The Harm Created By Political Grifters

I recently stumbled across an announcement for the next reality tv show featuring influencers... except this time it's centering political influencers. The series Party Lines is being created by Xaviaer DuRosseau, a political influencer known for his transition from a progressive to a conservative Republican. The show intends to document the lives of left- and right-wing content creators, including anyone in between. By doing so, those participating in this are essentially treating politics as a spectacle in the most blatant manner. 

The creation of this show hints to the rise of political grifters who report for engagement, monetize outrage, and treat political ideologies as a brand to get them money rather than real issues. This group of influencers have been shown to switch up their opinions based on what brings in higher engagement, typically producing more extreme or inflammatory comments. Greediness aside, perhaps the most damage these influencers have done is fostering a subset of essentially politically illiterate viewers who are unwilling to engage in nuanced political discussion. They have cultivated echo chambers within their own comments sections, discouraging anyone from seeking more information. 

When engaging in debate, these influencers used an excess amount of logical fallacies. No true discussion was being had, especially when the majority of them have the tendency to get personally defensive when challenged during these debates. Grifters do not truly believe what they are saying, as they're just regurgitating what others have said to get a rise out of audiences. So, it became difficult to take a solid stance when they're challenged. This eventually led to them spreading anti-intellectual sentiments, because those trained in political analysis were now "academic elitists." 

This group emphasized the importance of the average person engaging in politics. While this is good in theory, they encouraged turning a blind eye to information that didn't fit one's narrative and basically endorsed the constant use of the ad verecundiam fallacy. This fallacy describes when a claim is considered true solely due to the endorsement of an authority figure, particularly when the figure lacks expertise on the subject. A holistic person can be interested in health, but should they be fully trusted to make a diagnosis? The same goes for the average person. They can have political opinions, but should they really act as an authority on it? By the looks of it, this has only driven a wedge in the way we interact with politics online.