The Profitability of Division

While there were many factors that contributed to the intensification of divisions in the mid to late 2010s, some major catalysts were the skyrocketing popularity of social media and the boom in activity of online journalists.

It’s no secret that controversy generates waves of attention. Even MediaVSReality’s article, which was posted on a relatively small site, Medium, still managed to obtain over 5,000 upvotes (or “claps,” as the site calls it). Politicians, online newsletters and independent journalists realize this, and some of them use controversy as a tool for self-gain.

Some individuals will go to any lengths for virality and profit, even if that means taking dishonest or deceptive measures.

While there are plenty of people who genuinely want to advocate their perspectives, others do so partially, sometimes entirely, out of a profit incentive. Politicians will often fill their speeches and publications with the most sensitive and exaggerated vocabulary.

An example of this is an ad created by former candidate for governor in Michigan Garrett Soldano on June 15th, 2022. In response to a movement for trans activism in school sports, Garrett referred to allies of the movement as “the woke groomer mafia.” 

There is always the possibility that Soldano’s word choice was genuine and that he truly believed in what he said. But with such wildly radical terms–essentially accusing an entire movement of being a group of criminals who want to manipulate and abuse children–there is a greater chance that his terms were chosen in order to radicalize unsuspecting viewers.

The more radicalized supporters become, the more they will want their source of information to protect them. But protection requires action, and action requires money. As a result, these radicalized individuals are bound to send thousands of dollars to a politician who used carefully crafted language to win their support. As it turns out, Soldano collected almost $250,000 in public funds.  

On the other side of the spectrum, opponents will become enraged by this kind of exaggeration, immediately prompting them to share the ad with other opponents. However, this kind of excessive sharing only allows the advertisement to generate more money and attention.

Such profit-driven actions are not isolated to campaigns and advertisements. Journalists know how well controversy sells, and news anchors and newspapers will only help promote said controversy, generating even more revenue.

Are these situations truly a long chain of coincidences? Or are these sneaky tactics to appeal to viewers’ and readers’ emotions simply utilized to generate money and clout, which can then be invested into even greater efforts for self-gain? While situations can vary case by case, there are more than a few that are not originating out of an urge to fight perceived evil, but rather an incentive for wealth and popularity.

Nevertheless, there is a blatant weakness to this strategy for self-gain; it cannot stand without the support of the people. Controversy only sells because audiences are easily triggered and threatened. But if the people can see the forces of good and evil as relative terms, rather than definitive ones, they would be much less susceptible to diabolical pathos and radicalization.