Media and Society

Advertising and Public Relations

2018-07-14T00:04:00.000-07:00

WEEK 3

TOPIC 1: TWITTER/FACEBOOK/INSTAGRAM AND ADVERTISING/PR

One brand that I believe is using social media well is General Electric on Twitter.

I like them particularly because unlike the often mentioned Fast Food brands on Twitter (Mcdonalds, Wendy's, etc.), General Electric usually has very complex ideas to convey. In addition, they are a large company filled with a variety of developing technologies, so they frequently have to create new ways to present them.

Unfortunately for them, they are no exception to the text limits of tweets. So, they have to still fit the format, despite the more technical concepts that General Electric is involved with.

Their pragmatic creativity to make complex ideas and products easy to understand has won them my admiration and kept me following their account.

CREATIVE VIDEO USAGE

General Electric uses video to convey a great deal of their information, but they don't exploit it. They make the effort to ensure that the videos themselves are short, including edited-in graphical elements to give the viewer any necessary context, rather than using lengthy commentary or having it occupy valuable space in the tweet. Other companies have sometimes gotten carried away with videos and used them like a dumping ground, that doesn't really "need" any editing. This can extend their videos out past 10 minutes and likely result in the loss of the audience's attention. While it takes more effort to produce each post, editing videos into the "bite-size" style content that have been historically successful on social media is well worth the labor.

Example:

When additive manufacturing creates a realistic metal tulip, “flower power” takes on a new meaning.
— General Electric (@generalelectric) July 13, 2018

PUBLIC RELATIONS / CUSTOMER SERVICE

In addition to their advertisement of new technologies, General Electric also uses Twitter to provide public relations / customer service to people tweeting at the account. Because these interactions are publicly visible, they're not only helping customers - they're also defusing bad impressions from negative comments by emphasizing that they would like to help resolve any issues.

Examples:

We appreciate the feedback. David. We are always looking for innovative ways to tell our story while highlighting our amazing new tech.
— General Electric (@generalelectric) June 13, 2018

We're sorry for the frustration & issue you're facing. Please reach out to GE Appliances at eResponse@geappliances.com & they'll try to resolve the issue.
— General Electric (@generalelectric) July 5, 2018

THE AUDIENCE

The target audience would likely be people with an interest in science and technology. The audience doesn't have to be professionally involved in those fields to understand the account's content, but without that interest, someone could discard it as "nerd stuff".

For their target audience, they're reasonably successful, boasting 448K Followers. The posts are frequent enough to make the account worth following, polished enough that it feels like they respect your time, and interesting enough to even bother clicking in the first place.

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS

One area which I can think of as an area for improvement would be to lessen how canned/generic some of the responses they give to people tweeting at them. While it is difficult to be both individualized and efficient in customer service over Twitter, a little variety could only help to improve their emotional branding.

TOPIC 2: PERSUASIVE TECHNIQUES

What WORKS:
IHOP, or is it IHOb now? - That's kind of the point.

On June 4th, IHOP's twitter made a mysterious post showing that they would be flipping the last letter of their name to become "IHOb", promising that on the 11th they'd reveal what the b represents.

For 60 pancakin’ years, we’ve been IHOP. Now, we’re flippin’ our name to IHOb. Find out what it could b on 6.11.18. #IHOb pic.twitter.com/evSxKV3QmT
— IHOP (@IHOP) June 4, 2018

After broad news coverage and speculation, they kept their word, announcing that the b stood for "burgers".

Dear Internet, we abbreciate your batience. Now let’s see who guessed right. B-hold!!!!! #IHOb pic.twitter.com/Fh3SkZ7s3Y
— IHOP (@IHOP) June 11, 2018

With the reveal complete, the main portion of their ad campaign began on an excited and comedic note with their first "proper" commercial about the change.

THE AUDIENCE

The target of this ad campaign was actually quite broad - it was for anyone unaware that IHOP sells burgers. Which, prior to this IHOb fiasco, included me.

THE TECHNIQUES

IHOP used a bit of the "hidden-fear" appeal and played on the connection people had with IHOP being exclusively the "International House of Pancakes", serving breakfast. Instead of becoming something like the "International House of Pancakes and Burgers", they played on people who fear dramatic changes by claiming they'd become the seemingly burger-only "International House of Burgers", and the stunt got them the attention of both the media and their customers.

WHY IT WORKED

A critical element that I believe lead to the success of this ad campaign was that they left room for speculation by first only announcing that they're changing their name from "IHOP" to "IHOb". Many went for the safe guess that the b would stand for "Breakfast", something their ad team probably expected. In a similar "name-change" publicity stunt, Yum! Brands - the parent company of my DUD choice, KFC, took their Pizza Hut brand through a marketing rollercoaster. What looked like copyright-infringing knockoffs were actually two new "names" for the more recognizable Pizza Hut name - gaining "The Hut" to try and court millenials and "Pasta Hut" elsewhere to appear a more healthy restaurant.

In IHOP's case, they were actually always serving burgers, people just weren't associating IHOP with burgers (or anything other than breakfast), and weren't ordering them. While they introduced seven new burgers, those "new" burgers actually replaced six burgers on their old menu and fell into the same general categories. Compared to similar publicity efforts, IHOP saved considerably on the cost that it would take to spread the word. There was not an expensive roll-out of new products and some IHOPs only had to turn their last letter upside down to become an "IHOb". Meanwhile, new outlets across the nation fell for the stunt hook, line and sinker.

Beyond general social media fervor, large news outlets announced the change. They publicized the activity over twitter surrounding the change. Better, yet, when IHOP admitted that they faked the IHOb name changed - they posted articles for that, too. You just can't buy publicity like that.

On CNBC, Eric Schiffer, chairman of Reputation Management Consultants, praised their capture of the massive free publicity garnered from the news fervor sparked by the change:

Schiffer called the marketing campaign "click bait on steroids," but praised it for garnering so much attention and free publicity.

"This was a brilliant marketing stunt that didn't grossly undermine the credibility of IHOP and in the end will lead to people considering it for additional items and, at the same time, they got probably several hundred million dollars of free publicity," he said.

At the end of it all, it's remained IHOP - but we're now much more aware of their burgers. Achieving that goal is a big win for IHOP, who've been trying to expand beyond the breakfast genre with consumers. While speculation remains active over ensuring sustainable sales from the campaign, it is undeniable that IHOP was very creative in expanding a simple letter turn into a multi-layered marketing campaign. A week ago we weren't talking about IHOP - then we were, and there's data to prove it. According to AdAge:

IHOP was the second-biggest trending global topic on Twitter on Monday, even with the then-pending meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un. In the U.S., the chain held the No. 1 spot (IHOP), No. 2 (IHOb) and No. 4 (International House), Rebelez notes. There were 86,000 tweets per hour at the peak on Monday, according to IHOP.

There have also been about 15,000 media stories, roughly three times as many as IHOP got this year for its biggest day, National Pancake Day.

What's a DUD:
KFC. Specifically, their "Smoky Mountain BBQ" ad series, featuring Reba McEntire.

As an ad campaign, the resuscitation of KFC's late founder, Colonel Sanders, has received a considerable deal of negative feedback. A reason for people not liking the commercials that I found often was that they thought the company's silly depictions of him (typically played by a famous actor) were disrespecting the Colonel's death and legacy.

However, the ads have been associated with a minor rise in sales, with the CEO of KFC's parent company Yum! Brands, Greg Creed attributing the hatred of the Colonel to a "brand breakthrough" at a conference in New York, shortly after the reintroduction of the "mascot" of Colonel Sanders (played by Darrell Hammond) to KFC's TV ad cycle:

So far the response has been about 80% positive, 20% hate it. - And I am actually quite happy that 20% hate it, because now they at least have an opinion. They're actually talking about KFC, and you can market to love and hate; you cannot market to indifference.

For several years now, they've continued to run this Colonel Sanders doppelganger ad campaign. While they've no doubt had worse attempts at selling their brand, including a dancing chicken in the UK (which inadvertently committed the cardinal sin of reminding people that they're eating animals),

However, this ad in particular is not only one of the newest in the Colonel Sanders ads - it has some especially worrying flaws, being undoubtedly expensive (It featured in the 2018 Super Bowl, where a 30-second ad spot is estimated to cost around $5 million.), has a generally strange appearance, and seems to have forgotten that it's supposed to be selling something.

THE AD

The advertisement opens to a neon-lit saloon, scattered with ill-fitting KFC buckets that I only noticed after pausing the video to describe the ad in detail. Two seconds in, the ad centers on its focus, Reba McEntire - casting a silhouette on the brightened stage.

She holds the focus for nearly half of the ad (even throwing her hat to herself 15 seconds in) before announcing what the ad is for - the "Smoky Mountain BBQ". It's the focus of the ad for a single second before there's a hard cut back to the band. The 10 seconds before the ad returns its focus to Reba are spent on a woman throwing a man through a wall. When the focus comes back to Reba, it's muddled together with a man smashing a chair on his head, police being called in, and those police deciding to dance. Reba takes the last 8 seconds of the ad - swearing she's "not a famous woman" and the actual product that they're selling is afforded the meager last three seconds of airtime.

THE AUDIENCE

I'd assume from the saloon approach, that they're looking to appeal to customers in rural areas, with the goal of having KFC take the place of the local BBQ joint with their new menu items.

THE TECHNIQUES

They have the famous-person testimonial of Reba McEntire, a famous country singer who is even singing throughout the commercial. However, they are also using the "stupid redneck" stereotype for cheap laughs (man thrown through wall, smashed their own head with a chair, etc) that for the rural "plain-folks" who might like Reba McEntire, the ad is sending some rather mixed signals.

WHY IT FAILED

The largest reason I believe that this ad failed is that it simply isn't about KFC. Sure, you've got KFC buckets strung around the set and some KFC-themed decoration, but the focus is clearly on Reba McEntire. That is, Reba McEntire - not Colonel Sanders played by Reba McEntire. Even by KFC's ad standards, they've treated the image of the Colonel as a character, not just a costume. When I looked through the comments of people who liked the ad, I didn't see "I like this new Colonel" but more "Reba is amazing" or "Reba is da bom!". People who like Reba, like seeing Reba, but they aren't making any noticeable connections back to KFC or their Colonel Sanders mascot; The ad is just Reba.

The problem for KFC, is it doesn't sell Reba - It sells chicken. KFC's "Smoky Mountain BBQ" was the focus for only 4 seconds, a mere 6.66% of the ad's length.

Here's where I found the focus of the ad was spent:
Reba - 32 seconds, 53.33% of total
(The ad's major focus)

Saloon Nonsense - 24 seconds, 40% of total
(Tossed people, smashing chairs, cuts to strange people, etc)

"Smoky Mountain BBQ" chicken - 4 seconds, 6.66% of total
(The product)

CONCLUSION

The creative focus feels completely disconnected from its commercial focus and if you dig further by browsing what's been posted on their official Youtube channel you'll find everything from a series of psychedelic videos to a shirtless man reading a KFC-themed romance novel. With the "Smoky Mountain BBQ" ad carrying 6.7K downvotes to 5.2K upvotes, some product-focused ads might be a welcome change.

The Internet, New Technologies and Digital Gaming

2018-07-06T23:47:00.000-07:00

WEEK 2

TOPIC 1: SOCIAL MEDIA

A bit of a disclaimer: I follow hundreds of accounts on Twitter.
If I had enough time to sort through them all for a "top three" or "most important", I'd no doubt be tediously revising an re-revising that list for weeks.

So, while these are some of the favorites and I view every one of them a vital inclusion of my twitter feed, they are by no means part of a definitive list (because Twitter has too many incredible people on it).

Three accounts I follow on Twitter:

#1

My first of the three would be Jon Lovett. If I were to follow Eli Pariser's format from his TED talk when he mentioned the balancing in editing between "information vegetables" and "information dessert", Jon Lovett would be my information dessert. While it's not like he's Justin Bieber, it's not the type of scenario where I'm intentionally looking for disagreeable ideas. He's entertaining, he's funny, and his calls to action have worked more than a several times to get me re-energized after the usual fatigue most people experience after following the news/politics intently. In addition, he follows even more people than me and acts as a bit of a "gatekeeper", retweeting interesting content from accounts that're completely off my radar.

#2

The second account for the list is Chris Hayes. He's a great resource for getting a more MSM perspective on the news. Since I'm involved in a lot of grassroots activism, it's important to not miss out on what may be dominating national news headlines. He's particularly great for how many BREAKING news stories are shared through his account with comment sections flooded by new information and articles. If there's ever anything that just happened and I need to learn more about what's going on, he's a go-to. Lastly, in interviews he's been on, I particularly like his style of analyzing political activity (it is fairly similar to my own style), and he's given Russia's disinformation campaign the attention it deserves.

#3

Last, but nowhere close to least, is Paul Krugman. If I don't know something, I try to make that apparent. A topic which I take special care to not appear as though I have all the answers is Economics. While Economics by itself is a vastly intricate system to analyze, it is made even more difficult to understand when most economists disagree with each other between articles. In this warped era of Trump-induced trade wars, Krugman has made the consequences of trade disputes much more clear than any number of economic graphs shoved my way could have while also bringing into focus the full depth of international trade the US is engaged in. I've learned a lot from following him and the complexity of each new issue has kept me eager to expand on what I currently know.

The best tweet I've seen lately was:

Just got off the phone w/ HHS. I am furious&horrified after immigration conference call – virtually no separated children have been reunified; no system, no plan, no path to assure reunification; no answers to key questions. Strategy seems to be: blame everyone else.
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) July 6, 2018

It stood out to me because what has been currently out is that a federal judge agreed to delay the next meeting about extending the deadline to reunite 101 children under the age of 5 to Monday. Furthermore, some of the details surrounding the delay are currently moving through Twitter and claim that it was because the Trump administration lawyer has "dog sitting responsiblities" this weekend. Now, this IS Twitter, so as per usual I'll be giving the "dog sitting" details some time to be confirmed or denied rather than accept them as outright fact. What isn't uncertain is that it does appear that the deadline has not only been extended - but that we're now hearing from a US Senator that there's not even a plan for the reunification once we reach the deadline again. That revelation means that if we don't demand a clear strategy from immigration services - there might not be one. With current events and the concern that this info has brought to me and others - I'd say it's the best tweet I've seen lately, especially since it's encouraging further action on an incredibly significant issue.

I do believe social media has enchanced my ability to take action and participate in democratic activities. While I'm not a fan of how Facebook's endless timeline and limiting post format, it has been the hub for a lot of connections with individuals and groups.

An example of this would be using it to interact with other students at LBCC for the political club I became the President of - the "Our Revolution Club". When I took over originally, it was the "Students for Bernie Club", which had become outdated by that time, and I edited the Facebook page to get it up-to-date.

Because it was a Facebook page, when this change was done, we were able to retain the folks who'd liked the page from before, rather than lose them in the changes brought about from the rennovations. When the group you're managing is rather specific to "LBCC Students who're progressive-leaning and interested in politics", it's a valuable thing to not lose members who fit the niche.

Managing the page enchanced my knowledge of keeping people connected through social media and it gave us the legitimacy to get connected at a national level. Early last spring, we expanded into non-Facebook platforms before our hiatus to find a new advisor for the club. If we can find a new advisor over the summer, we'll be coming back in fall with a much more developed network/creative process than before; Most importantly, the rollout we've got prepared wouldn't be possible the contacts I've made through the group and the skills I've developed from working on its social media content. The experience has definitely been a crash course in social media skills, I can confindently say that it has enchanced my abilities.

TOPIC 2: THE INTERNET

Overall, I was rather lukewarm on Sherry Turkle's TED talk. It's certainly not the first time I've heard the criticisms she made - there are so many carbon copies of the points she used that they become terribly predictable, despite different speakers. Much like McGonigal's TED talk, the approach to technology that Turkle takes, doesn't create the impression in me that it comes from a full understanding of the systems that they want to influence. Neither of them went far enough to suggest an abandonment of the allegedly harmful systems, but they fantasize about ways to "game the system".

One of the problems is that the game is rigged at a biological level. There's a reason that conveinence has always been a driving force for business - people really like it. Typically, despite warnings about the dangers of "plugging-in", people fall back into the same habits for the long term. Unless the alternative provides a better user experience than what currently exists, I wouldn't expect widespread adoption, especially if the message to parents comes out as "teach your children to be lonely".

Some of the points she made, to me, felt like practical approaches to the current capabilities our tech has today. For example, she stated: "We expect more from technology and less from each other". In my opinion, this is a very rational approach to what we have currently. I'd expect more from technology than myself, because in most cases, it does actually perform better. I don't nearly check the math of my calculator or Wolfram Alpha as often as I do a classmate using scratch paper; Similarly, when I program a macro onto my computer to sort a spreadsheet, I expect it to work as it was programmed every time it loops. Digital logic is by-large more reliable than people and there's a trust built from that.

So, it seems off-base when she follows that statement by asking "Why have things come to this?", answering it by saying that "technology appeals to us most where we are most vulnerable" and moving on to technology replacing real companionship while skipping over the entire analysis of why we value the reliability and performance of technology.

Similarly, she skips over a great number of reasons why people might reach for a device at a checkout line or a red light. She claims that "being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved", as though everyone grabbing their phone MUST feel alone. But, phones do so much more than communicate to others. At a checkout line, I can't ever recall using my phone to call out to a random friend because I felt lonely for a couple second, but rather I'm usually only trying to avoid awkward stares or seeming uninteresting to others.

The intense focus on claiming that the use of technology is a product of social desperation really disconnected me from the TED talk overall; It felt like most of her TED talk was spent trying to fit me and others into a mold of a "socially anxious tech addict" with various cherry-picked examples so that we can attempt to do a full 180 and "game the system" of technology to "lead us back to our real lives, our own bodies, our own communities, our own politics, our own planet".

If she had spent some more time establishing the modern necessity of technology and its many application, I'd likely be more convinced of her argument. But, it felt like more attempts to "game the system" and generalize large, diverse categories of tech users. That said, I do actually take steps to ensure I'm listening to others by keeping my phone away and maintaining more focused eye contact. I don't like people looking down at something else while I'm talking to them, so I try not to do it to others. My family has never tried to "reclaim" areas of the home as "device-free zones". To say the least, it'd be difficult to enforce. The very least that we do is try to pre-occupy ourselves with a computer or phone if we've got guests over, but it's not so strict that we couldn't do something like reply to an important email.

I wouldn't know how to quantify the sum how many games I've downloaded between my smartphones or computers in total.

However, I've installed 35/348 of my total games on my Steam account with an additional 10 more installed from seperate clients, so the sum is about 45 currently for my main PC.

Honestly, I play a lot of different genres of games for different reasons. Some genres tend to take the lead over others sometimes, but there's always a rebound to the standard "mix".

There are a handful of games that I enjoy beyond those listed, but they don't fit into any of the below categories, which I'm keeping to 3 so that I can be marginally organized and succinct in listing some examples, rather than drift off into numerous genre subcategories.

MMOs

Some MMOs that I enjoy:

World of Warcraft

Guild Wars 2

Elder Scrolls Online

Star Wars: The Old Republic

Warframe

Part of why I enjoy MMOs is that I feel that they have more permanence than other games, since they typically have no defined "ending" and because you're typically collecting resources that build up and help advance you further. This is in contrast to most games where outside of a save game or ranking, there's no "carry over" of resources between activities. In addition, there is a community aspect to some of these, but not all. I play ESO and SWTOR as if they were single-player games, but they also allow for that more than the others would.

RPGs

Some RPGs that I enjoy:

Fallout 4

Fallout: New Vegas

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

The Witcher 3

Dragon Age: Origins

Torchlight II

I enjoy RPGs because they can typically have more depth than MMOs, even though they might not have as much permanence, since they'll have an ending at some point. What helps offsets that most of the games on the list of those that I enjoy also have active modding communities. For me, modding has extended the "shelf-life" of these games immensely.

Card Games

Some Card Games that I enjoy:

Hearthstone

Elder Scrolls: Legends

Gwent

Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Links

I enjoy card games because they have a similar permanence as MMOs, but are more focused around strategic decisions and deckbuilding. There's some randomness to keep things interesting and I'll use it sparingly since too much of the game being decided by chance can be frustrating if it doesn't go your way.

I spend about 40-55 hours a week on digital gaming and social networking, the total amount of time fluctuates depending on what I'm busy with. I'd say I feel like I'm a part of an online community for a couple games, but not most, because (in my opinion) just playing the game doesn't feel like a community activity.

On the games where I'd say that I do feel like I'm part of a community, I'm interacting with additional social elements like the game's subreddit, a guild's forum/discord, etc. There's more sharing thoughts about things in the game and getting feedback from other players; That interaction is what makes it a community for me - the game usually only goes so far.

Mass Media Culture and the Media Business

2018-06-28T17:52:00.000-07:00

WEEK 1

TOPIC 1: ABOUT YOU

Hi, I'm Jeff. I'm currently a Political Science major (formerly Computer Science) and my career goal in the Political Science field is centered around policy research for legislators and improving the ways in which constituents can get information about their government. While we'd all like to revise our entire legal system to be easier to understand, a lot of what this work tends to involve is more within the realm of addressing current and new legislation. It's not always easy, but making sure that things aren't more complicated than they need to be is worth the effort, in my opinion.

What I'm most interested in learning about the media are the strategies that are used for breaking down and compiling large volumes of articles or research into a more comprehensive but still understandable whole. It's been something that I've had a bit of difficulty on and would like to improve. With some current issues I'll really be starting off at square one with folks, so the danger is that if they don't have pre-existing knowledge from keeping up with the news, even a simple summary on topic will be a little incoherent. Avoiding that with some strategies on how to bring the information together would be fantastic.

Outside of college, I mostly like to participate in community events. I've gotten more in touch over time on what Albany and LBCC have to offer, so I try to get involved with what I can. While it's not really my major anymore, I'm still very involved with my tech stuff. It's helped me immensely in my professional life and I still find it fun to develop new skills, so that's something else that I enjoy doing outside of college.

TOPIC 2: THE INFORMATION YOU CONSUME

My three main platforms for information would be:

1. Google News (Either read or dictated via Google Home)
2. YouTube
3. Twitter

Since I've tended to gravitate towards my more credible platforms over time, they are coincidentally also listed from what I consider to be the most to the least credible. That said, each platform tends to cover their own "territory" in the media landscape and have advantages/disadvantages associated with how they work.

Google News
For Google News, it covers news outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, The Hill, The Daily Beast, ABC News, Fox News, etc when I'm using it to read articles.

Advantages: Lots of variety on the political spectrum, includes local news.
Disadvantages: Not as convenient as my other options. It knows what I'm interested in and curates articles for that, so it has the risk of limiting my overall perspective.

When I'm using it through Google Home dictation, it covers "daily roundup" style news podcasts through NPR's "Up First" and USA Today's "5 Things".

Advantages: It's quick and convenient.
Disadvantages: Their limited length usually can't go very in-depth and may only provide a base level of understanding on an issue.

YouTube
On YouTube, I'll be watching major TV news outlets such as CNN or MSNBC and other smaller commentators.

Advantages: Easy to access on phone/computer/etc.
Disadvantages: It can very easily become a time sink.

Twitter
Lastly, there's Twitter, which I use to hear from individual writers and generally keep up-to-date on current events as they happen and get information as it comes out.

Advantages: Quick and individualized, easy to access.
Disadvantages: It can be filled with "hot takes" and inaccurate information.

How do you ensure that the information you take in is "accurate"? What steps, if any, do you take before passing along this information?

I ensure that the information I take in is accurate by using trusted sources, which is to say - reliable news outlets, as opposed to something more obscure/fringe with a name like "TRUTH REPORT" that would raise mental "red flags" about their reputability. For studies, it's also important to know where the study is being sourced - as they could have outside influence (it never hurts to check a site like SourceWatch).

If I'm passing along the information, it can depend. So long as I find a study to be credible, I'll generally consider it safe. However, it's something along the lines of a developing news story, I'll give it a couple days. New details always come out and passing off reports hours after the story has come out is kind of like playing with fire. You don't know if there will be a correction on a major detail. Since I don't like to receive inaccurate information, I try to take special care not to distribute it myself; It's more or less the "Golden Rule" approach, but applied to information.

Given what you know about or have learned about "fake news," how concerned are you about the information out there in the media ecosystem?

I'm very concerned about the apparent capabilities that exist within the ecosystem to influence public opinion with fabrications. The activities by the Internet Research Agency has been documented to exhausting detail by committees like the HPSCI (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) and highlighted particularly well by reporters like Ben Popken of NBC News.

Today, something worrying is that nothing has appeared to changed significantly, despite the constant coverage of "fake news". It remains very easy to find accounts on Twitter and Facebook exhibiting bot-like post behavior, pushing narratives for the left and right; In both types, their goal appears to be to push each side to a new, further extreme. This will continue to have an effect on our democracy and the videos assigned this week showed a couple good examples of the damage that disinformation can do.