-46

“I have noticed that there have been a lot more events with creators, but the creators that are getting invited are the creators who are very pro Biden and just parroting talking points or sharing photo ops of them smiling with the President. Not the creators who have been critical,” said Kahlil Greene, a history content creator and education advocate in Washington who said he hasn’t been invited to the White House since he criticized the administration over the TikTok ban and the war in Gaza.

Annie Wu Henry, a political influencer and digital strategist who has worked on Democratic campaigns, agreed. While the White House once treated creators as independent media, she said, they now seem to be playing favorites.

Biden’s team “is trying to say that they’re handling influencers like the press. But the thing is, the press briefing room has to have Fox News no matter what. They have to allow all of the media in,” Henry said. “When it comes to influencers, they only let in people who agree, and anyone who gives even a little bit of pushback is not welcome.”

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mhague@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

I wonder if influencers are real. People will make decisions and then gravitate towards something, and others will end up thinking that that something is the cause. But I've never seen evidence that an influencer with 1 million followers is anything other than a mustering ground for people already wanting to act out. I guess "influencer" is just shorthand for "we don't actually know what's influencing all these people, but we know where they've assembled!"

[-] CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Influencers are paid product shills. Most have no scruples or real positions. They produce whatever content will attract followers so that they can maximize their sponsorship dollars. These aren’t serious opinions anyone should pay much mind to.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Hope they like not having any future elections.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's a theory that democracy is just going to end if Trump is elected. But I'm more prone to see it as a continuation of the current trend - more intense gerrymandering, courts picking winners and losers, fewer and fewer people enfranchised.

The form of election is still around, just like in Russia or Israel. But only the oligarchs and their cronies really get to participate.

I think turning popular democracy into a Hong Kong style of corporate board votes will fit their tastes nicely.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

We'll see. I think donnie himself and some of his stupid and venal supporters have a different view. I'm sure donnie would love to pay back those that he thinks wronged him somehow. If that is just humiliation in the courts and a RWNJ-friendly media, that may be enough for him, who knows.

His venal supporters? They probably don't really love corporate power and carrying more of the tax burden than their fair share, even if they probably don't think about that all that much.

Some of the worst just want to spill blood, literally, maybe even doing it themselves. Some of them (when they think they are anonymous) clearly enunciate how they relish the idea of killing men, women and children of the wrong color/religion. Many of them are just pissed that donnie wasn't able to go full throttle last time; I don't see donnie's admin having much reason to show any restraint in this regard this time around. I'm not sure fucking over liberals and POC with gerrymandering, court wins, disenfranchisement will be visceral enough for the most magabrained.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Plenty of ethnic cleansing has occurred democratically. I don't think one strictly precludes the other. If anything, a popular voter endorsement of eugenics and concentration camps helps facilitate the atrocities. Just look at what's happening in Israel. Or what happened under Bolsonaro in Brazil.

[-] 555@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Well can you blame them? This “genocide Joe” stuff is being pushed hard by the right-wing to play on the left’s “offended” nature. This same type of propaganda is used by all sides.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

What? If anything I've seen right wingers push Joe isn't doing enough to help Israel.

Also the dude was wagging his finger at Israel for blowing up and starving children. Left wing criticism of it is warranted and you SHOULD be offended.

From my view the thing turning ppl off of Biden is his supporters considering any valid criticism of him as supporting Trump

[-] 555@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

A lot of Americans think that Biden has control of Israel.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 0 points 3 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


At one such briefing on the war in Ukraine in 2022, press secretary Jen Psaki and Matt Miller, special adviser for communications at the White House National Security Council, told influencers that Biden viewed them as the “new media” and would strive to keep them informed.

Much of the anti-Biden content is being posted by young, non-White liberals with “shared ideology that the U.S. Government, and specifically Joe Biden, want to stop the flow of free speech and information,” CredoIQ found.

According to a recent poll conducted by Morning Consult, two-thirds of Gen Z voters — 67 percent — say Biden’s decision to back legislation that could lead to a TikTok ban has made them less likely to vote for him in November.

On TikTok, for example, many creators who were relatively new to the industry four years ago and working to build their followings have become powerful multiplatform influencers running profitable media businesses that reach tens of millions of young people.

Gen-Z for Change Executive Director Elise Joshi, a content creator and climate activist, said she hosted Zoom calls with hundreds of other young people in 2020 outlining why they should vote for Biden.

What angers her is the president’s failure to engage with Gen Z influencers’ substantive concerns, she said — though she acknowledged that the White House climate office recently contacted her directly regarding a pause in the approval of new liquefied natural gas projects.


The original article contains 1,762 words, the summary contains 238 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
-46 points (20.5% liked)

politics

18933 readers
2730 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS