Pubblicato in: Sistemi Politici

Twitter surclassa la stampa tradizionale. – Spiegel.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-03-02.

 2017-02-25__001

 

«the main weapon in his arsenal

is Twitter»

La campagna elettorale di Herr Geert Wilder per le elezioni politiche olandesi è condotta esclusivamente su Twitter.

Statistics Netherland riporta 16,979,120 abitanti in Olanda a tutto il 24 ottobre 2016.

Al momento attuale, egli avrebbe oltre 760,000 followers, circa l’otto per cento degli Elettori, dei quali solo un modesto cinque per mille legge solitamente i quotidiani locali. Ma, se si conteggiassero non solo i followers ma anche coloro che semplicemente leggono i messaggini di Wilder su Twitter, l’audience salirebbe ad oltre quattro milioni di persone, grosso modo, il 25% della popolazione totale.

Sono cifre impressionanti che, se perfettamente recepite, potrebbero segnare un drastico punto di svolta nella tecnica di propaganda politica.

Ovviamente, non vi è corrispondenza biunivoca tra numero di follower e voti scrutinati: constatiamo però come le proiezioni indichino Wilders sopra il 25% dei voti validi.

Non solo.

Gli avversari politici di Wilders hanno investito cifre da capogiro in campagne elettorali old fashion.

«Other parties in Holland have been presenting policy platforms hundreds of pages long, their leading candidates appear on talks shows, give one interview after the other and distribute flyers on town squares»

*

«Wilders refuses most requests for interviews and doesn’t to participate in debates»

Già. Herr Wilder non concede interviste e si rifiuta di partecipare a dibattiti televisivi. Nella sua campagna elettorale twitter non è un’aggiunta, bensì una sostituzione.

Le motivazioni sarebbero riassunte da Herr Lykle de Jong in questi termini:

«Twitter is the ideal means of communication for populists …. These channels make it possible to skip the mainstream media and still be able to disseminate messages to millions of people. They also create the impression of proximity to the people even though the people sending them never really have to actually interact in any significant way with the people»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di riassumere sintetizzando.

– Twitter consente di raggiungere un larghissimo pubblico, altrimenti irraggiungibile con gli usuali mezzi. La resa Twitter / media, siano essi televisione oppure carta stampa, varia da un fattore 10 ad un fattore 20.

– Twitter è a costo zero. Si tenga presente come gli avversari di Herr Wilders abbiano già speso oltre cinquanta milioni di euro.

– Twitter non è, o difficilmente risulta essere, censurabile. Nei limiti dell’educazione e del buon senso, non si è costretti ad usare la fraseologia “politicamente corretta“. Ogni twitter riporta con non più di 180 caratteri una notizia, una interpretazione, un commento. Twitter è capibile da parte di tutti.

– Twitter bypassa gli intermediari dell’informazione, ossia i conduttori televisivi ed i giornalisti.

*

L’ultimo punto è quello focale.

Nessuno intende generalizzare, sia ben chiaro. Si constata però come la stragrande maggioranza dei media sia al momento governata da liberals o sinistre in senso lato, che brandiscono talii mezzi di comunicazione alla stregua di vere e proprie armi.

Selezionano con cura le notizie da riportare ed il modo con cui porgerle.

Quasi invariabilmente riportano i fatti in modo distorto accompagnati da interpretazioni menzognere, il tutto esposto con una studiata quanto capziosa partigianeria che nulla ha da invidiare a quella del Völkischer Beobachter, l’organo ufficiale del partito nazionalsocialista tedesco. E quanto a menzogne il dr. Göbbels non scherzava di certo.

Da molti punti di vista, i media sono stati la più efficace propaganda possibile anti-establishment.

*

Poi non ci si dovrebbe stupire se testate quali il The New York Times tirino circa un milione e mezzo di copie, delle quali solo cinquecentomila sono quelle effettivamente lette, essendo il resto una resa.

Né ci si dovrebbe stupire se la White House non li inviti alle conferenze stampa: non rappresentano quasi più nulla altro che sé stessi.

Per dare un’idea nostrana, la Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali riporta che La Repubblica tira 339,543 copie/die, ma ne vende 283,529 copie, ivi incluse le 52,165 copie digitali. Il Corriere della Sera vende 184,113 copie, ivi incluse 9,734 copie digitali. Tenendo conto che in Italia sono presenti 60.5 milioni di abitanti,  solo lo 0.4% della popolazione legge La Repubblica, e solo lo 0.29% il Corriere della Sera.

Per contro, «Beppe Grillo Twitter Followers. @beppe_grillo has 2,289,350 followers on Twitter.»

*

Conclusione.

Al momento attuale, il controllo della carta stampata e delle televisioni è solo un onere senza resa, perché la loro audience è talmente minimale da rasentare lo zero.

Questo è un fenomeno del tutto occidentale, dovuto alla colonizzazione dei media da parte dei liberals negli Stati Uniti e delle sinistre ideologiche in Occidente.

Ovviamente, anche la politica deve (dovrebbe) trarne le conseguenze. Ma per fortuna dell’umanità, liberals e sinistre ideologiche sono tutto tranne che intelligenti: quindi, esse persevereranno come prima.


Spiegel. 2017-02-25. Geert Wilders Follows the Trump Twitter Trail

Right-wing populist Geert Wilders is currently leading in the polls ahead of elections in the Netherlands  — despite a campaign that has been conducted largely from his mobile phone. Like Donald Trump, the main weapon in his arsenal is Twitter.

*

All it takes for Geert Wilders to get into the spotlight is a single tweet. “Pechtold is protesting with Hamas terrorists,” the far-right Dutch politician recently tweeted, along with a photo. It showed protesters with long beards and white prayer caps holding up signs with slogans like “Islam will conquer Europe.” Alexander Pechtold, the head of the Dutch liberal party D66, appears to be standing in the middle of the crowd. But the photo is a fake — someone had photoshopped Pechtold’s head into the crowd. Fake or not, it still served Wilders’ purposes.

Almost as soon as Wilders, who heads the so-called Party of Freedom (PVV) had posted the image online, hundreds of his more than 760,000 followers began retweeting it. The move outraged Wilders’ opponents in The Hague, including the heads of the GreenLeft and Social Democratic parties as well as Pechtold himself. The D66 party head had only recently received a death threat from a right-wing fanatic, and many media organizations in the Netherlands were providing broad coverage of the scandal. But Wilders? Amused, he sent out a tweet that night namedropping the TV shows that had reported about him and then garnished it with the words: “180 characters and an old fake photo from 2009. #ilovetwitter.”

Can Wilders Copy Trump’s Success?

Wilders is conducting much of his campaign using his mobile phone, which he uses to tweet out extremely short messages on Twitter. It’s a strategy straight from the Donald Trump playbook, but can Wilders copy his success?

With his postings, Wilders has once again reached his goal of drawing the maximum possible attention with the least effort. In the run-up to the March 15 general election in the Netherlands, all eyes are on Wilders, with his signature blow-dried coiffure.

Other parties in Holland have been presenting policy platforms hundreds of pages long, their leading candidates appear on talks shows, give one interview after the other and distribute flyers on town squares. But Wilders refuses most requests for interviews and doesn’t to participate in debates. He makes nary a public appearance, but why would he even need to given the power of his smartphone?

Twitter: the Populists’ Best Friend

“Twitter is the ideal means of communication for populists,” says Lykle de Jong, a doctoral student in cultural studies at the University of Amsterdam who analyzed Wilders’ tweets for his master’s thesis. “These channels make it possible to skip the mainstream media and still be able to disseminate messages to millions of people. They also create the impression of proximity to the people even though the people sending them never really have to actually interact in any significant way with the people.” As such, Twitter is the perfect tool for a man like Wilders, who is the subject of constant threats due to his Islamophobic views, has to live in a secret location under permanent police protection.

The biggest advantage to Twitter, however, is that it is unrivaled in its ability to provide cheap and effective communication. This is important for Wilders, given that his PVV party doesn’t have the funds to finance his campaign. Geert Wilders is, after all, PVV’s lone member. Dutch law allows single-member parties and, so far at least, Wilders has always prevented others from joining his party. The reason, he once told SPIEGEL, “is to prevent the wrong people from holding our party hostage.” It has been said that Wilders is obsessed with the fear of losing control.

So it seems fitting that he uses Twitter as a one-way street for communications, like a self-owned TV channel that he controls. In that regard, he’s quite similar to Trump. Both right-wing populists use online channels to provoke, manipulate and insult people. They also adopt similar styles of writing — using ALL CAPS or exclamation marks! They almost seldom engage in debates. And none of this seems to bother the people who support them. Wilders has been leading the polls in the Netherlands for months now. He has also adapted and slightly tailored Trump’s own slogan: #MakeTheNetherlandsGreatAgain.

Wilders began posting short, aggressive political missives on Twitter at the end of 2009. They’ve been well-received by his followers. But his real digital breakthrough happened during Christmas of 2010, when, in Arabic, he wished people “Happy Holidays and less Islam in 2011.” He has more followers today than Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

In one noteworthy tweet, Wilders wrote: “Greece/EU/asylum-seekers/Islam/pensions/nursing care: NL wants something else. It’s time for a – political – revolution!!” Researcher de Jong notes that Wilders very deliberately “strings catchphrases together and intermixes them. For the people reading them, there’s almost always something in each of these tweets that riles them up. They also encourage those people to wish for their own ‘something else.'”

Targeting Islam, Mosques and the Koran

Wilders, who is from Venlo, a town skirting the German border, even introduced his policy platforms for the campaign on Twitter and Facebook, surprising even the PVV party group in parliament, which barely played any role in their drafting. The platforms fit on a single piece of paper. Right at the very top: “De-Islamize the Netherlands-” Further down he called for the closure of all mosques and to ban the Koran. The platforms quickly outraged the other parties.

Wilders’ policies would violate human rights and there is little chance he could ever prevail in implementing them. But this doesn’t bother him. “The most important thing to him is provoking the reaction of the establishment and presenting himself as the foe of the politically correct,” says Maurice de Hond, Holland’s most prominent pollster. “His supporters love it. The exact details of what Wilders is saying isn’t so important to them.”

The act of responding to Wilders is no easy task. Just take one recent example. Wilders announced that he wanted to run ads on the trams in the city of Rotterdam. He even tweeted an image of what the ad would look like: It featured a train with oversized images of his face and the slogan “Stop Islam.” The public transport authority rejected his request, but Wilders probably didn’t care. By the time the ad got rejected, the image he posted of the tram had already been shared thousands of times on the social network. And Wilders didn’t have to pay a cent for it.

Annunci