This is a term I was never familiar with. It is explained in this piece from Vox. I don't frequently read Vox, simply because I find them skewed as much to the left as Fox is skewed to the right, and it takes too much time/effort to "read past the spin." However, this article popped up on my feed this morning, and I decided to read it. It's an opinion piece, but the core of the article rings true - dismayingly true. I think the concept of "flooding the zone" is something we all need to be aware of. We are the only ones who can combat it.
It is an incredibly cynical and dishonest strategy, and it creates a conundrum for the media. Respond to the "flood" and you magnify it. Ignore the "flood" and focus on real stories and you get accused of playing partisan politics by not reporting on particular stories that Trump and the right-wing media is flooding.
But given the number of Republicans I have heard espouse the "win at any cost - you cannot make policy if you do not win" philosophy, I am not surprised at this strategy. Hopefully, people will see past this approach as well. Unfortunately, I am increasingly coming to think I may well be moving in the next year.
It is an incredibly cynical and dishonest strategy, and it creates a conundrum for the media. Respond to the "flood" and you magnify it. Ignore the "flood" and focus on real stories and you get accused of playing partisan politics by not reporting on particular stories that Trump and the right-wing media is flooding.
But given the number of Republicans I have heard espouse the "win at any cost - you cannot make policy if you do not win" philosophy, I am not surprised at this strategy. Hopefully, people will see past this approach as well. Unfortunately, I am increasingly coming to think I may well be moving in the next year.
Comment