A GOP political leader in WA state strategically employed ambiguity to foster outrage and controversy on Facebook, garnering attention, further polarizing audiences, and ensuring that all of us will receive more of his content — and more content like his — in the future.
Doesn't seem ambiguous to me. He's frowning, the title is "what's broken in WA" and all the people in the background are talking to each other and ignoring him. A normal picture would include his hosts and mention the event.
He doesn't mention "what's broken" when visiting friends:
Great analysis, especially looking at comments to get at the intent. I have a couple of questions: (1) When you say "Walsh wins," obviously he wins at the social media game of producing engagement and gaining attention but does he _win_ anyone not already on his side? Are you seeing any evidence of that and I'm curious also how such evidence might be found. (2) I suspect this engagement farming mechanism exists on the left as well but does it differ in terms of topics or engagement strategies?
That's a good question. (1a) I think Walsh "wins" by getting more engagement, not just for this post for future posts. This kind of cross-partisan engagement means his content will be seen by folks on the right and left, including people who actually responded and others who just look like them to Facebook's recommendation algorithms. (1b) Does he win anyone over by this post? Of course not. But that's not how political messaging works. Persuasion in general doesn’t “work” as a single message that changes a mind… scholars moved beyond that “hypodermic needle” long ago. Instead, Walsh (and others like him) win by garnering attention and then using that attention to set the agenda, to change what people are talking about, and to shape the frames through which people interpret events in the world. This post isn’t going to change a mind, but his long-term messaging can shape how people all along the political spectrum think about the problems that we are facing in Washington state, which ones are most salient, what their causes are, and how we might solve them. (2) Absolutely. Engagment farming is a tactic across the political spectrum. For example, OccupyDemocrats and Tennessee Holler are big on the left. And we've seen this controversy baiting strategy used by outlets that have other motives — e.g. financial, not just political. But an elected political leader using controversy baiting... I'm not sure I've seen that before, but I also don't see that many political electeds in my feed. The fact that Walsh is there in my feed, well, suggests he's doing better than some in the engagement game.
Doesn't seem ambiguous to me. He's frowning, the title is "what's broken in WA" and all the people in the background are talking to each other and ignoring him. A normal picture would include his hosts and mention the event.
He doesn't mention "what's broken" when visiting friends:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid021BbqXNUxznomo78Kk6ZSdGL4yx1HnCaeoKXPUiBDaB9BheFeRZYfmXXTr3LV2yuRl&id=100052932638292
Great analysis, especially looking at comments to get at the intent. I have a couple of questions: (1) When you say "Walsh wins," obviously he wins at the social media game of producing engagement and gaining attention but does he _win_ anyone not already on his side? Are you seeing any evidence of that and I'm curious also how such evidence might be found. (2) I suspect this engagement farming mechanism exists on the left as well but does it differ in terms of topics or engagement strategies?
That's a good question. (1a) I think Walsh "wins" by getting more engagement, not just for this post for future posts. This kind of cross-partisan engagement means his content will be seen by folks on the right and left, including people who actually responded and others who just look like them to Facebook's recommendation algorithms. (1b) Does he win anyone over by this post? Of course not. But that's not how political messaging works. Persuasion in general doesn’t “work” as a single message that changes a mind… scholars moved beyond that “hypodermic needle” long ago. Instead, Walsh (and others like him) win by garnering attention and then using that attention to set the agenda, to change what people are talking about, and to shape the frames through which people interpret events in the world. This post isn’t going to change a mind, but his long-term messaging can shape how people all along the political spectrum think about the problems that we are facing in Washington state, which ones are most salient, what their causes are, and how we might solve them. (2) Absolutely. Engagment farming is a tactic across the political spectrum. For example, OccupyDemocrats and Tennessee Holler are big on the left. And we've seen this controversy baiting strategy used by outlets that have other motives — e.g. financial, not just political. But an elected political leader using controversy baiting... I'm not sure I've seen that before, but I also don't see that many political electeds in my feed. The fact that Walsh is there in my feed, well, suggests he's doing better than some in the engagement game.
Thank you!