Sat. May 25th, 2024

The Streisand effect on Trump in court

By ki0nk May10,2024

Stormy Daniels and her evidence in Donald Trump’s trial for hiding a bribe, which has been going on for several days in New York, have made this week challenging for him. The trial has been going on for several days. An expected moment that, in addition to the scandalous details of a sexual relationship that were recounted by the former president of X-rated films, also brought the former president face to face with the reality of a well-known perverse effect in the world of communications that is known as the “Streisand effect.” This effect is one that frequently manifests itself when a public figure attempts to conceal an intimate or private aspect of their life with a little bit of determination.

An interview with Sue Curry Jansen, a professor at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania who has conducted extensive research on this issue, provides a summary of her findings, which are as follows: “The efforts made to cover up the affair have just backfired.” Not to mention the fact that recent testimony, in this same trial, officials from the National Inquirer, which is a gossip magazine that Trump used to protect his electoral campaign in 2016, have revealed other stories that have also been covered up or distorted to defend Donald Trump’s interests, and which also risk fueling other Streisand effects.

The idea was initially conceived after a legal dispute that took place in 2003 between Barbra Streisand and Ken Adelman, a rich environmentalist from Silicon Valley. At the time, the well-known American diva did not see the online circulation of a photo as something she would have liked. An activist who was documenting the erosion of the Pacific coastline of the United States of America took a bird’s-eye picture of his Malibu beachfront house at the time.

Barbra Streisand, on the other hand, brought a lot of attention to this story and the photo by demanding fifty million dollars from him for violating his privacy and by demanding that the only photograph of his house that Adelman had taken was removed from a collection of twelve thousand other photographs of the west coast of the country that Adelman had taken. On a website that had remained rather private up until that point, the artist’s domain was viewed by more than 420,000 individuals in the weeks that followed the news of the legal proceedings. A result that she did not anticipate, which was exacerbated by her participation in online socialization and which is now used as an example in communication manuals…

The Streisand effect appears to have materialized once more during the trial of Donald Trump, who is accused of concealing a payment of $130,000 that was made to Stormy Daniels during his election campaign in 2016 in order to purchase her silence regarding a previous sexual connection. The raw details of the affair have been brought to light, and they are being presented under the weight of an oath, this week in front of a court in New York. On the other hand, he has just experienced the opposite of what he said he would experience.

At the time, the populist who is now the voice of the American right extremist movement was sixty years old, while the former porn star was only twenty-seven years old. At a celebrity golf tournament that took place in Lake Tahoe, California, in 2006, there was a hole on the course that was sponsored by the studio that Daniels worked for. This is where the two individuals first met. During her testimony in front of the jury, Stormy Daniels described a brief sexual encounter that was consensual but also “uncomfortable.” She also described a moment that was influenced by “an imbalance of power.” I felt embarrassed that I had not been able to stop it or that I had not been able to say no,” she admitted.

Suppress to the point of silence

According to Brian Martin, a professor at the University of Wollongong who has examined in several of his research projects this perverse effect of communication harvested by censors or people who aspire to become censors, all of the components were present in order to expose Donald Trump to the effect that Streisand had. “Concealment, denigration, reinterpretation, and intimidation were used by [the former president] and his allies to obtain silence,” writes the academic who was approached by Le Devoir in the south-eastern region of the country. The Australian continent. In many cases, the unanticipated consequence is preceded by these gestures, which are also accompanied by the utilization of governmental channels in the hope of compel the disappearance of a narrative.

During the courtroom session on Tuesday, the intimidation occurred again. During the testimony of Stormy Daniels, Judge Juan Merchan called one of the former president’s attorneys to his bench in order to put his renowned client to order. He stated that Trump had made motions and had interactions with his defense team that could easily be regarded as an attempt to intimidate the individual who was sitting on the witness stand.

Sue Curry Jansen makes the observation that it is still very impossible to determine what the repercussions of this Streisand effect could be on the public perception of the United States of America, “especially several months away” from the presidential election that will take place in November of next year. Particularly in light of the fact that “nothing seems to change things among the unconditional supporters of Donald Trump, who seem to accept his speech as a victim of political persecution,”

She continues by saying, “However, there are already some polls that are beginning to show that this trial may have a negative influence for him among independent voters.”

By highlighting in broad strokes the age difference between the accused and the witness at the time of the facts, which her former boss attempted to keep out of the spotlights and which, throughout the week, occupied an important place in a Manhattan courtroom, Sarah Matthews, who had previously served as the press secretary for Donald Trump at the White House, brought attention to by highlighting it on Tuesday. According to what she said on CNN, “I don’t know if this will help him win over the voters he’s going to need the most,” specifically referring to women who live in the suburbs and independent political voters.

Despite the fact that he will be suffering from the Streisand effect, Donald Trump will once again be able to scream about being the victim of the Democrats. In her biography, which was published a year ago, the Funny Girl made no secret of her friendship with Bill Clinton and her leftist allegiances. She also accused Trump of being a “liar” and urged for art and artists to speak out against “tyrants and dictators.” The concept is named after the Funny Girl. The list goes on.–663def762f57e#goto6779!-guatemala-by-la-luna-crema

By ki0nk

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *