mainstay or Establishment Liberal.[4] Democrats under 50, by contrast, are just as likely to be found in any of the four groups; they have no clear typology preference. As a result, it would be much easier to predict the political ideology of a 53-year-old Democrat chosen at random than a 31-year-old.

[5]To a lesser extent this holds for Republicans as well; however, older Republicans are slightly more varied in their political ideology than their Democratic counterparts. Younger Republicans are slightly less varied in comparison to younger Democrats. A plurality of them is categorized by Pew as being in the Ambivalent Right typology. The prevalence of this ideological perspective among younger Republican party identifiers and the lack of young Republicans in traditionally conservative typologies squares with research showing that young Republicans are increasingly at odds with older members of their party.

The Pew political ideology data shows younger voters are driving emerging new wings of both parties. This is happening in the Republican Party with the rise of the Ambivalent Right. Among Democrats its reflected in the fact that younger voters make up the bulk of those Pew calls the Outsider Left and Progressive Left. Both phenomena are enabled by the nature of the social media they use as the principal source of news for voters under 50.

Social media allows younger Americans to have more individualized political interests than older voters. They are seeking a political party that will support this diversity of perspectives and welcome their ideas. Whichever one does so through an effective understanding of the social media information ecosystem will enjoy ever increasing electoral success.

Footnotes

[1] This blog does not address the issue of mis/disinformation social media, which is related to news ecosystems, but not directly under the scope of this blog.With users serving as their own editors, mis/disinformation can more easily slip into their news diet, but how this compares to legacy media and how it is driven by partisan forces requires further analysis.

[2] Alt-Right social media sites exist but are currently at such a low level of usage that they dont impact the overall results.

[3] This data was provided by Pew in a specific crosstab request and is not available on their website data. To view see the following PP_2021.11.09_political-typology_REPORT. Pew did not have specific age breaks on their website, so they created a new document with those breaks for us. For each of the individual social media sites, a respondent is asked if they used a specific site for news information only if they had first indicated that they had ever used that platform.

[4] A value of 20% in the graphs indicates 20% of total Democrats are 50+ and Democratic Mainstays not 20% of Democrats who are 50+ are Democratic Mainstays.

[5] The data used for the graphs is not directly included in Pews published work. Pew published the percent of each party in each typology and the percent of each typology who was under 50. We used these two sets of figures to calculate what percent of each party was young and in a specific typology group. This is the data used for the graphs and that data set is included below.

Excerpt from:
How younger voters will impact elections: How legacy media and social media impact old and young voters - Brookings Institution