I think this is what happens when the press treats every aspect of our lives like it's a f---ing sporting event. "1776, behind for most of the race, pulls ahead at the end for a decisive victory over 1619" is what this looks like to me.
Also odd they ended the data points before the Hulu series for the 1619 Project came out. In fact, there are 8 data points for what look like 3 years, starting with the beginning of 2019 and ending at the beginning of 2022. They could've just shown the number of total mentions of "1619" and "1776" for each of the four years, 2019 to 2022, but it's impossible to tell what the time spans are or when the overall time span ends. Junt ntupid.
As far as the 1619/1776 thing goes, you’re overthinking it. Conservatives often offer nonsense as proof. Shapiro thinks this proves something. It doesn’t.
I think something similar is people who present you with the Bible if you ask for proof of God’s existence. This makes no sense but the presenter can’t see that.
It could mean anything, or nothing, but a decline in mentions of the Hannah-Jones work plus increase in mentions of a Broadway musical, could say something about changing gravitas of the Times.
Besides the notion that popularity is not necessarily an indication of quality or merit, this graphic looks like it's only a step or two above PragerU territory.
I think this is what happens when the press treats every aspect of our lives like it's a f---ing sporting event. "1776, behind for most of the race, pulls ahead at the end for a decisive victory over 1619" is what this looks like to me.
Also odd they ended the data points before the Hulu series for the 1619 Project came out. In fact, there are 8 data points for what look like 3 years, starting with the beginning of 2019 and ending at the beginning of 2022. They could've just shown the number of total mentions of "1619" and "1776" for each of the four years, 2019 to 2022, but it's impossible to tell what the time spans are or when the overall time span ends. Junt ntupid.
Whatever else it's supposed to mean, it indicates that media folks still care entirely too much about the editorial opinions of the NYT
As far as the 1619/1776 thing goes, you’re overthinking it. Conservatives often offer nonsense as proof. Shapiro thinks this proves something. It doesn’t.
I think something similar is people who present you with the Bible if you ask for proof of God’s existence. This makes no sense but the presenter can’t see that.
As a mathematician and data analyst, I have no idea.
It could mean anything, or nothing, but a decline in mentions of the Hannah-Jones work plus increase in mentions of a Broadway musical, could say something about changing gravitas of the Times.
Besides the notion that popularity is not necessarily an indication of quality or merit, this graphic looks like it's only a step or two above PragerU territory.
None of it makes any sense 😭
I think if you replace the first s in “sushi” for “mushi” then it can make sort of sense.