fun size

The "public option"

saucy:

chrishughes:

I had lunch with David Fenton on Monday.  We had a great conversation about his role as a movement photographer in the 60s and 70s to the work of the communications industry in general.

Of everything he said, one of the things that particularly struck me was the complete failure on the part of Democrats to frame the “public option” part of the health care debate well.  Why would anyone choose to call it this?  ”Public” sounds like socialist and big government.  ”Option” is just that — an option.  The phrase itself makes you think that a health care guarantee is just more big government that isn’t really necessary at the end of the day.

After years of cognitive psychologists and political professionals    talking about the importance of the frame in political messaging, why did we mess this one up so badly?

Makes me think more highly of Anthony Weiner and his explicit commitment to always talking about the “public option” as extended Medicare.  That’s a lot less scary to a lot more people.

Welcome to tumblr friend Chris Hughes.  Your voice was missing here. We’re happy to have a daily digest of your “musings on life, the Internet, political activism, and everything in between.”

here here

Via Soraya Social Diary

2pm

Most online experiences are made, like fast food, to be cheap, easy, and addictive: appealing to our hunger for connection but rarely serving up nourishment. Shrink-wrapped junk food experiences are handed to us for free by social media companies, and we swallow them up eagerly, like kids given buckets of candy with ads on all the wrappers.

These experiences are sensitive neither to individual humans nor to the human collective, but only to page views and growth (in a corporate, not personal sense).

Via Fascinated

12am