The White House is Briefing TikTok Stars About the War in Ukraine

The White House has been closely watching TikTok's rise as a dominant news source, leading to its decision to approach a select group of the platform's most influential names. From a report: This week, the administration began working with Gen Z For Change, a nonprofit advocacy group, to help identify top content creators on the platform to orchestrate a briefing aimed at answering questions about the conflict and the United States' role in it.

The briefing was led by Matt Miller, a special adviser for communications at the White House National Security Council, and Psaki. The Washington Post obtained a recording of the call, and in it, Biden officials stressed the power these creators had in communicating with their followers. "We recognize this is a critically important avenue in the way the American public is finding out about the latest," said the White House director of digital strategy, Rob Flaherty, "so we wanted to make sure you had the latest information from an authoritative source."

Definitely not Propaganda!

[calebb]

"Briefing"

Re:

[quantaman]

"Briefing"

Administration officials briefing reporters is one of the things that enables traditional media is able to inform the public. So from that aspect I'm not opposed to it.

The problem is that reporters tend to be older and a lot more experienced when it comes to people trying to sell them on a narrative. I'd be worried that TikTokers might be an easy mark for experienced PR folks.

Of course, when it comes to propaganda they have quite a ways to go before they match the Kremlin [youtube.com].

Re:

[cayenne8]

The White House has been closely watching TikTok's rise as a dominant news source

Geez...

IF Tik Tok is now counted amongst the "dominant" news sources today, mankind is in serious trouble.

Re:

[Ksevio]

It's a popular social platform and people get news from social platforms. Not everyone is able to subscribe to a newspaper delivery service these days.

Re:

[jenningsthecat]

IF Tik Tok is now counted amongst the "dominant" news sources today, mankind is in serious trouble.

For a long time now news has been devolving into infotainment. Social media platforms becoming the dominant sources of "news" is simply the latest milestone of that long slide into dangerous mediocrity.

Re:

[jon3k]

Did you know that less than 1% of US adults watch Fox News prime time, the most watched news channel? I know, hard to believe, but it's true [dengenchronicles.com]. So most people are getting their "news" from sources like social media, whether or not they want to admit it or even realize it.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

I'd be worried that TikTokers might be an easy mark for experienced PR folks.

What do you mean? People who use social media don't care about PR folks, they care about "influencers". If you're a company PR person, your goal is not to put out a puff thing on social media because no one cares. Instead, you as PR person need to get influencers to parrot your message.

It's like the whole "word of mouth" type advertising - even TikTok-ers know when they're being advertised to by a company. however, when their favor

Re:

[quantaman]

I'd be worried that TikTokers might be an easy mark for experienced PR folks.

What do you mean? People who use social media don't care about PR folks, they care about "influencers". If you're a company PR person, your goal is not to put out a puff thing on social media because no one cares/

By TikTokers I meant the influencers. I don't know how good the influencers would be at withstanding manipulation by a government PR person.

Re:

[timeOday]

The government should have a voice. The issue is when it silences others, but how is that the case here?

Re:

[znrt]

of course that's not propaganda. not at all! it's only propaganda if the evil enemy does it!

Re:

[narcc]

Believe it or not, the government very often has a need to communicate information to the governed. I'll trust information for that source over random facebook memes and blowhard radio personalities with no access to the actual facts.

Re:

[znrt]

oh, you mean the same institution that justified the destruction of iraq on the pretext of right out fabricated reports about weapons of mass destruction. riiiight ...

Re:

[narcc]

If you believe nothing your government says, there are quite a few things I'd like you to try out, starting with some allegedly unsafe drinking water.

Re:

[znrt]

sorry if i am highly skeptical about anything any government says about a conflict that said government has been instigating for over a decade and is making notorious efforts to shape the narrative of.

besides, yes: i distrust anything any government says by principle. governments simply can't afford to speak the truth, unless it is irrelevant. if you don't then you simply don't understand how power, politics and government work in our world.

Re:

[narcc]

You say that, but you're still not willing to "put your money where you mouth is", so to speak. The fact is you actually blindly trust just about everything your government says.

Re:

[znrt]

enlighten me. in what do i blindly trust according to you, and where exactly should i put my money?

Re:

[narcc]

My water challenge is still on the table. You're also welcome to snack on some lead [fda.gov].

This is low-hanging fruit, of course, selected to highlight the absurdity of your position. You implicitly trust in government regulations and government agencies to keep your food safe, and that's just one of many possible examples.

Re:

[znrt]

yeah, now it is clear where exactly you lost the thread: this isn't about regulations but about government public communication. it's in the effing topic: the white house injecting narrative into the mainstream media, trying to modulate the discourse of tiktok "influencers" in particular.

entirely different things: the specifications for food safety are defined by professional technicians which while not immune at all to political influence still have to base their work on accepted scientific evidence and st

Re:

[narcc]

Keep moving that goal post. You blindly trust your government and you know it. That you want to pretend otherwise is laughable.

Re:

[MachineShedFred]

Hey, they have to give VP Harris *something* to do. May as well be talking to idiots that can't be bothered to put things on the internet more interesting than 10 seconds of dancing to the same 8 songs.

Mainstream media is doomed now.

[Larsen E Whipsnade]

The gubmint doesn't even need it for propaganda purposes anymore.

Say... who runs TikTok? Whatever, so long as it's not Russia.

Re:

[YetAnotherDrew]

The MSM were good stenographers but sometimes got snippy. Looking at you Bob Acosta.

Re:

[geekmux]

The gubmint doesn't even need it for propaganda purposes anymore. Say... who runs TikTok? Whatever, so long as it's not Russia.

Kids are easier to "train" to become compliant members of a society.

Russia? Heh. Where do you think they learned that tactic from...

What about Joe Rogan?

[t.reagan]

Gen X and Boomers only trust him.

Re:

[smooth wombat]

Who? Why haven't I heard of them before? Is this someone important I should know about?

Re:

[spun]

He was a supporting actor on "News Radio" back in the early 2000s. Easily lost among his far more talented cast mates though. I think he did some kind of reality show too for a while? And now he does stand up, I guess? Or he's some kind of Youtube star. I see him associated with MMA on occasion, but I don't really follow the sport so I don't know in what capacity.

Re:

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

I thought "Joe Rogan" was a product to combat hair loss.

However, I stand corrected. A web search for "Joe Rogan" turns up pictures of a bald dude, so I must have been mistaken.

Re:

[Potor]

He was a famous 17th century witch-hunter and he invented calculus in his spare time.

How can you not know Joe Rogan?

[rsilvergun]

He's the world's foremost expert on Bondo Apes!

Re:

[hdyoung]

He's already hopped on the "vaccines are bad, Ivermectin is the real cure" bandwagon. Someone in the US state department is keeping a list of "misinformation spreaders" and Rogan is certainly on that list.

He's probably a lost cause. I'm honestly surprised he hasn't already come out against Ukraine.

Re:

[sinij]

He's already hopped on the "vaccines are bad, Ivermectin is the real cure" bandwagon.

If this is the case you will have no problems finding a sound clip of Joe Rogan saying approximately what you are attributing to him. No? You can't? Have you ever wondered what else media lied about.

Re:

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Would this count?
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01... [npr.org]

Note, I don't have an twitter account so I can't see the video, perhaps you could however.

Re:

[sinij]

No, that doesn't count, as it doesn't say what you claim it does. The article, for all the slanted framing about horse dewormer, makes it clear that Joe Rogan took invermectin as one of multiple treatments. Direct quote from the NPR article: "Rogan added that his treatments also included monoclonal antibodies, Z-pack antibiotics and a vitamin drip for "three days in a row". This is not the same thing as what you attributing him saying. Direct quote of your claim: "vaccines are bad, Ivermectin is the real cu

Re:

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Point of order, I never made the claim that JR said what was attributed to him, that was someone else.

Re:

[sinij]

My bad, I didn't notice posts were by different people.

Re:

[magzteel]

Would this count?
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01... [npr.org]

Note, I don't have an twitter account so I can't see the video, perhaps you could however.

No, it wouldn't, because it doesn't say what you claim it does. They didn't quote him as saying "vaccines are bad". The quote is:

"People say, do you think it's safe to get vaccinated? I've said, yeah, I think for the most part it's safe to get vaccinated. I do. I do," Rogan said in an April 28 episode of the podcast.

"But if you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I'll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy person?"

Rogan continued, "If you're a healthy person, and you're exe

Re:

[aRTeeNLCH]

It's still bad advice, because as a healthy 20-something, one may not be aware of underlying conditions. In which case taking the vaccine is much better. So the total balance (fewer hospital beds required) is better if all take the vaccination. And yes, I know a 19 y.o. who was hospitalised for several days. Perfectly fit, not overweight, you name it. Now if the choice is between vaccinations of 18 to 30 year olds versus 50 to 60 year olds, then don't vaccinated the young.

Re:

[sinij]

It may be bad advice, but it is far from being anti-vax. You know the fight is over dogma and not facts when someone gets zealously attacked for having "problematic views" that in reality are not that far from enforced position. Saying that otherwise healthy 20-something are not at much risk from COVID is a position that aligns with all the data we have.

Re:

[aRTeeNLCH]

If there are enough vaccines available, telling adults to not get vaccinated is not anti vaxx, but it isn't smart as I explained regarding the load on healthcare. So it's still misinforming people. A pandemic is a numbers game to a large degree. Joe Rogan giving wrong advice, even though it doesn't make him into an anti vaxxer, is still wrong. Yes, on the individual level, that is a good argument, on the individual level, none under 40 or 45 would need to take it. Thankfully, lots I people under 45 did, or

Re:

[sinij]

What do you think is COVID hospitalization rate for otherwise healthy 20-something?

Re:

[aRTeeNLCH]

Very low, non zero. In my country since the start of the year between 1.5 and 4 per 100.000 per week (there's about 1M per 10 year's agree group) as per https://www.covid19.admin.ch/d... [admin.ch] The vaccination would have cost USD 50 and now the hospitalisation cost over 50x that plus time and effort of limited medical personnel. In times of pandemic, one should also not go sky diving. It's called being sensible. Otherwise, 4 X 50 per 100k is less than 50x 100k, so financially it's better to take the hit without va

Re:

[sinij]

Considering such low, but not zero risks, could you think of a different value judgment that could result in a rational decision to not vaccinate as an otherwise healthy 20-somthing? Or is in your mind, vaccination is the only acceptable answer? For example, is it rational to refuse vaccination out of concerns of government overreach when creating vaccine mandates? Another example, is it rational to refuse vaccination out of concerns for potential side-effects if you already had COVID?

Re:

[aRTeeNLCH]

Government overreach? Depends on your government whether that's rational or emotional. Where I live I don't consider that rational. Potential side effects? No, no such thing worse than Covid19 effects, I have lots of Portuguese colleagues at work, and 95% of the Portuguese population has been vaccinated, no bad side effects have been noted that weren't much less grave than the real deal/COVID-19. So I don't consider that rational. Understandable, yes. That said, after having had Covid19, I don't think a va

Re:

[sinij]

I think the principle that you are only free if you are free to do dumb things is underappreciated. This is because there are enough circumstances where we only could know what turns out to be dumb things after the fact.

Re:

[aRTeeNLCH]

Now on that we can wholeheartedly agree. It excludes harming others though.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

The cost of not getting vaccinated is the potential ravaging effects of coronavirus. The cost of getting vaccinated is like 15 minutes of my time. Let me go weigh my options.

Re:

[znrt]

"But if you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I'll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy person?"

so this guy clearly doesn't understand the whole point of vaccination, but somehow is still being asked for advice on the matter. to 21yr olds. great.

Re:

[RobinH]

Some of us Gen X have been around long enough that we can listen to someone with a critical ear and not necessarily "believe" everything that comes out of their mouth. Nobody has all the right answers all the time, ya know. Rogan's got a lot of bullshit going on, but he does get some interesting guests on there and it's a long form interview format, so it ends up being an interesting discussion in a lot of cases. I guess if you prefer to have your soundbite thoughts pumped into your head through TikTok,

Re:

[sinij]

Joe Rogan, for being so prolific, with thousands of long-form hours-long discussions, and discussing every topic from aliens to geopolitics, is being attacked for the heinous crime of taking doctor-prescribed ivermectin as part of his early COVID treatment. The absolute horror, the inhumanity, the ultimate crime against humanity of taking ivermectin and quickly recovering from COVID. This is much worse than rape, genocide and murder. Simply cannot be allowed.

Re:

[RobinH]

He was already in the crosshairs because he says controversial things, like that it's not fair for someone who was born male and developed a bunch of male upper body skeletal and musculature, but who identifies as a woman, to go on a couple years of hormone therapy and compete in women's mixed martial arts and beat the shit out of them. You know, stuff that anyone who isn't a crazy science denier also thinks is a reasonable statement. So I find it ironic that he's being attacked for right-wing science den

Re:

[Ed Tice]

There are plenty of us out there who can recognize *both* that being exposed to testosterone in utero and then going through male puberty means you have male sports advantages *and* also know that the data shows ivermectin doesn't work. Also just so you know, I have accomplished the amazing achievement of simultaneously walking and chewing gum.

Re:

[RobinH]

Of course there are, that's my point. It's the insane people on the far left/right who are anti-science. But they get all the media coverage, it seems.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Right but if you speak out against left-wing science denial and then *promote* right-wing science denial, it's an inconsistent position. We need to make decisions based on data. The early arguments for letting men participate in women's sports was "Look, they aren't dominating the podiums, so it must not be a problem." As predicted by many people (and probably just about anybody with a brain), men are now dominating the podiums in women's sports. The data is pretty clear that biological males can't be i

Re:

[RobinH]

Completely agree.

Re:

[sinij]

Right but if you speak out against left-wing science denial and then *promote* right-wing science denial, it's an inconsistent position.

Technically, it could still be consistent position if your primary motivation is to act in partisan political ways.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

You got me there!

Re:

[sinij]

Likewise, there is no known basis in biology for effectiveness of Ivermectin. It's an anti-parasite drug. It's not even an anti-viral.

You are misinformed. Proposed pathway is inhibiting and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors. While it was not shown to be effective in human trials, there was a theory how it could work and even data showing it workin in vitro (i.e., in a petri dish). As such your "horse dewormer" position is unscientific.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Thank you. With all of the promotion of Ivermectin I have not heard such a thing before. But then its hard to get an honest discussion with all of the propaganda. Why is it that Ivermectin would inhibit binding to ACE-2 receptors while other drugs do not? Have some of the existing angiotension blockers been investigated?

Re:

[sinij]

From what I understand early in pandemic about dozen compounds were identified as approved drugs that are candidates for re-purposing against COVID. I think they used models to determine binding to various receptors in the virus and then followed up with in vitro testing. Ivermectin was one of these, that how Trump heard about it. Then it got politicized, because Orange Man Bad. To make it more suspicious, one of the recently approved early intervention drugs has similar method of action but with a differen

Re:

[Ed Tice]

That was very informative. Since I can't mod you up due to participating in the conversation, thank you.

Re:

[sinij]

That was very informative. Since I can't mod you up due to participating in the conversation, thank you.

If you are interested in pulling more on this thread, Dr John Campbel (https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching) has accessible and facts-first review of relevant studies. Also, Joe Rogan interviews with Dr Malone and Dr Mccullough are essential to watch. Back to the original topic - these interviews are the main reason establishment tried to cancel Joe.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

I will listen to those but I'm not sure I can go that far. Having Ivermectin be a potential candidate is not the same as having it be a cure. After all there were many potential candidates. And, at some point, continuing to push for Ivermectin causes more harm than good. Even if it has some effectiveness, it's the least effective thing we have. Although there may be some truth to what you're saying, the racist comments and such weren't made up. He really said that stuff.

Re:

[geekmux]

Gen X and Boomers only trust him.

Uh, for those that don't, it says far more about attention span, than trust.

Says Everything.

[geekmux]

"The White House has been closely watching TikTok's rise as a dominant news source..."

And that tells you everything you need to know about what your government feels is "news".

Fucking hell, it's almost as if paying prime-time educated journalists and newscasters millions of dollars, is suddenly too much of a liabili...oh wait. Nevermind.

CNN.

'Nuff said.

Re:

[Miles_O'Toole]

If you're going to slag CNN, you're being flat-out dishonest if you don't also mention Fox News. They're worse by an order of magnitude for misreporting news, ignoring news, or even flat-out lying about news. Certainly MSNBC is on a level of incompetence and dishonesty with CNN.

Al Jazeera English still does decent journalism. CBC and BBC aren't horrible, but they tend to be a bit too nice to whatever government is in power in Canada or the UK at the time.

Re:

[Rockoon]

CNN invented 24/7 full time fake war news.

Have you not forgotten about the first gulf war coverage, when CNN was alone with no competitors?

FOX and MSNBC didnt exist.

But CNN was there, complete with fake scud vs patriot missile coverage, that was clearly produced (shot and edited) somewhere on the other side of the planet, masquerading as "live, on the ground" reporting, and not even very good because before the war CNN didnt have much rating it was more like that low budget WWF-level of "realness."

S

Re:

[Miles_O'Toole]

You've just degenerated to the "idiot" category. Fox News took what CNN did and put it on steroids. Grow the fuck up.

Re:

[geekmux]

Psst. Your CNN pay stub, is showing.

And quite frankly, I wish I was referring to the shit they broadcast. No, I was more referring to the immoral unethical behavior off-camera. Seems those Cuomo's don't come or go, cheap.

Re:

[Miles_O'Toole]

Please try not to be a jackass. As a matter of fact, I was one of the first people to point out CNN's flaws when I caught them editing out the gigantic maple leaf symbols on the tail of two Canadian aircraft that flew a high-risk mission to save an American scientist in Antarctica, then ignored the aircrew in subsequent interviews when the planes returned.

It's pretty clear you're utterly ignorant of the subject you're trying to discuss. Please STFU. There are grownups in the room, and you don't belong.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

The way people get information is changing in some ways and not in others. People used to trust networks, then they trusted people. Now the networks are fading away (very gradually) and they are being replaced by individuals.

It makes sense for the government to go to whoever people are listening to in order to disseminate information to them.

Re:

[geekmux]

It makes sense for the government to go to whoever people are brainwashed by in order to easily distribute dis/information to them.

FTFY.

And they should be careful. They go too young, and they're going to need a translator. Old fucks don't even speak the same emoji.

And for Chesters sake, keep Joe away from her hair..

Re:

[Billy the Mountain]

I've been here a while. I like Joe Biden. Can't think of something witty to say TBH.

Re:

[Mononymous]

Biden doesn't have a base; I can't think of anyone who could have lost to Trump this time.
But this story is so much flamebait around here. TikTok as a news outlet? The reaction is totally predictable.

Uhm. Lol.

[waspleg]

TikTok (Douyin) -> Bytedance -> CCP

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

They never learn

[zkiwi34]

Facebook was supposed to do news. Fail. Twitter. Fail. Now they are trying TikTok. Failing in 3,2,1⦠Mind you, for the most part regular news media tends to troll the internet and write opinion pieces.

Re:

[Rockoon]

You can sort of understand fakebook as being a vehicle for news, since such news is merely linked to on the platform. You dont share a news article with your friends, you share a link to at least something, with clickbait image.

Google, being a good friend, does that for you within search results too, and Google surely is calling it news.

Whats at hand isnt random folk sharing bits of their news with each other. Whats at hand is that some blokes share with a lot more people when they share. Its the bloke

TikTok Stars?

[NateFromMich]

What about Youtubers?
Why not Twitch streamers?
Why not sexy chatroom girls?
Let's just go full retard.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Sexy chatroom girls have a large overlap with TikTok influencers.

Re:

[dgatwood]

Why not sexy chatroom girls?

The government would never do this. If half-naked women were reading the news, we would have the most informed public you've ever seen, and a lot of politicians (particularly on the right side of the aisle) would not like that very much.

Can't trust ANYBODY

[RogueWarrior65]

What a sad state of affairs when the administration believes that people don't trust the mainstream media so they have to resort to convincing people through TIkTok. What makes them think people trust what they see on TikTok in general? Of course, this assumes that people who get their news from TIkTok aren't brain dead to begin with.

Re:

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

What makes them think people trust what they see on TikTok in general?

It's not that. It's that some people apparently consume TikTok more than other media sources. They might be brain-dead, but TikTok is what they look at, so it is necessary to feed the information to TikTokkers in order to get it out there.

It does not matter if TikTok viewers generally trust TikToks or not. The only chance of setting the narrative is to feed information to TikTok.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

People don't trust the politicians so they want the TikTok "influencers" to endorse the propaganda. People read the MSM in the USA and realize that our politicians are making logically inconsistent arguments and call bullshit. But if the presenter has pretty eyes and long legs you might not listen as critically.

TikTok is for kids

[PPH]

I get all my in-depth political analysis from OnlyFans.

Putin would be proud

[Ed Tice]

Find some "influencers" (which basically means they are good at eye makeup) and tell them they get an audience with the president. They will be so honored that they will listen attentively and non-critically. Then they will go out and repeat whatever they are told. Vladimir Putin has to be kicking himself for not thinking of this.

Joe Biden's message to the American people is that we should fear Vladmir Putin without limit and that our country needs to be prepared to accept any of his demand because t