One thing I noticed especially with Trump coverage is that you'll often see experts saying something like "I'm going to let you in on a big secret: Trump is making stuff up". You also see that with the Russian coverage, where experts tell you some big secret like Russia has a troll farm. I feel like this is like one of those big reveals that literally everyone already knows. Unless the intended audience is someone living in a cave, I don't think any of these truths should surprise anyone. Then these experts will point to the fact that someone might actually believe this thing as an example of why this is some sophisticated trickery that they need to warn you about. This is despite the fact that it's pretty easy to find people that'll believe in any random thing.
I'm not even talking about which side of the debate you may fall in. For example let's say Trump says something that's obviously false. If you don't support him you know that's just a thing he does, and if you support him you usually know that's also a thing he does too. But you'll see some analysis along the lines of 'Trump is using obvious falsehood to confuse the matter which keeps people from seeing his true purpose blah blah blah'. Seriously, I don't think there's anything fancy going on here. The only reason it works is because he's the President of the United States so people aren't going to call his bluff very often and even if you do I don't think he even cares. Similarly with Russia, I'd say the reason why their tactics work is that people usually don't like to mess around with a nuclear power. If someone says the world is flat, you don't really have to fact check them, nor do you really worry about whether that guy is pulling some 4D chess mind trick on you. I guess the experts need to say something to justify their job, but I bet it'd be quicker to have an AI program fact checks these things than having experts telling you the obvious.
I'm not even talking about which side of the debate you may fall in. For example let's say Trump says something that's obviously false. If you don't support him you know that's just a thing he does, and if you support him you usually know that's also a thing he does too. But you'll see some analysis along the lines of 'Trump is using obvious falsehood to confuse the matter which keeps people from seeing his true purpose blah blah blah'. Seriously, I don't think there's anything fancy going on here. The only reason it works is because he's the President of the United States so people aren't going to call his bluff very often and even if you do I don't think he even cares. Similarly with Russia, I'd say the reason why their tactics work is that people usually don't like to mess around with a nuclear power. If someone says the world is flat, you don't really have to fact check them, nor do you really worry about whether that guy is pulling some 4D chess mind trick on you. I guess the experts need to say something to justify their job, but I bet it'd be quicker to have an AI program fact checks these things than having experts telling you the obvious.
