On March 15th, Rousseau would’ve said the Dutch experienced ‘true freedom’ as they went to the polling stations to cast their vote and elect a new parliament. This particular election generated a lot of foreign interest, after the Brexit-referendum and US presidential election were surprisingly decided in favor of populist rhetoric centered around fear-mongering and xenophobia. When the Dutch polls closed, and Ipsos posted its exit-poll (generated by asking voters outside selected polling stations what they had just voted), it became clear the ‘populist uprising’ had come to a halt. Around the world, a sigh of relief could be heard if one listened carefully, as reporters packed up their bags to go back home as the prospected drama of a populist takeover of Dutch government came to a screeching halt. However, the prospected outcome does spell difficulties ahead. What does the election result actually mean for The Netherlands?
Ever since Trump got elected in November, I wanted to write an elaborate essay on him, his politics, and (alleged) election fraud. However, since then, developments happened so fast, that anything I wrote would be dated the next day. I have bookmarked dozens of topics I want to address, making it hard for me to wrap my head around the sheer stupidity and maliciousness that is the, by now, inaugurated Trump administration. From Donald Trump’s Russian connection, to Rex Tillerson’s (former head of Exxon Mobil) Antarctic connection. From Tom Pryce’s insider-trading of pharmaceutical stocks to Betsy DeVos paying to play. Or even the six appointed with direct ties to Goldman Sachs. But what I’m about to write about is too important, too widespread and all-affecting to leave unfinished. Yes, it may verge on ‘conspiracy theory’-territory, but bear with me. I will explain everything to the fullest detail, using sources to construct my case. Keep an open mind while reading, and tell me what you think when you’re done.
The morning of the ninth of november will forever be seen as a historical morning. On approximately 3AM EST, Donald J. Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 US presidential election while Clinton lost. A couple of weeks before the election it seemed as if the only one still confident of his win was Trump himself. Nearly every poll, including exit polls held on the day of election, resulted in giving Hillary Clinton an approximate 70% chance to win. Venerated polling companies, who make their living providing accurate predictions, were wrong. The likes of Ipsos and YouGov were plain wrong in their predictions. The shock of Trump winning the election will only be surpassed by the shock this will mean in the field of Political Marketing. Prominent political marketing intelligentsia have been predicting a shift towards professionalization of campaigns, and this result has shattered the foundations for their assumptions. What does this mean for the future of political marketing? Keep reading
Clinton associated PAC ‘Correct the Record’ announced their ‘Barrier Breakers 2016’ initiative, throwing 1 million dollar to their computer screens in hopes to improve Clinton’s likeability online.Keep reading
With the United States general election coming up again, audiences are once again invited to join the conversation. To “use hash tag #TheDebate on Twitter”, or “vote on facebook”. To “follow the newest developments as they happen right from the source on this cool app, available for free on iOS and Android”, and “if you download it now, you can vote on who you think won the debate!” This increased participation is aimed at binding audiences and getting them involved with the program, but as recent research shows, is also to the detriment of people’s attention causing them to be unable to differentiate fact from fiction. While it seems unlikely the broadcasters are unaware of this negative effect, they increasingly and actively promote media multitasking to their audience.
A recent study by the university of Wisconsin discovered that the growth of digital, social and mobile media enabled audiences to engage in multiple media activities during their news consumption, and becoming more efficient and concurrent than before. This is nothing new nor surprising: technological developments in personal computing have enabled multitasking for decades, and has already been proven to decrease performance in multiple cognitive areas. What is new, though, is that the study finds proof that media multitasking is also detrimental for the factual political knowledge of the recipient. On top of that, their results show that people who multitask while watching political news actually claim to be more politically knowledgeable than people who don’t. Not only do they misinterpret what they see, hear, or read – they are also ignorant about it.
Top Read Articles
Search For Topic
Buy My Designs
20% of purchase goes to me, the artist (excl. shipping), delivery in ~7 days.
Hi! I'm Felix, the guy with the giant arrow pointing at him above. I'm Dutch. I like to write, I like to draw, and I like to voice my opinion sometimes. Welcome to my blog, where everything I create is collected. You might know me as FelixR1991 - or you might not. Whatever the case may be, I hope you have great time scrolling through my stuff!
If you want to contact me about anything (be it a question, concern, proposition, or you simply feel lonely), the options below are open to you: