Nice two paragraphs:

In October, I spoke to Peter Pomerantsev, a Soviet-born reality TV producer turned academic who wrote a book about Putin’s propaganda strategy. The goal, he told me, wasn’t to sell an ideology or a vision of the future; instead, it was to convince people that “the truth is unknowable” and that the only sensible choice is “to follow a strong leader.”

One major reason for the strategy’s success, both in the US and Russia, is that it coincided with a moment when the technological and political conditions were in place for it to thrive. Media fragmentation, the explosion of the internet, political polarization, curated timelines, and echo chambers — all of this allows a “flood the zone with shit” strategy to work.

Now flip them around and think post-Trump presidency with Trump and fans still around selling curated narratives even if they lose. Do you really just want to continue with dueling faux narratives by strong leaders or start to try to fix the problem?

as I noted on another recent thread, this guy has an ancient quote for every news cycle:

Interesting made up shit to promote "victims of the liberal media" meme:

It's a twofer: you cause mistrust of MSM and you're a poor victim of culture warriors, rather than an aggressor. Interesting contrast with the Bernie "swarm," where there are notably aggressive tactics. There is this weird inversion, where the right wingers are the victim of bullies (note the use of the imagined "outrage" by Tapper,) just so tired of being walked allover, and lefties play nasty alpha male bullies on behalf of the poor.