Hi Nigel, I lived and worked in San Francisco in 1984 -- if only I'd known you were at the Convention! Yes, there's a great difference over those 40 years, as you noted, social media and influencers able to reach young voters who don't watch or read legacy media. We Democrats hope that will help give us a big margin of victory, electing our first female and POC President, preventing a dangerous second term for Trump, and hopefully moving forward past the divisiveness. You noted that in 1984 there was less need to fact check and that the rhetoric wasn't as nasty or personal. Although we mainly have Donald Trump to thank for both, I can trace the beginning of those tactics back to Newt Gingrich and his animosity towards President Clinton. One other curious media observation I'd like to make is that myself and other progressives have noticed a marked shift in the formerly liberal New York Times towards more sympathetic coverage of Trump and the GOP.As a result, I switched my long-time subscription to the Washington Post, although they too referred to JD Vance's admitted invention of the Springfield, OH story as "amplifying" stories for media attention. If you haven't already, Nigel, you might look into how these two formerly well-respected media outlets have become less objective. Is it as a result of the publisher's influence? Influence from corporate advertisers? Appealing to an older audience? I'd be interested in hearing your take on this. Sincerely, Diana Fletcher Randle
You had the power to pick the sound bite that would have shown the public the truth, yet you chose election. to ignore the truth. I wonder who will win this election in November given the last interference in terms of 2020
Hi Nigel, I lived and worked in San Francisco in 1984 -- if only I'd known you were at the Convention! Yes, there's a great difference over those 40 years, as you noted, social media and influencers able to reach young voters who don't watch or read legacy media. We Democrats hope that will help give us a big margin of victory, electing our first female and POC President, preventing a dangerous second term for Trump, and hopefully moving forward past the divisiveness. You noted that in 1984 there was less need to fact check and that the rhetoric wasn't as nasty or personal. Although we mainly have Donald Trump to thank for both, I can trace the beginning of those tactics back to Newt Gingrich and his animosity towards President Clinton. One other curious media observation I'd like to make is that myself and other progressives have noticed a marked shift in the formerly liberal New York Times towards more sympathetic coverage of Trump and the GOP.As a result, I switched my long-time subscription to the Washington Post, although they too referred to JD Vance's admitted invention of the Springfield, OH story as "amplifying" stories for media attention. If you haven't already, Nigel, you might look into how these two formerly well-respected media outlets have become less objective. Is it as a result of the publisher's influence? Influence from corporate advertisers? Appealing to an older audience? I'd be interested in hearing your take on this. Sincerely, Diana Fletcher Randle
You had the power to pick the sound bite that would have shown the public the truth, yet you chose election. to ignore the truth. I wonder who will win this election in November given the last interference in terms of 2020