In the world of mass communication and media, there is an academic idea called “Agenda-Setting Theory.” It’s the belief that the way we consume media is filtered through one of three types of agendas that hold sway over the public.
- Public Agenda Setting is the first. This is the belief that media coverage and issues will be influenced by the public.
- Media Agenda Setting (second), where media companies set the agenda for what stories and how to report them.
- Third is Policy Agenda Setting. This is where media companies as well as the public work together to impact the policy issues being covered by the makers.
It is the wish of the mainstream media that the second be true. For decades, they’ve worked hard to project themselves to be experts on topics and worked relentlessly to decredit those who oppose this. This is the type of agenda that most people would rather have. It gives the power to the people and not the corporations.
Over the course of twelve years, Policy Agenda Setting (the third type) has changed or split. We would like to think we have influence over policy-makers, but the fact is we really don’t. Media, lobbying, and activist groups drowned our voices. However, social media became a powerful equalizer.
Take a look at the Democrats. The Democrats have been refusing to accept defeat since the Bush years. Terry McAuliffe may be the most well-known Democrat, refusing to acknowledge that George W. Bush was legitimately elected. But he’s far from being the only one. They believed (and still believe) that Trump was robbed of the 2016 election by the Russians. They believe that Stacey Abrams didn’t lose the gubernatorial election in 2018, but that Brian Kemp stole it from her. They continue to crow about these high-profile races.
Russian disinformation campaigns used social media to influence people for around $20,000 After Barack Obama’s campaign used glorified voting targeting to get support from Facebook in 2008, social media was seen as the wave of the future for elections, and campaigns spent millions upon millions to reach voters there. Although $20,000 of Russian money was very small, the impact it had on the election is huge. The Democrats searched for reasons other than weakness in their candidate and that explained 2016.
Here is where Democrats meet the media on Facebook. They see Facebook, which has turned you and I into the product rather than the customer, as something they can’t control. They can’t set their agenda through Facebook, which frustrates them enough to have it removed from existence.
When it comes to your Facebook feed, yes, there are some things the algorithms push on you that you maybe wouldn’t be looking for all the time, but if your Facebook feed is overly-political, then you’re going to get the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you are not someone who shares overly political stuff, then you won’t see those things nearly as often, even when one of your best friends or a family member shares them because Facebook recognizes that’s not the life you live.
The contents of my Facebook page are void of any value. It’s just stupid memes. It’s so many stupid memes that I routinely get messages from people sharing a meme with me without realizing I’m the one who shared the stupid meme to their feed in the first place. My own personal preference is that Facebook is where I keep track of friends and family, and it’s where I go to share stupid memes because I need a place away from all the political nonsense that happens literally everywhere else.
Not everyone thinks like this. Some people believe it is essential to spread the news, opinion or meme about Jesus standing above Donald Trump at the White House. To combat the creeping fascism, some people will share any anti-conservative meme that they find. Many of these people call for anti-vaccination people to be expelled from society and placed in a dark, large pit where they can never be seen again. These people are not the type of person I want to see their posts.
While you may be the end product here, you can also play a role in the revolution. Media wants to dictate the rules. They will tell you which stories matter, which are rubbish, and why you should believe a certain thing about a story. The Democrats want to control what information gets to you because they cannot accept that voters just may not like what policies they’re selling.
So my question ends up being… why help the Democrats and the media strengthen their own messaging?
It is clear that many people still feel angry at Facebook for banning Donald Trump. Facebook has blocked or censored many conservative posts in the past. However, progressive pages consistently perform better than conservative pages. RedState still draws solid traffic, despite all the hurdles we must jump through in order to post some content to Facebook.
Trust me, if I could pull back the curtain and really show y’all some of what we go through, I would. It’s absolutely nuts. But at the end of the day, RedState’s message is still getting out to its readers on social media. Conservative voices have an even bigger audience than what they realize. You look at the numbers and you realize that we’re actually winning there more often than we’re losing.
That’s why I have been extremely hesitant to jump on board the Regulate Big Tech bus, because it’s what the Democrats and the media want. Their influence is waning and they need to be regulated. I can’t bring myself to support that, and while I understand a lot of the frustrations from conservatives (and share in many of them), I also know that in the long run we are doing far more good by leaving Facebook (relatively) alone.
About Post Author
