So it’s the 2nd annual women’s march. In 2017 it flooded all media. This year barely a ripple. And I see it’s dissolved into internecine controversy about hats and a why-isn’t-it-bigger story about Trump’s magazine spanking. There’s a lesson here, but damned if I know what it is
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Barely a ripple *in the news*. Meanwhile, actual people marched in record numbers, around the world. News media decided there's more novelty in finding a controversy, but this is sensationalism vs. journalism fail that's become standard fare.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nishaspillai
It’s really not news if its just a rerun with no new message to the movement, I don’t blame them. It’s not seeking sensationalism so much as a bare reason to cover. If bickering over a cap symbol can swamp any larger message that might have been there, not a good sign
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
"bickering over the cap" is a narrative I have *only* seen in the formerly esteemed paper that harped on it. there is actual news if they sought it - 15,000 women candidates, voter registration drives, candidates running in seats DNC usually ignores, ... (1/2)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nishaspillai @vgr
... training programs for everything from door knocking and phone banking to being a citizen witness to ICE raids. The problem is not lack of activity on the ground, but the kind of angle these guys (I use the word advisedly) want to find.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nishaspillai @vgr
Witness the contrast between the breathless coverage of the tea party movement (even the loony fringe) vs. the way they're covering this resistance. I wonder what the difference might be. </sarcasm>
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nishaspillai
I think the narrative here is fundamentally weaker. There is a central character (“woman”) and an energy (which shows up as takedowns of specific men, like Weinstein, or institutions), but no overall plot. The Tea Party had a story (constitutional originalism initially).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Tell me why you think "constitutional originalism" is a plot, but women's rights is not.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nishaspillai
There’s an easier story to tell. “Go back to what the founding fathers intended” “Women’s rights” ends up being “well the younger women are now arguing with Margaret Atwood about what that means and the Babe writer is arguing with other journalists...is this 3rd or 4th wave?”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
You're only seeing complexity on one side. You don't seriously believe the Tea Party had no internal conflicts, right? Women's rights has a simple narrative too.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It was still a simpler story. And they did also suffer their narrative eclipse when the constitutional originalism Story unraveled into multiple bickering subplots of Kochs, Jacksonianism, originalism, alt-fighters, evangelicals etc
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.