It won’t be as successful for the media this time. Breathless outrage stacked on breathless outrage got old last time, and I think we’re starting from a lower bar of exhaustion with the whole thing.
I think we need to wait to see how truly outrageous the Trump administration becomes. If it's a disaster, a disaster people can see and feel, then the media will certainly benefit.
I think this seems premature? Thermostatic backlash is one of the most consistent features of this century’s American politics, and once Trump gets into office and starts doing stuff, it will piss people off and the appetite for rage bait will grow.
(Things might calm down if he literally does nothing or only does some tax cuts, but I think a lot of observers are overrating the chance that that’s the case.)
I think the most important thing that's happened since the election is Jerome Powell basically flipping Trump off by saying he's not going anywhere.
So let's say Trump "only" passes tax cuts. I think the resulting Fed-caused interest rate increases will cause voters to take a deep breath and go "whoa . . . "
Yeah, even that part of the plan is definitely inflationary— but not as inflationary as the tax cuts in combination with mass deportations and giant tarriffs.
“ Breathless outrage stacked on breathless outrage got old last time….”
This raises a puzzle.
I agree that liberals/Dems/left all have a limited appetite for outrage, and suffer outrage-fatigue fairly soon — long before it can motivate them to the polls next time.
Meanwhile, Fox News bathes its audience in a constant vat of outrage, the Right/Repubs have an unlimited appetite for being outraged, and then they take their outrage to the polls with them.
Or so it seems. Is that an accurate picture? If so, is there some deep characterological divide between left and right on how long they hold grudges and how long they enjoy being pissed off?
Or are appearances deceiving here, and my caricatures reflect distorting selection effects?
I don’t agree with this analysis. The left wing outrage machine is then OG. I mean the Republicans really were the calm and sober ones for a long time.
One of the real issues with our politics is that Republicans copied the left wing outrage machine and employed it to their ends.
This went hand in hand with them winning the working class. Importantly, it’s not enough to be angry, you also have to have fun, which was also a key feature of the left wing outrage machine but has since been removed in favor of angry educational screeds.
MAGA makes sure to wrap all their hate and outrage in a beach party/boat party thing.
So now we have two outrage parties and one of them has forgotten how to have fun.
The capacity for outrage isn’t the issue it is how the outrage is delivered and processed. The left are the scolds now the way the conservative church scolds operated in the 70’s, at least that is the perception.
"...we have two outrage parties and one of them has forgotten how to have fun."
Great -- that's the kind of competing hypothesis I'm looking for. On your model, left and right do not differ in their tendencies to outrage-fatigue, it's just that Fox is better at providing comic relief. Could be!
Reminds me of comedy shows in the Bush administration. I was too young to really follow back then (and more conservative than I am today), but making fun of Bush and Republicans was a staple for SNL, Jon Stewart etc.
I'd be really interested to hear what you're defining as the calm and sober period - right wing outrage can be traced back from Fox to talk radio to reaction to the Civil Rights movement and the John Birch Society. Fox just seems better at expanding its audience than the previous groups were.
I’m really getting at the public perception more than anything because it is true both parties have always had their loudmouths and agitators. When I was a kid it was just accepted that conservatives were mostly just boring bean counters and church goers. It was the liberals out making a stir and being on the edge.
That may be a function of when you were a kid, especially if it was between 1968 and 1992 when the right held the presidency for all but one term. Outrage breaks through a lot easier when your party is out of the executive branch.
As a kid in NC in the '80s, I'd agree the perception at-large may have jibed with yours, but my senior senator built his career on outrage and talk radio (with their associated newsletters/magazines) was everywhere. Believe me, there was plenty of foaming of the mouth on the right.
I had to listen to Rush a lot as a kid and I will tell you he devoted long segments to what were essentially comedy bits. He even had parody songs about various liberal politicians. Now we hear that and just hear the hate but plenty of people just thought it was funny.
Another theory: liberals get outrage-fatigue because they were outrage-tourists to begin with.
Motivated by empathy and concern for the other, straight liberals feel outrage over the treatment of gay people, non-Muslim liberals feel outrage over the treatment of Muslims, and so on.
It’s good to care about others! But after all that frustrating care for others, don’t you need some self-care now?
Contrast them, with the liberals who do not have the luxury of outrage-fatigue, because the outrages never leave them alone. John Louis did not feel outrage-fatigue, because on any given day he could step into the street and be treated as a lesser thing due to his race. As Malamud said: if ever you should forget that you are a Jew, a Gentile will remind you.
The savvy deployment of outrage involves finding an irritant, no matter how trivial, that is inescapable in the target’s daily life, one that involves no empathy or imaginative identification, that affects them directly with no possibility of opt-out.
That’s why inflation worked so well as a trigger for outrage.
Who remembers the Uighurs? But every day, every store, the prices are higher. Constantly renewed,my outrage never fatigues. Damn that Joe Biden!
So, what liberals suffer is not outrage-fatigue, it's empathy-fatigue. The Right prefers to gin up outrage over issues that require no empathy.
More triggers in the suite: Priuses (dated), electric cars, gas prices (if high), pronouns, funny looking people...
To fight, we need to think of annoying things Trump fans do, and remind people of them constantly. Superfluously large pickups do hit that note for me. I think with a little "meme magic" we could form some other associations with things like mullets, vaping, and watching rant videos in public that already vaguely annoy people. I think a "Wojak" with a mullet vaping in a truck watching rant-tube might be called for.
Trump has also threatened to take action against media that's not friendly to him. That would be a clear First Amendment violation, but I don't 100% trust MAGA bureaucrats and judges to put the law ahead of the boss's whims. My money is still on "even a very right-wing SCOTUS won't let Trump ignore the Constitution altogether," but it's less obvious this time around than in earlier presidencies.
We already saw the Washington Post decline to endorse Harris, so maybe they expect Trump's bullying to be more successful than US law should allow.
My take is not that Washington Post will be punished but that the Trump administration will punish Blue Origin and Amazon for the Washington Post's coverage
Seems believable, and even when trying to overturn an election, Trump tried legal things first.
It would be a force for de-integration of media companies with other stuff, which may have unintended salubrious effects once Trump is gone. There's no social need for Amazon to own a national newspaper.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I've decided to get hyperlocal with my news consumption from legacy outlets. I've cut all my WaPo, NYTimes, etc legacy type stuff and pivoted more to independent journalism for my national news (like SB, Bulwark, Noahopinion, etc.)
If anyone has recommendations for good local newspapers for SF/Bay Area, I'm all ears. Leaning SF Standard for now with some SF Chronicle mixed in.
SF Standard for sure, I'm neutral on the Chronicle (was a subscriber for a while but cancelled when they cut their audio team). I'd recommend https://www.newcomer.co/ and https://www.thediff.co/ if you are looking for tech specific news (probably no need to pay unless you are in the industry and need actual insight)
I've honestly enjoyed the internal discourse about where Democrats went wrong more than Trump media angles. Trump is a known quantity. He is what he is. I am more curious as to whether the Democrats can earn back working class voters.
Since its veterans day, my question is whether Trump will change the militaries policies towards Trans people. My probably unpopular vote is that being Trans is not compatible with military service and it has nothing to do with morality or culture... its purely a medical issue. Medically transitions peopled require continuous pharmacological support (hormones). The military accepts no other conditions which require continued medication. Asthma.... nope. Diabetes. nope. Even being on ADHD medication... nope. So in my mind its a double standard.
Also... Starbucks... WTF.... a free small black coffee for veterans. Pathetic. Give us 50% discount on something. At least Denny's gives a decent (Grand Slam) breakfast.
Random thoughts on a slow Monday at a job site in New Hampshire.
"a free small black coffee for veterans. Pathetic."
Blame the stolen valor people, would be my guess. I worked for restaurants for a long time, we gave free meals away to vets on Veteran's Day, but as it became more and more known as a thing, you would get hit up by lots of non-veterans. Military spouses, kids, etc., anyone with a military ID. And you weren't allowed to question anything, you couldn't even ask for a military ID, because everyone was so scared about the bad press that came along with accidentally turning down an actual vet, so restaurants spent an entire day getting absolutely mauled, and many started doing things like limited menus or one free item.
"At least Denny's gives a decent (Grand Slam) breakfast."
A free Grand Slam breakfast? That's better than decent!
That's four delicious items for a fully customizable breakfast! And with more than 10 choices -- such as fluffy buttermilk pancakes, eggs cooked to order, bacon strips, buttermilk biscuits and hash browns– there is something for everyone.
Take that, Howard Schulz, you veteran-hating penny-pincher.
Actually seems like an open and shut case in the case of trans people who need medication for their transition. I'm surprised it's even a question if Asthma, ADHD, etc... aren't.
I initially agreed with you but made another comment responding to Tom below - it may depend on what the consequences are of being _without_ your medication for a fixed period of time - need people who can function even with medication service interruptions.
So... cholesterol lowering drugs might be fine, but not asthma meds.
I remarked more than once during Trump's first administration that, even when he managed to do the right thing, he almost always did it in the most hamfisted and damaging way possible and usually only after accidentally backing into it by faulty reasoning.
Personally, I wish businesses would stop providing free things and discounts. I’ve never liked being thanked for my service and I see too many other vets who have a sense of unhealthy entitlement when it comes to their status as vets.
"A federal judge determined that all people being actively treated for HIV can enlist in the military." - August 2024
But the argument against was previously possible infection, not medication.
However... one question is - why do we block ADHD/Diabetes? Is this because without those you become mentally unstable/die in relatively short order? That's not true of hormones, is it? It would be unpleasant but if it wouldn't render you unfit with small disruptions, that would be ok?
Same thing with HIV medication? Stopping the medication isn't good but how quick is the turnaround on that? If you went a month without it, what are the consequences?
Is the distinction "people who always need medication" or "people who need medication and for which a <THIS PERIOD OF TIME> service interruption would potentially render them incapable of serving (asthma attack etc)
Judges shouldnt be making determination about who should serve in the military. Its become a politicized thing. Which is probably what the HIV thing is based around.
Your argument about diabetes and Asthma is valid, but ADHD is much the same as hormones.... hormones do effect personality (estrogen / testosterone). Also, the requirements for ADHD are a lot less rigorous. Trans people not only require injections but they also require regular monitoring of blood and hormone levels. Not to mention all the medical complications that come from surgery.
The standards have become arbitrary to favor certain conditions/groups.
And its not about periods of time, because the expectation is that any service member should be able to survive in austere environments while performing their jobs and not having to rely on medication and medical treatment.
People are rejected from the military for flat feet, tattoos on their hands, old broken bones...etc... all things that are miniscule and quite frankly not that big of a deal... yet...
Rory - I honestly don't know for trans people whether it should/should not be disqualifying matching ADHD (that's probably the closest analog?) I agree it shouldn't be politicized, it should be (as much as possible) an objective standard. I was simply stating why it _might_ be different while still being objective.
That's wild about the HIV ruling, which I hadn't heard about. I just looked up the decision and I will be very curious whether it survives appellate review -- the judge's ruling struck down the policy as failing to survive rational basis review, which seems pretty nuts given the other sorts of laws that have been upheld under that standard. I'd thinking banning people who require any sort of continuing pharmaceutical regimen to maintain their baseline status as "healthy" would pass that test easily.
When I looked it up the military does allow people with ADHD to sign up as long as they have been able to function for 15 months without ADHD medication.
So the condition isn't disqualifying, the being able to serve without the medication is (from what I can tell)
This is a great post. I was thinking about some of the things that have changed since you wrote it and wondering if they complicate anything this time around:
-- Washington Post lost another 250,000 subscribers (!!) over the decision not to endorse a presidential candidate
-- I *really* wonder about Dems making a concerted choice to tune out this time. (I especially wonder this as the editor of a publication that covers innovation in journalism!!) News avoidance was a thing in 2016, but around the world, it is growing. Sure, the election just happened and this could still change, but SO MANY people I talk to are saying that, for their mental health, they will be tuning out this time around. I totally get it.
I don't think most news organizations get a Trump Bump this time around. I wonder what it means for every news organization except The New York Times that has done so much to build up its suite of habit-forming, non-news products (cooking, games, etc.) Daily Beast promo email subject line last week: “Trump’s first year – don’t miss a moment." Who *wants* this?
A lot of the yelling at media coverage on the left in the run up to the election stemmed from the mistaken belief that if the media would just cover Trump "correctly" the voting populace would realize he's manifestly unfit for office and he'd lose in a landslide. Now that he's returning to office, I would expect a lot of news avoidance. Most of those 250,000 subscribers aren't coming back; if anything, the more militant of them would hold the Post partially responsible for his reelection.
I don't think people on our side thought that if the NYT didn't sanewash Trump, that would move votes. I think that they/we thought that the paper was pouring salt in our wounds and treating Trump in a way that constantly aggravated, if not outraged, us. It's like, "You're kind of on our side, and you can't even be objective, let alone act like you're on our side."
The Wash Post thing is interesting. I wonder if the subscribers that remain will be less interested in highly-partisan content.
News avoidance probably is...good, right? Maybe some limited amount of time-boxed, "here's what's happening" content is OK, but I feel like in this day and age, with so much searchable content, if people want to know about the Trump admin, they should find whatever analysis or well-written content they can. If they want to learn about immigration, there are a few organizations dedicated to analyzing the issue. On crime, I'm subscribed to half a dozen substacks that soley focus on the issue, so I feel relatively informed on it.
I know most people won't do this, but the if only other alternative worth considering is shallow MSNBC content, more designed to drive clicks than to inform, then tuning out really is better. That does leave a lot of responsibility for the people who stay tuned in, though.
I definitely wonder how Substacks fall into the news fatigue thing. I just unsubscribed from 4 that I had been paying for (I pay for a lot of them lol so am already weird). I think e.g. Slow Boring will continue to do great but I think my bar for paying up will be higher.
I stayed a WaPo subscriber. A) it's cheap if you have amazon prime, and B) I do hope Bezos's move heralds an era of less #resistance outrage bait and Taylor Lorenz shitpieces.
And I said a half-dozen, because well, I don't know why. Careless exaggeration, I guess. But these 4 are pretty good, and I have a couple other sources I draw info from that you might find interesting.
Some very fairly detailed data on crime in Mexico:
And then, for simply being exposed to first-hand accounts of crime, from criminals, I sometimes watch the youtube channel StreetTV. And daily happenings in Mexico's narco world are available at www.borderlandbeat.com
For books, my top "objectively understanding crime" reads have been Criminal (In)justice and Ghettocide.
The cancellations confirm that people subscribed to the Washington Post as a statement of political solidarity, not because they especially needed the subscription. In light of the non-endorsement people view this as a mistake. I would say in general you should probably subscribe to stuff that provides you useful information, not because you want to "support" them.
I think that's fine but I also don't think that's how the Washington Post views itself. If you are contributing to something like the Texas Tribune or Pro Publica which both seem to have a strong sense their reporting should align with the values of their subscribers, it's fine.
The message I've heard is "pay attention to what Trump does not what Trump says". It is true it doesn't matter that much if yet again he says grossly offensive stuff. But it does matter if a mass deportation plan really is being developed or if a tax plan being sold as pro-growth will actually be a bunch of corrupt handouts. So hopefully this time the audience will reward investigatory or analytical work, rather than the access journalism or outright gossip that was rewarded during Trump's first term.
re: deportations. In the spirit of analysis, I've been looking at the data and the number of deportations and returns has doubled or tripled and halved before and the public often barely noticed:
It's not the numbers. It's video of crying babies carried out by ICE personnel, or horrifying stories of American citizens being packed into planes and sent to Nowheresville.
That might break through to the mass public, or maybe not even that. I've given up trying to figure out how half (at least) of the public thinks.
I think the videos, as far as they go in their influence, are just going to be due to the media. There are already hundreds of thousands of deportations every year, and the number fluctuates by hundreds of thousands. The media environment and popularity of the policies of the policy are what drive the videos. And much of that is determined by how many migrants are actually here and making themselves obvious.
I don't think the American people will care at all about what the number of deportations is. Their reactions and emotions will entirely be driven by videos and heartbreaking stories. And the appearance of those won't be driven the objective number of deportations either, but by whether they buttress a view of the Trump administration's approach to the issue, one which will obviously be determined by whatever comes out of Stephen Miller's mouth.
In other words, odds of people turning against the idea of mass deportation: 99%.
My guess is that mass deportations go down with the public much like the withdrawal from Afghanistan did, because the typical American wants the situation taken care of, but they also don't want to deal with the uncomfortable messes involved.
It's easy for Rs to sit here today and say, "Trump ran for President on a platform of mass deportations, he won, so now mass deportations are on the menu" until the American public says what it always says, which is, "yeah, but not like that!"
What if it goes up 5 or 10 times, though? That's the number you'd have to hit to achieve Trump's stated goal of getting all illegal immigrants out. I suspect in practice that there will be a lot of "self-deportation", but if they make a real push, there will still be a record number of deportations done by the government.
That would be a huge deal but I'm starting to believe it's really unlikely. It would take too many resources and vastly increase the "false positives" problem. You might double deportations just by focusing on low-hanging fruit. Beyond that, you need so many more resources, cooperation and coordination. As you expand into less popular modes you increases resistance from businesses to civil society and people who "thought he didn't really mean it". It's truly herculean to take it up that much.
On the resources part - where does the money comes from for hiring agents? On the cooperation - you also really, really NEED the cooperation of Mexico, Canada and many other governments to be able to send deportees somewhere. Also blue states could help by cooperating, and they won't if it's becoming unpopular.
Basically, everything would have to come together and they would have to thread a lot of legal and societal needles all at once. Would you put your money on that?
The more easily successful task is the bully pulpit. Just making it seem like illegals, are not welcome here might reduce inflow for awhile. Eventually they'll come back, though, if it's more bark than bite . I don't think people are aware that after dipping for the past 15 years, from 11-12 million to around 10 M, estimates of illegals suddenly shot up to around 14 million in just the last 2-3 years. Many of those people had to know Trump reelection was a real possibility.
It seems like maybe you're actually agreeing with what people were telling you a few days ago, then! That Trump's actions, if he follows through (regardless of whether he's successful), might be seriously disruptive and unpopular.
It's all a question of degrees. I'm not sure which particular conversation (I've been way too online this week), and my opinions are in a state of rapid evolution (so I apologize if there's some hindsight bias) but I remember people were floating numbers like 100,000 and saying that's impossible, or saying there's no way he can increase the pace. At least those are the POVs I remember feeling like I was debating. He could probably double the pace with few ill-effects if he did it smartly. Beyond that begins to sound harder, and harder, and harder.
FWIW -- I don't know why Blue States wouldn't comply. I can't imagine Chicago is super unique. Our budgets have been busted and the policies have been completely reversed. I think way easier to just hang this on the prior "sanctuary city" administration and move on.
Initially, for sure. That makes sense. And for sure as long as Trump's immigration policies remain popular. I think a lot of long term pressures are just going to keep shifting us to the right on illegal immigration, too (legal could go either way, imho).
But if he's going up to 5x or 10x, he's going to have to start getting wild. I'm not sure it stays popular if it even approaches that kind of numbers, because you do have to start getting pretty intrusive and aggressive, kicking out longer-term illegals who are going to work and minding their business.
Speaking very loosely, 2x or 3x is just recent arrivals, people who make contact with the criminal justice system, quickly rejecting asylums, more border enforcement, probably killing some refugee programs or temporary status programs if he can pull that off. But each of these is a fight in itself, and not all would be popular. 5x is, I don't know - probably raiding workplaces? You start to run into manpower shortages wrt ICE agents if you even wanted to be more aggressive.
Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of downstream effects that I could see leading to worse outcomes. Just from your example, let's say it gets to workplace raids, etc., and you've already deported a bunch of people, but now the ones you haven't caught have gone to ground. You're talking a lot of job vacancies, which would probably lead to upward pressure on wages, which would probably lead back to higher inflation again. And if prices rise again, Trump is not gonna just take the blame, he's gonna blame businesses, etc. Trump has zero ideological moorings besides being anti-immigration...does anyone think if inflation sped up again he wouldn't try to introduce price controls? He's already shown that he will absolutely use his position to rail against businesses that he thinks make him look bad.
There's also the question if Trump would want to have the deportations be very visible to make him look tough, which raises the visibility and salience of any abuses or violence that spills over into the general population.
Right. I don't think it's far-fetched at all to imagine a scenario where a native born citizen of the US is shot and injured or killed during some raid attempting to apprehend a person here illegally.
There's also the problem that in a worst-case scenario, like "right-wingers no longer respect legal constraints on their power, and go all-in on Trump's precedent of not accepting election results unless they win," we will only be able to act when it's just talk. If a complete abandonment of constitutional democracy becomes action, there's no way to kick them out short of a literal revolution, which will not succeed.
Yeah, I mean, one of the metrics public officials informally use to gauge whether they can get away with something is how much outcry there is, will continue to be, or will be, and like you said, you have to make policymakers understand the level of deep shit there will be AHEAD OF TIME.
This is what makes news so exhausting now: Just from a headline i can't tell if a story is based around something Trump's doing now, or something he said once three months ago. And I'm sick of digging to confirm the validity of every anti-Trump news item; there's so much dross you can never be sure.
I mostly trust the info i get here, but SB doesn't provide an overview of current events
The people have spoken and they want deportations. There are basically two strategies to deal with this— try to ameliorate the policy by limiting it to the least sympathetic illegals (eg criminals and non English speakers) or give Republicans the rope with which to hang themselves and wait got the next election.
I would be sad if illegal immigrants who speak fluent English and a high school level knowing US history and government are deported. However, I will shed no tears if unassimilated immigrants who we never asked to come sent home.
Clearly Trump is good for the media in the short-term because it drives demand for news content and provided an easy target for reporting. But is he good for the media long-term? How much of the decline in trust of mainstream outlets relates to the manner in which they cover him?
The acid test for whether Trump is good business for the mainstream media is if we see subscribers flocking back to the Washington Post.
Maybe that will happen.
My gut is telling me "no"; that our side is tired of the symbolic flagellating of Trump, expressing shock at what he says, and highlighting each and every lie. Been there, done that, and look where we are.
What I *hope* journalists will do this time around is focus hard on governmental outputs: what actions is the Trump administration taking, and what are the effects of those actions, both decent and terrible.
Of course, for that to happen, we're going to have to swap out a lot of journalists for new ones who have a clue how to do that kind of hard work.
It won’t be as successful for the media this time. Breathless outrage stacked on breathless outrage got old last time, and I think we’re starting from a lower bar of exhaustion with the whole thing.
I think we need to wait to see how truly outrageous the Trump administration becomes. If it's a disaster, a disaster people can see and feel, then the media will certainly benefit.
I think this seems premature? Thermostatic backlash is one of the most consistent features of this century’s American politics, and once Trump gets into office and starts doing stuff, it will piss people off and the appetite for rage bait will grow.
(Things might calm down if he literally does nothing or only does some tax cuts, but I think a lot of observers are overrating the chance that that’s the case.)
I think the most important thing that's happened since the election is Jerome Powell basically flipping Trump off by saying he's not going anywhere.
So let's say Trump "only" passes tax cuts. I think the resulting Fed-caused interest rate increases will cause voters to take a deep breath and go "whoa . . . "
"I think the most important thing that's happened since the election is Jerome Powell basically flipping Trump off by saying he's not going anywhere."
As an OG Alan Greenspan fanboi, that was a straight-into-my-veins moment -- Make Federal Reserve Chairs Great Again!
Yeah, even that part of the plan is definitely inflationary— but not as inflationary as the tax cuts in combination with mass deportations and giant tarriffs.
“ Breathless outrage stacked on breathless outrage got old last time….”
This raises a puzzle.
I agree that liberals/Dems/left all have a limited appetite for outrage, and suffer outrage-fatigue fairly soon — long before it can motivate them to the polls next time.
Meanwhile, Fox News bathes its audience in a constant vat of outrage, the Right/Repubs have an unlimited appetite for being outraged, and then they take their outrage to the polls with them.
Or so it seems. Is that an accurate picture? If so, is there some deep characterological divide between left and right on how long they hold grudges and how long they enjoy being pissed off?
Or are appearances deceiving here, and my caricatures reflect distorting selection effects?
I don’t agree with this analysis. The left wing outrage machine is then OG. I mean the Republicans really were the calm and sober ones for a long time.
One of the real issues with our politics is that Republicans copied the left wing outrage machine and employed it to their ends.
This went hand in hand with them winning the working class. Importantly, it’s not enough to be angry, you also have to have fun, which was also a key feature of the left wing outrage machine but has since been removed in favor of angry educational screeds.
MAGA makes sure to wrap all their hate and outrage in a beach party/boat party thing.
So now we have two outrage parties and one of them has forgotten how to have fun.
The capacity for outrage isn’t the issue it is how the outrage is delivered and processed. The left are the scolds now the way the conservative church scolds operated in the 70’s, at least that is the perception.
"...we have two outrage parties and one of them has forgotten how to have fun."
Great -- that's the kind of competing hypothesis I'm looking for. On your model, left and right do not differ in their tendencies to outrage-fatigue, it's just that Fox is better at providing comic relief. Could be!
Reminds me of comedy shows in the Bush administration. I was too young to really follow back then (and more conservative than I am today), but making fun of Bush and Republicans was a staple for SNL, Jon Stewart etc.
I'd be really interested to hear what you're defining as the calm and sober period - right wing outrage can be traced back from Fox to talk radio to reaction to the Civil Rights movement and the John Birch Society. Fox just seems better at expanding its audience than the previous groups were.
I’m really getting at the public perception more than anything because it is true both parties have always had their loudmouths and agitators. When I was a kid it was just accepted that conservatives were mostly just boring bean counters and church goers. It was the liberals out making a stir and being on the edge.
That may be a function of when you were a kid, especially if it was between 1968 and 1992 when the right held the presidency for all but one term. Outrage breaks through a lot easier when your party is out of the executive branch.
As a kid in NC in the '80s, I'd agree the perception at-large may have jibed with yours, but my senior senator built his career on outrage and talk radio (with their associated newsletters/magazines) was everywhere. Believe me, there was plenty of foaming of the mouth on the right.
You obviously don't have a relative who gets most of their news from Matt Walsh.
I do! But they also love Kill Tony, Joe Rogan and the entire conservative coded comedy ecosystem.
Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich would like a word with you.
I had to listen to Rush a lot as a kid and I will tell you he devoted long segments to what were essentially comedy bits. He even had parody songs about various liberal politicians. Now we hear that and just hear the hate but plenty of people just thought it was funny.
Another theory: liberals get outrage-fatigue because they were outrage-tourists to begin with.
Motivated by empathy and concern for the other, straight liberals feel outrage over the treatment of gay people, non-Muslim liberals feel outrage over the treatment of Muslims, and so on.
It’s good to care about others! But after all that frustrating care for others, don’t you need some self-care now?
Contrast them, with the liberals who do not have the luxury of outrage-fatigue, because the outrages never leave them alone. John Louis did not feel outrage-fatigue, because on any given day he could step into the street and be treated as a lesser thing due to his race. As Malamud said: if ever you should forget that you are a Jew, a Gentile will remind you.
The savvy deployment of outrage involves finding an irritant, no matter how trivial, that is inescapable in the target’s daily life, one that involves no empathy or imaginative identification, that affects them directly with no possibility of opt-out.
That’s why inflation worked so well as a trigger for outrage.
Who remembers the Uighurs? But every day, every store, the prices are higher. Constantly renewed,my outrage never fatigues. Damn that Joe Biden!
So, what liberals suffer is not outrage-fatigue, it's empathy-fatigue. The Right prefers to gin up outrage over issues that require no empathy.
More triggers in the suite: Priuses (dated), electric cars, gas prices (if high), pronouns, funny looking people...
To fight, we need to think of annoying things Trump fans do, and remind people of them constantly. Superfluously large pickups do hit that note for me. I think with a little "meme magic" we could form some other associations with things like mullets, vaping, and watching rant videos in public that already vaguely annoy people. I think a "Wojak" with a mullet vaping in a truck watching rant-tube might be called for.
Wojak isn't intended to be a disliked character. Wojak more captures the spirit of exhaustion.
Something like the Soyjak would be more appropriate.
Trump has also threatened to take action against media that's not friendly to him. That would be a clear First Amendment violation, but I don't 100% trust MAGA bureaucrats and judges to put the law ahead of the boss's whims. My money is still on "even a very right-wing SCOTUS won't let Trump ignore the Constitution altogether," but it's less obvious this time around than in earlier presidencies.
We already saw the Washington Post decline to endorse Harris, so maybe they expect Trump's bullying to be more successful than US law should allow.
My take is not that Washington Post will be punished but that the Trump administration will punish Blue Origin and Amazon for the Washington Post's coverage
Seems believable, and even when trying to overturn an election, Trump tried legal things first.
It would be a force for de-integration of media companies with other stuff, which may have unintended salubrious effects once Trump is gone. There's no social need for Amazon to own a national newspaper.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I've decided to get hyperlocal with my news consumption from legacy outlets. I've cut all my WaPo, NYTimes, etc legacy type stuff and pivoted more to independent journalism for my national news (like SB, Bulwark, Noahopinion, etc.)
If anyone has recommendations for good local newspapers for SF/Bay Area, I'm all ears. Leaning SF Standard for now with some SF Chronicle mixed in.
Oaklandside.org and berkeleyside.org if you're on the hip side of the Bay
SF Standard for sure, I'm neutral on the Chronicle (was a subscriber for a while but cancelled when they cut their audio team). I'd recommend https://www.newcomer.co/ and https://www.thediff.co/ if you are looking for tech specific news (probably no need to pay unless you are in the industry and need actual insight)
Thank you! I appreciate it.
I mean... Fox news has been nothing but breathless outrage against liberals for a long time. And it is, in fact, working well for them.
“… per usual, Slow Boring is taking the holiday as an opportunity to share a previously pay-walled post.”
Thank you for your service!
Okay, that’s perhaps a touch too snarky even for me. More seriously:
Thanks for being a rare independent voice in a dysfunctional media landscape, and thanks to all of our military veterans , living and deceased.
I've honestly enjoyed the internal discourse about where Democrats went wrong more than Trump media angles. Trump is a known quantity. He is what he is. I am more curious as to whether the Democrats can earn back working class voters.
Since its veterans day, my question is whether Trump will change the militaries policies towards Trans people. My probably unpopular vote is that being Trans is not compatible with military service and it has nothing to do with morality or culture... its purely a medical issue. Medically transitions peopled require continuous pharmacological support (hormones). The military accepts no other conditions which require continued medication. Asthma.... nope. Diabetes. nope. Even being on ADHD medication... nope. So in my mind its a double standard.
Also... Starbucks... WTF.... a free small black coffee for veterans. Pathetic. Give us 50% discount on something. At least Denny's gives a decent (Grand Slam) breakfast.
Random thoughts on a slow Monday at a job site in New Hampshire.
"a free small black coffee for veterans. Pathetic."
Blame the stolen valor people, would be my guess. I worked for restaurants for a long time, we gave free meals away to vets on Veteran's Day, but as it became more and more known as a thing, you would get hit up by lots of non-veterans. Military spouses, kids, etc., anyone with a military ID. And you weren't allowed to question anything, you couldn't even ask for a military ID, because everyone was so scared about the bad press that came along with accidentally turning down an actual vet, so restaurants spent an entire day getting absolutely mauled, and many started doing things like limited menus or one free item.
"At least Denny's gives a decent (Grand Slam) breakfast."
A free Grand Slam breakfast? That's better than decent!
That's four delicious items for a fully customizable breakfast! And with more than 10 choices -- such as fluffy buttermilk pancakes, eggs cooked to order, bacon strips, buttermilk biscuits and hash browns– there is something for everyone.
Take that, Howard Schulz, you veteran-hating penny-pincher.
Brian Nichols is actually the veteran hating penny pincher. He's even doing the veteran hating penny pinching remotely - for shame!
Oh sure, but Schulz hired Niccols to pinch the pennies.
Always remember: the coffee-hacks work for the Czar.
This revelation is sure to derail Howard Schulz's promising 2028 presidential campaign redux. His tens of supporters are crestfallen.
Actually seems like an open and shut case in the case of trans people who need medication for their transition. I'm surprised it's even a question if Asthma, ADHD, etc... aren't.
I initially agreed with you but made another comment responding to Tom below - it may depend on what the consequences are of being _without_ your medication for a fixed period of time - need people who can function even with medication service interruptions.
So... cholesterol lowering drugs might be fine, but not asthma meds.
Rory, you state an arguable case against transpeople serving in the military, one I'm hardly qualified to comment on.
But if Trump does ban transpeople from serving you can count on it *not* being for the kind of reasonable causes you discuss here.
I remarked more than once during Trump's first administration that, even when he managed to do the right thing, he almost always did it in the most hamfisted and damaging way possible and usually only after accidentally backing into it by faulty reasoning.
“… only after accidentally backing into it by faulty reasoning.”
He’ll say that he promised to make the trans run on time.
I mean, I supported the TikTok ban and look how that turned out.
Agree with you about Trans service.
Personally, I wish businesses would stop providing free things and discounts. I’ve never liked being thanked for my service and I see too many other vets who have a sense of unhealthy entitlement when it comes to their status as vets.
Same. I just feel weird about it. The most dangerous thing I did in the military was drive in Kuwait.
I always get that 10% discount at Home Depot though. That's too juicy to turn down.
Do people with HIV get drummed out of the military? Serious question.
Apparently yes until very recently:
"A federal judge determined that all people being actively treated for HIV can enlist in the military." - August 2024
But the argument against was previously possible infection, not medication.
However... one question is - why do we block ADHD/Diabetes? Is this because without those you become mentally unstable/die in relatively short order? That's not true of hormones, is it? It would be unpleasant but if it wouldn't render you unfit with small disruptions, that would be ok?
Same thing with HIV medication? Stopping the medication isn't good but how quick is the turnaround on that? If you went a month without it, what are the consequences?
Is the distinction "people who always need medication" or "people who need medication and for which a <THIS PERIOD OF TIME> service interruption would potentially render them incapable of serving (asthma attack etc)
Judges shouldnt be making determination about who should serve in the military. Its become a politicized thing. Which is probably what the HIV thing is based around.
Your argument about diabetes and Asthma is valid, but ADHD is much the same as hormones.... hormones do effect personality (estrogen / testosterone). Also, the requirements for ADHD are a lot less rigorous. Trans people not only require injections but they also require regular monitoring of blood and hormone levels. Not to mention all the medical complications that come from surgery.
The standards have become arbitrary to favor certain conditions/groups.
And its not about periods of time, because the expectation is that any service member should be able to survive in austere environments while performing their jobs and not having to rely on medication and medical treatment.
People are rejected from the military for flat feet, tattoos on their hands, old broken bones...etc... all things that are miniscule and quite frankly not that big of a deal... yet...
Rory - I honestly don't know for trans people whether it should/should not be disqualifying matching ADHD (that's probably the closest analog?) I agree it shouldn't be politicized, it should be (as much as possible) an objective standard. I was simply stating why it _might_ be different while still being objective.
See my bottom line below... but I appreciate the debate! You did bring up some good points. I appreciate you.
That's wild about the HIV ruling, which I hadn't heard about. I just looked up the decision and I will be very curious whether it survives appellate review -- the judge's ruling struck down the policy as failing to survive rational basis review, which seems pretty nuts given the other sorts of laws that have been upheld under that standard. I'd thinking banning people who require any sort of continuing pharmaceutical regimen to maintain their baseline status as "healthy" would pass that test easily.
With diabetes, going without medicine can have effects in a few hours.
If you are on simulants for ADHD, and have to suddenly stop, it's really miserable to the point where maybe you aren't mission-capable.
Only certain levels of ADHD... I know loads of people who are perfect normal without ADHD medication.
When I looked it up the military does allow people with ADHD to sign up as long as they have been able to function for 15 months without ADHD medication.
So the condition isn't disqualifying, the being able to serve without the medication is (from what I can tell)
And this is exactly right, and my point. Its the continuing need for medication that should be disqualifying.
Which has always been the case... except now for Transgender people and apparently people with HIV.... but no other people. (seems awfully arbitrary)
Fine. If a Transgender person has gone 15-months without hormones and medical treatment. then they should be able to join.
The Starbucks CEO is doing away with discounts like 50% off Tuesdays and I just hate it
Doing my part to change media incentives by trying to see if I can make it four years without hearing Donald Trump speak again.
This is a great post. I was thinking about some of the things that have changed since you wrote it and wondering if they complicate anything this time around:
-- Washington Post lost another 250,000 subscribers (!!) over the decision not to endorse a presidential candidate
-- I *really* wonder about Dems making a concerted choice to tune out this time. (I especially wonder this as the editor of a publication that covers innovation in journalism!!) News avoidance was a thing in 2016, but around the world, it is growing. Sure, the election just happened and this could still change, but SO MANY people I talk to are saying that, for their mental health, they will be tuning out this time around. I totally get it.
I don't think most news organizations get a Trump Bump this time around. I wonder what it means for every news organization except The New York Times that has done so much to build up its suite of habit-forming, non-news products (cooking, games, etc.) Daily Beast promo email subject line last week: “Trump’s first year – don’t miss a moment." Who *wants* this?
A lot of the yelling at media coverage on the left in the run up to the election stemmed from the mistaken belief that if the media would just cover Trump "correctly" the voting populace would realize he's manifestly unfit for office and he'd lose in a landslide. Now that he's returning to office, I would expect a lot of news avoidance. Most of those 250,000 subscribers aren't coming back; if anything, the more militant of them would hold the Post partially responsible for his reelection.
I don't think people on our side thought that if the NYT didn't sanewash Trump, that would move votes. I think that they/we thought that the paper was pouring salt in our wounds and treating Trump in a way that constantly aggravated, if not outraged, us. It's like, "You're kind of on our side, and you can't even be objective, let alone act like you're on our side."
' “Trump’s first year – don’t miss a moment."'
I have changed my mind. I now deeply believe that hell exists.
The Wash Post thing is interesting. I wonder if the subscribers that remain will be less interested in highly-partisan content.
News avoidance probably is...good, right? Maybe some limited amount of time-boxed, "here's what's happening" content is OK, but I feel like in this day and age, with so much searchable content, if people want to know about the Trump admin, they should find whatever analysis or well-written content they can. If they want to learn about immigration, there are a few organizations dedicated to analyzing the issue. On crime, I'm subscribed to half a dozen substacks that soley focus on the issue, so I feel relatively informed on it.
I know most people won't do this, but the if only other alternative worth considering is shallow MSNBC content, more designed to drive clicks than to inform, then tuning out really is better. That does leave a lot of responsibility for the people who stay tuned in, though.
I definitely wonder how Substacks fall into the news fatigue thing. I just unsubscribed from 4 that I had been paying for (I pay for a lot of them lol so am already weird). I think e.g. Slow Boring will continue to do great but I think my bar for paying up will be higher.
I stayed a WaPo subscriber. A) it's cheap if you have amazon prime, and B) I do hope Bezos's move heralds an era of less #resistance outrage bait and Taylor Lorenz shitpieces.
What are some *good* crime substacks?
I’m interested in an objective approach to this issue.
#1 https://dccrimefacts.substack.com/
#2 https://jasher.substack.com/
#3 https://grahamfactor.substack.com/
#4 https://thecausalfallacy.com/
And I said a half-dozen, because well, I don't know why. Careless exaggeration, I guess. But these 4 are pretty good, and I have a couple other sources I draw info from that you might find interesting.
Some very fairly detailed data on crime in Mexico:
https://elcri.men/en/
and the US:
https://theusaindata.pythonanywhere.com/underreported_murders
And then, for simply being exposed to first-hand accounts of crime, from criminals, I sometimes watch the youtube channel StreetTV. And daily happenings in Mexico's narco world are available at www.borderlandbeat.com
For books, my top "objectively understanding crime" reads have been Criminal (In)justice and Ghettocide.
The cancellations confirm that people subscribed to the Washington Post as a statement of political solidarity, not because they especially needed the subscription. In light of the non-endorsement people view this as a mistake. I would say in general you should probably subscribe to stuff that provides you useful information, not because you want to "support" them.
The latter is more or less charity. Which makes it ok in my book.
I think that's fine but I also don't think that's how the Washington Post views itself. If you are contributing to something like the Texas Tribune or Pro Publica which both seem to have a strong sense their reporting should align with the values of their subscribers, it's fine.
The message I've heard is "pay attention to what Trump does not what Trump says". It is true it doesn't matter that much if yet again he says grossly offensive stuff. But it does matter if a mass deportation plan really is being developed or if a tax plan being sold as pro-growth will actually be a bunch of corrupt handouts. So hopefully this time the audience will reward investigatory or analytical work, rather than the access journalism or outright gossip that was rewarded during Trump's first term.
re: deportations. In the spirit of analysis, I've been looking at the data and the number of deportations and returns has doubled or tripled and halved before and the public often barely noticed:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-record
It's not the numbers. It's video of crying babies carried out by ICE personnel, or horrifying stories of American citizens being packed into planes and sent to Nowheresville.
That might break through to the mass public, or maybe not even that. I've given up trying to figure out how half (at least) of the public thinks.
I think the videos, as far as they go in their influence, are just going to be due to the media. There are already hundreds of thousands of deportations every year, and the number fluctuates by hundreds of thousands. The media environment and popularity of the policies of the policy are what drive the videos. And much of that is determined by how many migrants are actually here and making themselves obvious.
I don't think the American people will care at all about what the number of deportations is. Their reactions and emotions will entirely be driven by videos and heartbreaking stories. And the appearance of those won't be driven the objective number of deportations either, but by whether they buttress a view of the Trump administration's approach to the issue, one which will obviously be determined by whatever comes out of Stephen Miller's mouth.
In other words, odds of people turning against the idea of mass deportation: 99%.
My guess is that mass deportations go down with the public much like the withdrawal from Afghanistan did, because the typical American wants the situation taken care of, but they also don't want to deal with the uncomfortable messes involved.
It's easy for Rs to sit here today and say, "Trump ran for President on a platform of mass deportations, he won, so now mass deportations are on the menu" until the American public says what it always says, which is, "yeah, but not like that!"
That kind of opposition, if it appears, is when we start to find out how serious the GOP has become about the "republic, not a democracy" stuff.
What if it goes up 5 or 10 times, though? That's the number you'd have to hit to achieve Trump's stated goal of getting all illegal immigrants out. I suspect in practice that there will be a lot of "self-deportation", but if they make a real push, there will still be a record number of deportations done by the government.
That would be a huge deal but I'm starting to believe it's really unlikely. It would take too many resources and vastly increase the "false positives" problem. You might double deportations just by focusing on low-hanging fruit. Beyond that, you need so many more resources, cooperation and coordination. As you expand into less popular modes you increases resistance from businesses to civil society and people who "thought he didn't really mean it". It's truly herculean to take it up that much.
On the resources part - where does the money comes from for hiring agents? On the cooperation - you also really, really NEED the cooperation of Mexico, Canada and many other governments to be able to send deportees somewhere. Also blue states could help by cooperating, and they won't if it's becoming unpopular.
Basically, everything would have to come together and they would have to thread a lot of legal and societal needles all at once. Would you put your money on that?
The more easily successful task is the bully pulpit. Just making it seem like illegals, are not welcome here might reduce inflow for awhile. Eventually they'll come back, though, if it's more bark than bite . I don't think people are aware that after dipping for the past 15 years, from 11-12 million to around 10 M, estimates of illegals suddenly shot up to around 14 million in just the last 2-3 years. Many of those people had to know Trump reelection was a real possibility.
It seems like maybe you're actually agreeing with what people were telling you a few days ago, then! That Trump's actions, if he follows through (regardless of whether he's successful), might be seriously disruptive and unpopular.
It's all a question of degrees. I'm not sure which particular conversation (I've been way too online this week), and my opinions are in a state of rapid evolution (so I apologize if there's some hindsight bias) but I remember people were floating numbers like 100,000 and saying that's impossible, or saying there's no way he can increase the pace. At least those are the POVs I remember feeling like I was debating. He could probably double the pace with few ill-effects if he did it smartly. Beyond that begins to sound harder, and harder, and harder.
FWIW -- I don't know why Blue States wouldn't comply. I can't imagine Chicago is super unique. Our budgets have been busted and the policies have been completely reversed. I think way easier to just hang this on the prior "sanctuary city" administration and move on.
https://news.wttw.com/2024/06/12/johnson-defends-decision-begin-evicting-migrant-families-children-city-shelters
Initially, for sure. That makes sense. And for sure as long as Trump's immigration policies remain popular. I think a lot of long term pressures are just going to keep shifting us to the right on illegal immigration, too (legal could go either way, imho).
But if he's going up to 5x or 10x, he's going to have to start getting wild. I'm not sure it stays popular if it even approaches that kind of numbers, because you do have to start getting pretty intrusive and aggressive, kicking out longer-term illegals who are going to work and minding their business.
Speaking very loosely, 2x or 3x is just recent arrivals, people who make contact with the criminal justice system, quickly rejecting asylums, more border enforcement, probably killing some refugee programs or temporary status programs if he can pull that off. But each of these is a fight in itself, and not all would be popular. 5x is, I don't know - probably raiding workplaces? You start to run into manpower shortages wrt ICE agents if you even wanted to be more aggressive.
Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of downstream effects that I could see leading to worse outcomes. Just from your example, let's say it gets to workplace raids, etc., and you've already deported a bunch of people, but now the ones you haven't caught have gone to ground. You're talking a lot of job vacancies, which would probably lead to upward pressure on wages, which would probably lead back to higher inflation again. And if prices rise again, Trump is not gonna just take the blame, he's gonna blame businesses, etc. Trump has zero ideological moorings besides being anti-immigration...does anyone think if inflation sped up again he wouldn't try to introduce price controls? He's already shown that he will absolutely use his position to rail against businesses that he thinks make him look bad.
"On the resources part - where does the money comes from for hiring agents?"
The same place the money for tax breaks on the rich comes from - slash the social safety net and run up the deficit to cover the rest.
There's also the question if Trump would want to have the deportations be very visible to make him look tough, which raises the visibility and salience of any abuses or violence that spills over into the general population.
Right. I don't think it's far-fetched at all to imagine a scenario where a native born citizen of the US is shot and injured or killed during some raid attempting to apprehend a person here illegally.
There's also the problem that in a worst-case scenario, like "right-wingers no longer respect legal constraints on their power, and go all-in on Trump's precedent of not accepting election results unless they win," we will only be able to act when it's just talk. If a complete abandonment of constitutional democracy becomes action, there's no way to kick them out short of a literal revolution, which will not succeed.
Bret Devereaux is a credentialed historian with a great blog, a blog which has never featured partisan content until now, and he's pretty worried: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-definition-of-fascism/
Yeah, I mean, one of the metrics public officials informally use to gauge whether they can get away with something is how much outcry there is, will continue to be, or will be, and like you said, you have to make policymakers understand the level of deep shit there will be AHEAD OF TIME.
Well, that article is, uh, terrifying. Thanks for the read.
This is what makes news so exhausting now: Just from a headline i can't tell if a story is based around something Trump's doing now, or something he said once three months ago. And I'm sick of digging to confirm the validity of every anti-Trump news item; there's so much dross you can never be sure.
I mostly trust the info i get here, but SB doesn't provide an overview of current events
The people have spoken and they want deportations. There are basically two strategies to deal with this— try to ameliorate the policy by limiting it to the least sympathetic illegals (eg criminals and non English speakers) or give Republicans the rope with which to hang themselves and wait got the next election.
I would be sad if illegal immigrants who speak fluent English and a high school level knowing US history and government are deported. However, I will shed no tears if unassimilated immigrants who we never asked to come sent home.
Clearly Trump is good for the media in the short-term because it drives demand for news content and provided an easy target for reporting. But is he good for the media long-term? How much of the decline in trust of mainstream outlets relates to the manner in which they cover him?
The economic model for all businesses is entirely built on short-term. They'll eat themselves.
And which media?
The acid test for whether Trump is good business for the mainstream media is if we see subscribers flocking back to the Washington Post.
Maybe that will happen.
My gut is telling me "no"; that our side is tired of the symbolic flagellating of Trump, expressing shock at what he says, and highlighting each and every lie. Been there, done that, and look where we are.
What I *hope* journalists will do this time around is focus hard on governmental outputs: what actions is the Trump administration taking, and what are the effects of those actions, both decent and terrible.
Of course, for that to happen, we're going to have to swap out a lot of journalists for new ones who have a clue how to do that kind of hard work.