Impeachment in the age of the Attention Economy

Even in the warm afterglow of Thanksgiving, nothing quite says the holiday season like "impeachment hearings". So as our real world Game of Thrones begins, a few reflections on the proceedings with the "Attention Economy" in mind.

I have the dubious distinction of living through the presidencies of three who faced impeachment, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and now Donald Trump. A fun fact no longer relegated to games of Trivial Pursuit, there have been four presidents who have faced impeachment since America's founding; two who were actually impeached, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, which also happens to coincide with the year that we moved to the UK. A few may be surprised to learn that no president has actually been removed from office as a result (Nixon resigned), assuming that "to impeach" is synonymous with "to remove".

It is certainly a dubious distinction. Three American presidents accused of high crimes and misdemeanors during a forty six year span. In the vernacular of one of them, "some might suggest" that this is an indication that the worm has violently turned in American politics, if not in American culture.

I am also an amateur student of cycle theory, i.e., economic and political events run in cycles and they are often regular and predictable. Twenty five years passed between Nixon's impeachment jeopardy and Clinton's impeachment, twenty one years passed between Clinton's and Trump's. Will we make it another 20 years before something similar or more ominous occurs? But that's a topic for another platform and another day.

More narrowly, it's fascinating to consider how media coverage of the House Intelligence Committee hearings from a couple of weeks ago has changed since the Nixon proceedings and how public opinion will be influenced by the coverage in different ways. Borrowing principally from a Business Insider November 16 article:

I can recall watching the Watergate proceedings on an old black and white TV. Keeping in mind that the Senate hearings were often undecipherable for a 13 year old's understanding, it seems remarkable that it held my attention as it did so many other Americans.

But of course, it was the first of its kind in the modern era, one more bursting of Camelot after the tumult of the 60's and the Vietnam war. How could the president of the United States of America be involved in such skullduggery? The high crimes and misdemeanors in question seem to pale in comparison to what's being alleged today on multiple levels. You would think that would guarantee record viewing. But clearly, that wasn't the case. Why?

A couple of reasons: The House hearings were broadcast during daytime viewing hours whereas Watergate was taped for primetime viewing. Of course, at that time there weren't many viewing choices other than CBS, NBC, and ABC. Nor were there any of the facile distractions we have today, no internet to speak of, in particular.

But even compared to the other hearings highlighted above, the viewing figures are underwhelming. What is difficult to measure is the impact of streaming which was, no doubt, significant; YouTube as an example is fiercely guards its streaming stats.

Viewing was impacted as well by what was described as dull theater, even at its most explosive. Chairman Schiff's sober and gentle style, likely failed to stir those looking for feisty exchanges. There were clearly moments, so often less to do with substance than theater, Lt. Col. Vindman's correction of Congressman Nunes' referring to him as "Mister Vindman" was one of those charged moments. Unfortunately, there were long stretches of dead calm as witnesses were taken through sometimes forensic questioning and often read in monotone from written testimony.

There was also the political reality that a third of the population appears to view the whole affair with disgust, a "witch trial" - led by Donald Trump - and so simply refused to watch.

Like most others in the working world, I didn't watch the live proceedings to any great degree. Those of us in the UK did have an opportunity to catch a portion during primetime hours and I did watch perhaps two hours of testimony over the course of three days.

I looked forward to headlines and summaries from media outlets contextualizing testimony that I had sometimes seen for myself. Not being a Constitutional expert I was thirsty for context. The outlets I consulted were so often of a certain "persuasion": MSNBC, CNN, specifically, Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Pod Save America, etc. I occasionally dipped into clips of Fox News interviews and commentaries, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and even, Sean Hannity. Painful as it was, an attempt to hear the other side of the argument.

"Guilty" or "Not Guilty"

Of course, what I have described is not different from what most people have done to varying degrees. And so, a couple of observations rang loud in differentiating the current impeachment process to all others and how these differences have and will drive the formation of opinion (I am, by the way, assuming that a senate trial is a certainty):

Content Curation is perhaps the single most important factor. Those who used YouTube to capture the main video news of the last hearings and the related conversations will have checked a heavily curated feed determined by long established viewing habits. MSNBC, CNN, and even shows like Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and The View feature most heavily in my "Recommended" feed. This algorithmically driven curation occurs across other social channels especially to the extent one has bothered to like, comment, and re-share content, you are basically telling the platform to send you more of that kind of content. Few people today have the time or interest to read a long in depth political analysis

The Echo Chamber - I have written about this and related topics before. We tend to listen to those who reinforce pre-held views. The algorithmic curation of content further exacerbates this effect. The anchoring effect that behavioural psychologists talk about has gone a step further, the anchor has become a fixed post. We seem to be more fixed in our points of view than ever before.

Fake News - The prospect of fake news appearing in every political conversation, worsened in the age of social media, only leads to more anchoring. I will believe nothing that doesn't fit my narrative. This is the ultimate aim of gaslighting, a technique honed to perfection by Vladmir Putin in his own country, one no longer trusts any of the official channels or formerly trusted channels for information.

Sound Bites and Virality - All actors in this political theater want to become the next viral moment. Well rehearsed and well worn phrases are delivered with frequency and precision. The hearing was not one but three hearings. There was the unexpurgated version and then the curated left wing and the right wing versions. CNN and MSNBC reported sometimes bland testimony as "explosive" and showed clips of the most damning testimony. Fox and Friends focused on the "real" scandal surrounding Hunter and Joe Biden, ignoring Trump's own remarks "can you do me a favor?" There's a sizzle reel of Jim Jordan in full flower badgering witnesses, taking no prisoners - no one does righteous indignation like Congressman Jordan. From the right's perspective, it didn't matter that every witness came to directionally the same conclusion "there was a quid pro quo". Each outlet had plenty of time to prepare their version for play during primetime hours and for the morning news review.

Brainwashing and "Pre-suasion" - While political candidates boil complicated policies and points of view into soundbites and mantras, the media does the same but for different reasons. How often do we hear words and phrases like: witch trial, drug deal, quid pro quo, the left, the right, shadow foreign policy, etc? The biggest single political grouping would probably best be described as moderate, just over 40% of the country according to recent polling. The far right represents about 6% of the population while the far left represents 8% (according to a seminal study on our divided culture titled the Hidden Tribes of America). Pitching political views into these two camps accomplishes two things, introduces conflict and drama in the narrative; there can be no drama without conflict. Secondly, it is more efficient, saves time in the storytelling - if I'm a journalist or broadcaster working against a deadline, shortcuts are necessary. And, from an audience perspective, it makes viewing and reading more digestible, if less interesting. Reading an article on the impeachment hearings published by USA News is so much easier than an article written by the New Yorker which uses essentially different language.

Same Story - What is frightening when comparing the story told through multiple media sources, is the great similarity in language and analysis across media sources. Even scarier is the adoption of the same terms and, ultimately, analysis by members of the public. How often have you heard a friend or acquaintance spout something using precisely the same words and phrasing as you just heard from one of the political commentators?

We'll see...

So, it seems, Trump's impeachment will ultimately turn on the skills of video editors, content aggregators, and curators. Republican senators will wait to see how and where the dust settles with their constituents before deciding their ultimate vote. Facts will, it appears have less bearing on the panel's ultimate ruling. We won't have to wait long to find out.