zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. pphysc+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-16 19:09:32
The Art of the Deal was published in 1987, before Bill Clinton was even president. Trump has been grifting for a long time at a fairly steady pace.

The reason "grifting went sky high" is because of the profit model of Internet media. Engagements = ad revenue. This strongly incentivizes grifter behavior, from Trump and Alex Jones to Oprah and Rachel Maddow. Also, grifting became a lot more accessible with social media. Anyone can grift, you don't need radio or television deals.

replies(1): >>sherma+6o
2. sherma+6o[view] [source] 2024-01-16 20:53:00
>>pphysc+(OP)
Let me guess, Rachel Maddow is grifting by...promoting her books?

That's a far cry from shilling colloidal silver and gold bars to elderly shutins.

replies(1): >>pphysc+Uu
◧◩
3. pphysc+Uu[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-16 21:28:16
>>sherma+6o
Maddow incessantly spreads loony conspiracy theories about her (editors') political opponents. Maybe not poisoning bodies like Alex Jones (I don't keep track of every product she promotes), but definitely poisoning minds; she is one of the largest individual contributors to our political polarization and dysfunction.
replies(1): >>sherma+QI
◧◩◪
4. sherma+QI[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-16 22:50:39
>>pphysc+Uu
So she's a grifter of...ideas? minds? Not sure how you get "grifter" out of that.

On "poisoning," there's a long and rich tradition of comparing an entire nation to a human body, and labeling enemies or ideas as "poison," "cancer," "disease," or some other infectious or damaging agent. It's not a great analogy, even setting aside who else has used that rhetoric against whom.

replies(1): >>pphysc+ch3
◧◩◪◨
5. pphysc+ch3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-17 16:42:09
>>sherma+QI
That the economics of propaganda are more complicated than hawking supplements does not change that Maddow makes a boatload of money (her income is absolutely shocking) for doing essentially the same thing as Alex Jones.
[go to top]