musing on political messaging. or, emails.
A few months ago, a family member launched into an argument with me about student loan forgiveness. According to them, Biden’s program had been completely abused—they saw a report somewhere that Houston hometown hero Simone Biles got her loans wiped clean while hardworking, taxpaying Americans got nothing.
I hadn’t heard this before. So, while still talking to my family, I pulled out my phone and spent a few minutes searching for a credible source, especially since they swore they saw it on TV news.
Finally, I found the original source: Roseanne Barr.
This kind of thing happens all the time. And it’s a big reason why the left struggles to counter right-wing messaging. It’s not just that conservatives spread misinformation. It’s that they’ve built a deeply effective system of organic information-sharing that reinforces their narratives before fact-checkers even get a chance to weigh in.
A lot of people assume that conservative media dominance is just about pushing false stories. And sure, misinformation is part of it. But the more I’ve seen this play out in personal circles, the more I realize that it’s not just about what’s being said—it’s about how it spreads.
A fringe outlet or personality puts something out there. It doesn’t have to be true, just compelling enough to spread.
It travels through built networks—Facebook, WhatsApp, forwarded emails, group chats. People see it in their feeds and FYPs associated with family members, church friends, co-workers—people they know personally.
Mainstream media picks it up, which only validates it further. Even when Fox or CNN cover it critically, the fact that they discuss it at all makes the original story seem legitimate.
That second step—the organic spread through personal networks—is where the right-wing excels. They don’t just rely on newsrooms or social media algorithms to carry their message. Instead, they rely on their supporters to embed it in everyday conversations where trust is already established.
I’ve seen this firsthand. My brother-in-law’s father, a proud Trump supporter, regularly sends emails to his family—who, like mine, largely consists of naturalized Venezuelan Americans—about why they should vote Republican.
No one asked to be on his email list. No one opted in. The only qualification to receive these messages is being part of the family. And yet, those emails carry weight. They’re not coming from a faceless news organization or a paid influencer. They’re coming from someone people trust—and even if they disagree politically, they still respect.
The same thing happens on WhatsApp, particularly in immigrant communities. It’s one of the most important communication platforms for families spread across countries and time zones. It can be a lifeline for staying connected, but it’s also a powerful tool for spreading political messages. Remember: WhatsApp is owned by Meta. It’s not some neutral public square—it’s a corporate product controlled by people who have their own interests and who lean on relationships with whoever is in power.
For decades, Republicans have built their power by convincing their voters that they are both misrepresented and underrepresented in the so-called “liberal media.” This messaging has done two things well:
It delegitimizes all traditional journalism. No matter the facts, Republican voters assume that mainstream coverage is biased against them.
It allows them to build their own parallel media ecosystem, one where their narratives are repeated and reinforced without serious pushback.
But the reality is that mainstream American journalism doesn’t exist to serve political parties. While good journalists focus on accurate reporting and truth-telling, their bosses’ bosses’ mandate is to chase clicks, views and profit. (Don’t worry: I can say that as a former reporter who is still paying off my M.A. in journalism.)
The same goes for social media. Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and TikTok prioritize engagement over accuracy—and in many cases, right-wing content simply performs better because it’s designed to provoke outrage.
I don’t have all the answers—I’ve never worked for a political party or an electoral campaign. But I do think progressives and Democrats should take a step back and rethink where their messaging is happening. Because right now, it’s mostly happening on platforms they don’t control, using methods that weren’t designed for them.
That’s why it’s interesting to think about what organic information-sharing looks like in the digital age. My brother-in-law’s father is one person, but he’s part of a much larger ecosystem—one that has effectively created a grassroots communications network outside of traditional media.
What would it take to build something similar? One idea: an easy-to-use tool that helps people share accurate information with their personal networks via email. It wouldn’t have to be fancy. Just a way for people to:
Select articles from a curated list of trusted news sources broken down by issue area.
Draft a short personal message explaining why they care about the issue with hyperlinks to the selected stories.
Copy-paste the email or send it directly to their network—without needing a subscriber list or social media distribution.
Why email? Despite the spam and endless campaign donation requests, it’s still one of the most trusted ways people receive information. It’s direct, it doesn’t get filtered by an algorithm that favors right-wing content, and it relies on personal trust—something no amount of mainstream media coverage can replicate.
Conservatives understood this a long time ago, and the left still needs to catch up not by copying what the right does but by recognizing that the way people absorb political information is far more personal and persistent than the latest headline or viral clip. More importantly, that information absorption happens at a much earlier stage than we’re used to. What gets shared in a family group chat, forwarded in an email, or brought up at the dinner table has far more staying power than whatever’s trending on social media.
That’s the kind of influence that anyone serious about progressive political messaging needs to start taking seriously, too.
