A few decades ago, when people got their news from printed sources and a handful of TV and radio stations, we had a minimum daily diet of common facts. Sure, in some cities there may have been a liberal-leaning morning paper and a competing conservative afternoon one or vice versa, but for the most part, the news pages carried similar facts. Like
nearly everyone at the time, I grew up watching the news on three national TV networks and a handful of local newscasts, which, in the misquoted words of Dragnet’s Joe Friday, featured “Just the facts, ma’am,” though, to digress, an internet search just informed me that he actually never said that. It was a 1953 spoof from satirist Stan Freberg, but I’ll write that off to parody rather than fake news.
Today, our media diet is more like a Las Vegas buffet — there are a lot of tempting choices, but we have to be picky to find nutritious offerings. Not only do we have a seemingly endless choice in cable and streaming channels, but we have social media, where we are often part of an ideological echo-chamber enforced by our choice of whom we friend or follow as well as algorithms designed to feed us what the online services think we want to consume.
Some diversity
But as balkanized as social media has become, on Twitter and Facebook, there is at least a chance you’ll come across an opinion or maybe even a fact that doesn’t simply reinforce what you already believe. That’s because these services are popular among people of all political persuasions. Despite claims to the contrary and an occasional misstep on the part of the services’ moderators, all political opinions are welcome, as long as they’re not laced with hate speech, dangerous lies or other content that violates the companies’ terms of service.
But there are exceptions. There are now social media sites like Parler and Gab that are aimed at right-wing users as well as a handful of other alternatives to Twitter and Facebook. I’m all for competition and would like to see more choices when it comes to social media, but I worry about people gathering in even small bubbles to reinforce their beliefs rather than engage in at least some cross-ideological discussion.
Trumpbook?
But Donald Trump wants to take it to a new level. On Monday, a little more than two months after he was suspended from both Twitter and Facebook, the former president announced that he plans to launch his own social media platform. As Trump spokesman Jason Miller told Fox News Sunday, “Trump will be returning to social media in probably about two or three months here, with his own platform.” Calling it the “hottest ticket in social media,” he said, “it’s going to completely redefine the game.” Miller is right about redefining the game, but not in a good way. So far, there’s no name for this new company. My suggestions are Trumpbook, Trumper, TrumpTalk, Trump-A-Gram, TrumpChat or Trumpspace.
Admittedly, Trump has millions of admirers who, I’m sure, are anxious to hear from him. And based on comments I’ve read on Trump’s now-deleted Twitter feed, many of these people are anxious to respond to, repost, and discuss what Trump has to say.
But another thing I saw on Trump’s Twitter feed were comments from people who didn’t support him. Many were bombastic, sometimes mean and simplistic expressions of their negative opinion of the former president, but others were thoughtful and fact-filled responses which, in turn, provoked responses from Trump supporters, some also bombastic or mean, but others equally thoughtful. Although not always as high-minded or politically broad-based as I would have preferred, there was at least a conversation among people with different views, and for those who were open to differences of opinion, an opportunity to listen and learn. I find these conversations interesting and sometimes thought-provoking, especially if you approach them with an open mind.
My worry about a Trump-branded social network is that it will simply be a love-fest dominated almost exclusively by those who admire Donald Trump. Although I don’t know what rules of engagement they’ll establish, I do worry that the moderators will do everything they can to keep the conversation as pro-Trump as possible. There are no laws, and possibly no financial incentive, requiring them to offer equal time or diversity of opinion.
But I could be wrong. Perhaps the former president and those who moderate the forum will welcome debate and discussion. It would certainly make the site more compelling even for those who love Trump. As opinion columnist Paul Waldman wrote in the Washington Post, “If you own the libs on your social media site but no libs are there to hear it, have the libs actually been owned?”
Another question for Trump to consider is whether his posts on his own network will make news like his posts on Twitter and Facebook, which sometimes got a lot of attention in mainstream media.
Can he pull it off?
We don’t yet know how or even if Trump plans to monetize the service. Knowing his background, I’m guessing he’ll try to make a profit from it either through advertising, subscription fees, or both. If he does accept advertising, I expect to see a lot of ads from the pillow guy, some nutritional supplements, and gold dealers but not from the large companies that you see on other media platforms.
And there is the question of whether Trump can pull it off as a business. For every successful social media company, there are many that have failed. It’s a tough business, and despite a few successes such as licensing his name and his TV career, Trump has a less than stellar track record with his former airline, sports franchises, Vodka and steak businesses, casinos and more.
Unlike the early days of Facebook, the business of running social media has become complex, requiring lots of highly skilled and educated employees. It’s too bad Trump University isn’t around to offer Social Media 101.
Larry Magid is a tech journalist and internet safety activist.