The Israeli experiment in Giv’at Shmuel sounds exactly like what Stephen Colbert was doing here in the U.S. during the Bush years, with one important difference: with the possible exception of the 2006 Correspondents Dinner, the people who most needed to see the parody that Colbert was doing, didn't. Contrast that with the Israeli study, where "Over a six-week period, according to polling, nearly all of its 25,000 residents saw them."
"The campaign worked, the social scientists believe, because instead of telling people they were wrong, the ads agreed with them—to embarrassing, offensive extremes. “No one wants to think of themselves as some angry crank,” one of the researchers, Eran Halperin, told me. “No one wants to be lumped in with extremists or the angriest fringe.” Sometimes, however, we don’t realize we’ve become extremists until someone makes it painfully obvious."
"The most immediate task is to recognize our anger for what it often is. The researchers in Israel held up a mirror to the residents of Giv’at Shmuel in the hopes that the reflection would shock them. Americans would benefit from taking a similarly hard look at their reflection—and we don’t need to enlist the help of social scientists to do so. In a sense, all of America has been living in Giv’at Shmuel for the past two years."
I wonder what the effect back in the Bush years would have been is even 50% of the most die-hard Conservatives similar to the people of Giv’at Shmuel had daily exposure to something like Colbert. Would we be so far down the anger road now?
Very interesting. What was Colbert doing during the Bush years?
The Israel experiment wasn’t presented as parody, right? That seems to be a key difference.
He was doing his over-the-top parody. And you are right, the Israeli experiment wasn't parody per se, but there were people who, just like the Giv'at Shmuel settlers listening to the radio ads and seeing the billboards, actually thought Colbert was for real. :)
We the people, need to do a better job of moderating our consumption of all forms of media (apologies Read Up), and spend more time reflecting on what is important in our personal sphere of influence, i.e., family, friends, career, hobbies, etc. More time spent making a positive difference in our real world, and less time being enraged in our respective media filter bubbles will likely produce a more satisfying, fulfilling life.
Cheers! No apology necessary. Thanks for the awesome comment.
My overall media intake* is at an all-time low (in terms of time) and all-time high (in terms of quality). I often wonder if the former is actually more important than the latter. I agree with absolutely everything you just said. The best way to break the filter bubble is to talk with strangers face-to-face, which I try to do every day.
*For two months now I've been on a strict 4-part media diet: (1) Readup (2) books (3) AM/FM radio (4) local newspapers.
I’ve been so pissed off about social media for so long. Most of the rest of the world is with me on that. It’s very interesting to think about reframing that anger as moral outrage. And shifting victims into a position of power. We can do that, but we need a movement.
This article was very practical, interesting and helpful for me, personally and professionally. I haven’t seen the name Marshall Ganz in a long time - that was a pleasant surprise. (Also, I once took a course taught by Bob Sutton.)
This article felt like premonition. I’m just not sure of what yet. Lots to do!
The Israeli experiment in Giv’at Shmuel sounds exactly like what Stephen Colbert was doing here in the U.S. during the Bush years, with one important difference: with the possible exception of the 2006 Correspondents Dinner, the people who most needed to see the parody that Colbert was doing, didn't. Contrast that with the Israeli study, where "Over a six-week period, according to polling, nearly all of its 25,000 residents saw them."
"The campaign worked, the social scientists believe, because instead of telling people they were wrong, the ads agreed with them—to embarrassing, offensive extremes. “No one wants to think of themselves as some angry crank,” one of the researchers, Eran Halperin, told me. “No one wants to be lumped in with extremists or the angriest fringe.” Sometimes, however, we don’t realize we’ve become extremists until someone makes it painfully obvious."
"The most immediate task is to recognize our anger for what it often is. The researchers in Israel held up a mirror to the residents of Giv’at Shmuel in the hopes that the reflection would shock them. Americans would benefit from taking a similarly hard look at their reflection—and we don’t need to enlist the help of social scientists to do so. In a sense, all of America has been living in Giv’at Shmuel for the past two years."
I wonder what the effect back in the Bush years would have been is even 50% of the most die-hard Conservatives similar to the people of Giv’at Shmuel had daily exposure to something like Colbert. Would we be so far down the anger road now?
Very interesting. What was Colbert doing during the Bush years? The Israel experiment wasn’t presented as parody, right? That seems to be a key difference.
He was doing his over-the-top parody. And you are right, the Israeli experiment wasn't parody per se, but there were people who, just like the Giv'at Shmuel settlers listening to the radio ads and seeing the billboards, actually thought Colbert was for real. :)
Interesting!
I'm still trying to figure out what "for real" even means. Journalism, show business, and politics are almost impossible to differentiate these days.
We the people, need to do a better job of moderating our consumption of all forms of media (apologies Read Up), and spend more time reflecting on what is important in our personal sphere of influence, i.e., family, friends, career, hobbies, etc. More time spent making a positive difference in our real world, and less time being enraged in our respective media filter bubbles will likely produce a more satisfying, fulfilling life.
Cheers! No apology necessary. Thanks for the awesome comment.
My overall media intake* is at an all-time low (in terms of time) and all-time high (in terms of quality). I often wonder if the former is actually more important than the latter. I agree with absolutely everything you just said. The best way to break the filter bubble is to talk with strangers face-to-face, which I try to do every day.
*For two months now I've been on a strict 4-part media diet: (1) Readup (2) books (3) AM/FM radio (4) local newspapers.
I’ve been so pissed off about social media for so long. Most of the rest of the world is with me on that. It’s very interesting to think about reframing that anger as moral outrage. And shifting victims into a position of power. We can do that, but we need a movement.
This article was very practical, interesting and helpful for me, personally and professionally. I haven’t seen the name Marshall Ganz in a long time - that was a pleasant surprise. (Also, I once took a course taught by Bob Sutton.)
This article felt like premonition. I’m just not sure of what yet. Lots to do!