Trolling and the media, politics and sports

[DanOregon]

Given the ever expanding "marketplace of ideas" on the internet, I was thinking how much impact "trolling" has had in real life.
We see it in sports with the contrarian sports take artist whether its Whitlock or Bayless or various others who suddenly are given attention for their "unconventional" thoughts on Tebow, or LeBron or whomever. They've built houses with them.
We see it in media, where someone with the profile of Joe Rogan (MMA guy, former stand-up comedian and Fear Factor host) has become an outsized media figure. In the "both sides-ism" school of journalism, bookers can find someone who may not really have a problem with a certain color of M&M, but sure would like to be on TV and promote their blog or Twitter account.
And its resulted in a politics, where someone like RFKjr or Trump is embraced not because of their great ideas, but BECAUSE they are rejected by reality-based media and common sense.
And the biggest thing about these types, is there isn't a lot of competition for this "lane" of reasoning. You can be the "authority" on an idea, because it is horrible and makes no sense. But you will get on TV and radio, because reality based media is "trying to shut you down."

 

[Neutral Corner]

It does not surprise me that you can draw coverage if your bull**** is thick enough. What surprises me is how much money there is in it nowadays.

 

[DanOregon]

Well, when you corner the market on bull**** - the world is your huckleberry.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

It does not surprise me that you can draw coverage if your bull**** is thick enough. What surprises me is how much money there is in it nowadays.

Impressions and CPM are everything.

 

[sgreenwell]

It does not surprise me that you can draw coverage if your bull**** is thick enough. What surprises me is how much money there is in it nowadays.

I'm not surprised by the motivation of Stephen A. and Skip Bayless types to do what they do - they get paid handsomely to make people react. I guess I just don't get it from an audience perspective. I've never been the type to stick with a "I hate this so much" program or commentator. "So bad its funny" kind of movies, sure. But I couldn't imagine watching or listening to something for hours a day that I knew would just mostly **** me off.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Given the ever expanding "marketplace of ideas" on the internet, I was thinking how much impact "trolling" has had in real life.
We see it in sports with the contrarian sports take artist whether its Whitlock or Bayless or various others who suddenly are given attention for their "unconventional" thoughts on Tebow, or LeBron or whomever. They've built houses with them.
We see it in media, where someone with the profile of Joe Rogan (MMA guy, former stand-up comedian and Fear Factor host) has become an outsized media figure. In the "both sides-ism" school of journalism, bookers can find someone who may not really have a problem with a certain color of M&M, but sure would like to be on TV and promote their blog or Twitter account.
And its resulted in a politics, where someone like RFKjr or Trump is embraced not because of their great ideas, but BECAUSE they are rejected by reality-based media and common sense.
And the biggest thing about these types, is there isn't a lot of competition for this "lane" of reasoning. You can be the "authority" on an idea, because it is horrible and makes no sense. But you will get on TV and radio, because reality based media is "trying to shut you down."

I don't mean to dismiss your statement, because every word of it is true. But this has been the world we live in since 2016 at least. I can't register surprise over it.

The loudest voice gets some traction, regardless of the message. See:

 

[DanOregon]

I was just mostly surprised by the traction these people have received. It's like "Jackass Democracy" (I claim that title if I ever write a book on the subject). Are these "good" ideas, hell now - but damn you want to see how it turns out.

Steve-O 2024.