Joho the Blog » Social media unite. Unwin Mitt.

Social media unite. Unwin Mitt.

The narrative was primed to develop, and so it did: Romney won the debate. The instant polls say so, and the mainstream media say so. And although I thought Obama did a far better job, I know that I’m biased that way. I’m willing to acknowledge: Romney won the debate last night.

But, although Romney won it last night, he lost it today, because now we know for sure how much he lied. We can reverse the narrative. We have an obligation to do so.

When cheaters are discovered after a game, they are stripped of their victory. That is what we of social media need to do. The mainstream media won’t because they claim they don’t proclaim winners, although that is exactly what they do.

It is up to us, the tweeters, the bloggers, the updaters of our status, the mailing listers, the tumblrs…all of us. We can turn the mainstream narrative around. That is what social media are for. We can tell the truth. We can speak honest memes to false narratives.

The truth is that Romney lost because he cheated. We together are the truth-checkers.

So here is the narrative we can make true: Romney won last night, but he lost today.

7 Responses to “Social media unite. Unwin Mitt.”

  1. Obama seemed to be playing not to lose, and I thought Romney was the clear winner myself. BUT it was the first debate and the one covering domestic policy and the economy. The Obama campaign now has a treasure trove of promises and soundbites that are either false, or clear reversals of Romney positions during the GOP primaries to use.

    The next debate, is a town hall style – a format that will probably favor Obama.

    Bain Capital, the 47%, Romney income taxes – all likely to be raised by audience members in Leaving Obama’s hands clean and Romney trying to use prepared zingers on audience members instead of Obama.

    And then comes the foreign policy debate. If Obama can’t take Romney apart in that one, he frankly doesn’t deserve to be re-elected.

  2. With respect to the electorate, I hearken to that long-standing political analyst, Jack Nicholson in the role of Col. Nathan Jessup: “The truth? You can’t handle the truth!”

    Sad, but politics these days live and die by impressions, and Romney recreated himself on TV last night in front of an American public who don’t much care for facts, truth, or reality, and certainly (for the most part) are unable to think through consequences of actions.

    As I recall, GWB – Bush-the-Younger – was nominally elected because he won the “which candidate would you most like to share a beer with?” contest.

  3. Whaddya mean “we”, A-lister? Even worse:

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/qotd-michael-moore-unearths-doozy.html

    “‘You can say anything you want during a debate and 80 million people hear it,’observed Peter Teeley, press secretary to Vice President Bush. If reporters then document that a candidate spoke untruthfully, ‘so what? Maybe 200 people read it or 2,000 or 20,000.’”

    – New York Times, November 1, 1984

  4. That may be Seth, but David’s point is well made; 80 million might have heard the debate, but there are over 110 million US Twitter users. And maybe more on Facebook. And many have left those for Google+. So get out there and expose the lies…

  5. [...] Social media unite. Unwin Mitt. (hyperorg.com) [...]

  6. Adam, there’s more than *1 billion* people in China. Numbers by themselves are meaningless. Note also there’s an echo-chamber effect that, say 10 people all follow each other on Twitter. Each one sends “Romney Lies!” to the others. Each then says “I informed 9 people”, for a naive total of 90 people. But in fact, *0* minds were changed, since it was all echoes among the like-minded.

    Note this doesn’t apply completely to David, who actually does have a non-trivial audience, and it may even be not all like-minded (probably the corporate types skew Republican). But the whole point of the power-law is very few people have power.

  7. Very dismayed by the number of pundits who equated the MR “win” with his “aggression”– heard that over and over again. My exposure to news media is pretty erratic, so maybe someone did examine that assumption. But it’s hard not to be discouraged that in the first analysis, so many equate “winning” with bullyboy manners and lying. Even more discouraged by the news about the polls.

    But I do like what you say re: fighting the good fight via social media.

Leave a Reply


Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon