The New Yorker goes to Trump rallies

Writer George Saunders attempts thoughtfulness:

In the old days, a liberal and a conservative (a “dove” and a “hawk,” say) got their data from one of three nightly news programs, a local paper, and a handful of national magazines, and were thus starting with the same basic facts (even if those facts were questionable, limited, or erroneous). Now each of us constructs a custom informational universe, wittingly (we choose to go to the sources that uphold our existing beliefs and thus flatter us) or unwittingly (our app algorithms do the driving for us). The data we get this way, pre-imprinted with spin and mythos, are intensely one-dimensional.

That’s true, George. The internet is way better news for traditionalists than it is for persons like you.

Award-winning line:

So the couple’s assertion was true but not complexly true.

So you now have to resort to “complexly” to defend progressivism?

And get this:

I didn’t meet many people who were unreservedly for Trump. There is, in the quiver containing his ideas, something for nearly everyone to dislike. But there is also something for nearly everyone to like. What allows a person not crazy about Trump to vote for him is a certain prioritization: a person might, for example, like Trump’s ideas about trade, or his immigration policies, or the fact that Trump is, as one supporter told me, “a successful businessman,” who has “actually done something,” unlike Obama, who has “never done anything his entire life.”

The Trump supporters I spoke with were friendly, generous with their time, flattered to be asked their opinion, willing to give it, even when they knew I was a liberal writer likely to throw them under the bus. More.

Reality check: If so, the Trumpies are nicer than many Canadians (a first!).

Many of us would say: Under the bus, George? You first. Still Clueless in Cocktail Land.

The New Yorker types, like the Washington Posties (now Jeff Bezos’ charity), don’t get how much the internet has changed social and power relations in a few short years.

It’s comparable to the printing press in the 15th century. Suddenly, people who were previously sneered at as ignorant peasants had access to information. And they didn’t need the former providers either. They could buy and read printed books instead of hiring someone at huge expense to copy a book out for them.

True, governments tried cracking down and upheavals and revolutions followed, but those types of events usually do follow such changes. And the changes stuck.

Maybe the New Yorker will drown in the New York A-crock-a-lypse currently promoted by Rolling Stone. Will anyone notice?

See also: Data basic: A primer on information theory and why it matters today

and

CNN CEO admits network too liberal. Thanks for playing, Zucker. The rest of us want to live and that means responding to the real world around us, not your progressive fantasy.

Share