‘Duck Dynasty’ vs. ‘Modern Family’: 50 Maps of the U.S. Cultural Divide(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
‘Duck Dynasty’ vs. ‘Modern Family’: 50 Maps of the U.S. Cultural Divide
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/26/upshot/duck-dynasty-vs-modern-family-television-maps.html
72 comments
But if you don't normalize by population, you just end up with a map of the most populous locations instead of a map of the highest popularity
I think some HN commenters are having issue with how the map legend is labeled. The key labels darker colors as 'more fans' when they mean 'larger fraction of fans'.
I think NYT chose the right methodology, they just got lazy with the labeling.
I think NYT chose the right methodology, they just got lazy with the labeling.
I think you don't understand what that word 'popularity' means...
I guess you don't believe something can be popular in a small community.
It can be, that doesn't make it popular in general. Duck Dynasty has zero viewers in my living room, does that make it an unpopular show? Having a small number of absolute fans in isolated clumps does not make something popular unless you specifically scope the definition to make it appear so.
I'm not sure what they are using to subdivide the maps, but it isn't county lines. There aren't that many counties in Maine or New Hampshire, for instance.
Damn, you're right. It appears to be zip-code based. I still stand by my opinion of county-based representations.
>When we looked at how many active Facebook users in a given ZIP code “liked” certain TV shows..
>When we looked at how many active Facebook users in a given ZIP code “liked” certain TV shows..
From the article:
> When we looked at how many active Facebook users in a given ZIP code “liked” certain TV shows, we found that the 50 most-liked shows clustered into three groups
> When we looked at how many active Facebook users in a given ZIP code “liked” certain TV shows, we found that the 50 most-liked shows clustered into three groups
Anyone on here know which Facebook API they were using for this data? I'd like to do some further research on the election outcome based on "liked" shows.
Many of the shows are based on affinity or identity politics so the results are not terribly interesting.
Unsurprisingly a TV show based on affinity for Louisiana or affinity for LA will have by far the strongest signal be predictable affinity for either LA area. Likewise the identity politics, its very hard to express surprise that a TV show carefully engineered to appeal to black people, successfully sells to black people, therefore the map of viewers extremely strongly resembles a population map of black people.
If they had corrected for those effects THEN they would have had interesting data.
I did find it interesting that "deadliest catch" correlates more strongly with latitude than distance from the coasts. I've never watched, but I'd assume its mostly set on a boat?
Unsurprisingly a TV show based on affinity for Louisiana or affinity for LA will have by far the strongest signal be predictable affinity for either LA area. Likewise the identity politics, its very hard to express surprise that a TV show carefully engineered to appeal to black people, successfully sells to black people, therefore the map of viewers extremely strongly resembles a population map of black people.
If they had corrected for those effects THEN they would have had interesting data.
I did find it interesting that "deadliest catch" correlates more strongly with latitude than distance from the coasts. I've never watched, but I'd assume its mostly set on a boat?
I think the point is that the urban vs rural divide has not been the dominant conflict in America up until now. In the past other identity politics such as black and white or north vs south have dominated. Every state has rural and urban areas - why is it just now, in the early 2000s, that the urban vs rural cultural divide now dominates the cultural discourse?
Duck Dynasty and Modern Family is just one more symptom of the cultural divide. It's interesting because it's a small part of a much larger conflict with major political and economic implications that have already been felt (most obviously, the recent US election).
Also for me it's personally very interesting. I'm going to start watching shows that it would not have occured to me to watch, because it's one way to escape my own cultural bubble. Normally Duck Dynasty and Empire wouldn't be on my list, now they are - because it's a way to understand a culture that would normally be somewhat alien to me.
Duck Dynasty and Modern Family is just one more symptom of the cultural divide. It's interesting because it's a small part of a much larger conflict with major political and economic implications that have already been felt (most obviously, the recent US election).
Also for me it's personally very interesting. I'm going to start watching shows that it would not have occured to me to watch, because it's one way to escape my own cultural bubble. Normally Duck Dynasty and Empire wouldn't be on my list, now they are - because it's a way to understand a culture that would normally be somewhat alien to me.
> I think the point is that the urban vs rural divide has not been the dominant conflict in America up until now
Given the Connecticut Compromise at the start of the union, urban vs rural have been a part of the USA since the beginning.
Given the Connecticut Compromise at the start of the union, urban vs rural have been a part of the USA since the beginning.
It was also basically the conflict that began the Civil War. The South was predominately agrarian/rural and the North was mostly industrial/urban.
As always, there is an XKCD that sends up this phenomenon: https://xkcd.com/1138/.
Oddly enough, this map makes me think Trump is more intelligent than I thought. Educated urbanites made fun of the GOP for having a Duck Dynasty cast member as a convention speaker. In reality, that speaker probably had more appeal to the average Trump voter than any of the parade of elites that the Dems brought out for their convention.
How come the millionaire Duck Dynasty cast member isn't an "elite," but everyone brought in by the Democrats was?
To me, something also worth noting is that prior to the Duck Dynasty show, none of the people behind the company had their well known "bearded outdoorsman" looks. There's a widely circulated photo where they look like your average upper middle class suburbanite.
The point on the Democrats celebrity endorsement is true, but I'd argue that the GOP celebrities, including the Duck Dynasty people, are of the same vein and aren't the rural everyman they portray on the show.
The point on the Democrats celebrity endorsement is true, but I'd argue that the GOP celebrities, including the Duck Dynasty people, are of the same vein and aren't the rural everyman they portray on the show.
I would actually argue that the opposite is true - that their previous personas were an act put on to meet social norms. They are certainly something of a caricature of themselves today, but is likely a lot closer to how they see themselves.
The perception is that the Robertsons don't "fit in" with the leaders of the right, and they certainly don't fit in with those of the left.
It isn't a matter of wealth, but of culture.
It isn't a matter of wealth, but of culture.
Because being an elite in this sense is not about one's net worth, but how inline are their views/etc with the general population.
Because he made his money making and selling duck calls versus giving talks at the CFR.
I'm confused. Who said he wasn't?
I would never argue that Trump wasn't intelligent when it came to showmanship. Not just because he just won the presidency, but because it doesn't seem like he was a stellar businessman. That is, he wasn't exceptional enough to have turned his starting position (there are plenty of other sons of real estate barons who we never hear about) into what it is now based on financial intellect alone, at least not in the same way that I perceive Warren Buffett to have achieved his fortune.
At said, a case can be made that just as there is more than one "IQ", we don't know for certain if the kind of intelligence Trump exceeds at is the kind that will help or hurt in the role of the presidency.
At said, a case can be made that just as there is more than one "IQ", we don't know for certain if the kind of intelligence Trump exceeds at is the kind that will help or hurt in the role of the presidency.
You're right, but only because the E.C. gives disproportionate voting power to acreage. You can win the E.C. with only ~23% of the votes if you distribute them optimally.
Things like that get pretty important when it comes to national policy covering all that acreage. $15 minimum wage for example - sounds reasonable in high cost of living, densely populated areas. In rural areas it would be economically devastating.
It's one of the biggest reasons why acreage needs to matter for the Presidency. City, County and State laws can handle everything for the densely populated areas just fine without imposing the desire for those policies on areas with entirely different economic conditions. One of the biggest dangers to the country is counting a high concentration of people in an area who have completely different life experiences and conditions, more than areas that are heavily spread out. Policy does not have equal effects in all places.
It's not much different than saying if India became a US State for some reason that suddenly the 1.3 billion people there should be dictating policy that effected every other US state. It's also why federal policy for just about everything outside of common defense tends to be misguided.
It's one of the biggest reasons why acreage needs to matter for the Presidency. City, County and State laws can handle everything for the densely populated areas just fine without imposing the desire for those policies on areas with entirely different economic conditions. One of the biggest dangers to the country is counting a high concentration of people in an area who have completely different life experiences and conditions, more than areas that are heavily spread out. Policy does not have equal effects in all places.
It's not much different than saying if India became a US State for some reason that suddenly the 1.3 billion people there should be dictating policy that effected every other US state. It's also why federal policy for just about everything outside of common defense tends to be misguided.
Your argument is fine and dandy until you realize that the same thing you set out to prevent now happens to majority.
$15 is devastating in rural area so you don't implement it, now it is economically devastating in urban areas and affecting the majority. Which would you prefer?
Democracy in most countries works this way. Majority of the people affecting the decisions, even if it hurts a minority. Democracy is not always getting what you want, it is sometimes not getting what you want because most of the people want something else.
Democracy in most countries works this way. Majority of the people affecting the decisions, even if it hurts a minority. Democracy is not always getting what you want, it is sometimes not getting what you want because most of the people want something else.
I'd prefer policy that's desired and potentially harmful to be isolated, where it can fail in isolation or succeed there. That way other areas can observe and decide to either copy it if it works or avoid it if it's harmful.
It's not devastating to the majority if it happens in one or two cities or counties because it's just affecting those cities and counties. If EVERY major city decided to implement it then it would actually be affecting the majority...but as a bonus since every major city would have chosen it they could also just as easily get rid of it if they found it wasn't working in their area.
At the Federal level where it's blanket implemented across the board all the places that don't want it are essentially just screwed since they're too small to have a say in the matter.
It's not devastating to the majority if it happens in one or two cities or counties because it's just affecting those cities and counties. If EVERY major city decided to implement it then it would actually be affecting the majority...but as a bonus since every major city would have chosen it they could also just as easily get rid of it if they found it wasn't working in their area.
At the Federal level where it's blanket implemented across the board all the places that don't want it are essentially just screwed since they're too small to have a say in the matter.
Exactly my thoughts. Let states implement the policy that affects the state and let the country as a whole elect the federal government.
There is no need for some votes to have more power than some other votes based on the states when electing the President.
That would make sense if there were strict limitations on what the federal government had the power to do (aka - the Constitution). The problem is that federal powers have increased due to overly broad interpretations of the commerce clause.
If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. Legalization laws in Colorado and Washington for example could be totally trumped by the federal government at any point right now. The fed's lack of prosecution is the only thing stopping it.
Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. In order to change that, you've got to give states the power to essentially reject the federal government at their discretion...which would be great and would largely reduce the demand for change to the EC by virtue of turning the Fed toothless for any policy that people rejected...which again would be ideal long term so that federal elections weren't some constant struggle to see which half of the country got to impose itself on the other half.
If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. Legalization laws in Colorado and Washington for example could be totally trumped by the federal government at any point right now. The fed's lack of prosecution is the only thing stopping it.
Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. In order to change that, you've got to give states the power to essentially reject the federal government at their discretion...which would be great and would largely reduce the demand for change to the EC by virtue of turning the Fed toothless for any policy that people rejected...which again would be ideal long term so that federal elections weren't some constant struggle to see which half of the country got to impose itself on the other half.
I see what you're saying but I would also like to point out that it works both way.
States can and will revoke reproductive rights, same sex marriage and other rights. IMHO, Anything that impacts one state directly while not affecting the larger population should be controlled by state, everything else should be federal. This includes marijuana legalization, reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gun control etc. because they are not state specific and majority/minority status of a state has nothing to do with it.
States can and will revoke reproductive rights, same sex marriage and other rights. IMHO, Anything that impacts one state directly while not affecting the larger population should be controlled by state, everything else should be federal. This includes marijuana legalization, reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gun control etc. because they are not state specific and majority/minority status of a state has nothing to do with it.
How are gun control and marijuana legalization not state specific?
Because they don't affect just the state. If one state restricts it and another doesn't, people will smuggle them across state lines.
> Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college.
Although the President has a lot of power to carry out immediate action using the agencies under his control, his powers over the long term are extremely limited relative to the legislature and courts. The founding fathers intended that the Senate and Supreme Court be the firewall against the mob rule, not the president or electoral college.
Hamilton's argument for the electoral college in Federalist No 68 was that the electors would be people qualified to be the last firewall against choosing an authoritarian, demagogue, or someone otherwise "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" to hold the single most powerful position in the nation. AFAICT he and the other founding fathers considered maintaining a balance of power between large and small states to be a very secondary consideration because that was the purpose of the courts and upper chamber.
> If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem.
The states have always had the power to do that. From refusing to help federal agencies enforce prohibition to sanctuary cities outright interfering with immigration enforcement to lower courts that routinely ignore higher courts. Even if states could do more to reject federal policy, the Federal government is the only sugar daddy in town that can support their healthcare, social security, defense, and infrastructure habits. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, for example, didn't set the minimum age to 18 but penalized any state with a drinking age below 21 by stripping them of 10% of their annual federal highway contribution. Now the minimum drinking age is 21 nationwide, despite the fact that any state could have easily ignored the directive at the cost of billions a year in infrastructure spending. As long as the federal government has the money, it has the power to make the states do almost anything it wants.
Although the President has a lot of power to carry out immediate action using the agencies under his control, his powers over the long term are extremely limited relative to the legislature and courts. The founding fathers intended that the Senate and Supreme Court be the firewall against the mob rule, not the president or electoral college.
Hamilton's argument for the electoral college in Federalist No 68 was that the electors would be people qualified to be the last firewall against choosing an authoritarian, demagogue, or someone otherwise "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" to hold the single most powerful position in the nation. AFAICT he and the other founding fathers considered maintaining a balance of power between large and small states to be a very secondary consideration because that was the purpose of the courts and upper chamber.
> If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem.
The states have always had the power to do that. From refusing to help federal agencies enforce prohibition to sanctuary cities outright interfering with immigration enforcement to lower courts that routinely ignore higher courts. Even if states could do more to reject federal policy, the Federal government is the only sugar daddy in town that can support their healthcare, social security, defense, and infrastructure habits. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, for example, didn't set the minimum age to 18 but penalized any state with a drinking age below 21 by stripping them of 10% of their annual federal highway contribution. Now the minimum drinking age is 21 nationwide, despite the fact that any state could have easily ignored the directive at the cost of billions a year in infrastructure spending. As long as the federal government has the money, it has the power to make the states do almost anything it wants.
Let's not get hung up on the $15/hr rate issue; the larger assertion is that people concentrated in cities shouldn't have a say in the management of the land that's (mostly) upstream from them, and that's why a Wyoming voter should have 4x the voting power for President than a California voter.
(WY: 585,000 pop., 3 EV; CA: 38.8M pop., 55 EV).
(WY: 585,000 pop., 3 EV; CA: 38.8M pop., 55 EV).
My point still stands. The Wyoming voter now has 4X more say in things that affect a vast majority of people In CA.
States should govern things that affect the land management in this case and federal government should not deal with that.
It seems like moving to Wyoming to have your vote count 4x as much would be powerful thing then. Then again, your priorities might change if you live in Wyoming.
I prefer democracy, myself.
As it turns out, you probably have Democracy in your city, county and state...unless you're electing representatives that will be making the decisions on your behalf for the next few years. Then you just have democratic voting for representatives...assuming those representatives are perfectly evenly distributed across the population.
> assuming those representatives are perfectly evenly distributed across the population.
Which they are not; and because E.C. votes (at least in the 50 states) are allocated according to Congressional representation, the E.C. reflects the undemocratic nature of the Senate.
Which they are not; and because E.C. votes (at least in the 50 states) are allocated according to Congressional representation, the E.C. reflects the undemocratic nature of the Senate.
>As it turns out, you probably have Democracy in your city, county and state
but just not in the Country? We should just be upfront about it then and stop calling the USA a democracy.
but just not in the Country? We should just be upfront about it then and stop calling the USA a democracy.
We never have. It's always been a Republic.
That's evidence that Trump's strategy was correct. The right strategy is to maximize EC votes, not the popular vote. Clinton won the wrong game.
Exactly. He's said something to this effect as well - that he campaigned to win the EC, not the popular vote. If he had campaigned to win the popular vote he would have done so.
If the rules were different, the campaign would have been different.
So what did the Duck Dynasty guy have to say about policy?
So what did Sarah Silverman have to say about policy? Or any other celebrity endorsing a candidate? Looking for policy directives from celebrities is akin to taking medical advice from a barista.
Unfortunately, the Presidency is won by the most electoral college votes, not by the best policy. Optimizing a campaign for the best policy only wins to the extent that those gains translate to EC gains.
Their opinion? Which is what matters in a democracy.
The maps are somewhat (ok, a lot) misleading because they show land area, not population. Duck Dynasty looks like a giant hit in Harney County, Oregon, but come on, there's only 7,146 people living there (2013).
But if almost everyone that lived there loved it the the the label is accurate. You think it's misleading because it doesn't convey a population density component?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That map, at least at first glance, makes Duck Dynasty look like a giant hit in Oregon. You have to read the fine print to find out that it's essentially just because a bar in Burns has a satellite dish.
> That map, at least at first glance, makes Duck Dynasty look like a giant hit in Oregon
Well, it makes it look like a big hit in Harney County, OR, and a flop in Portland. Which appears to be accurate-- of the people in Harney County, lots of them watch Duck Dynasty. There isn't much fine print there.
Well, it makes it look like a big hit in Harney County, OR, and a flop in Portland. Which appears to be accurate-- of the people in Harney County, lots of them watch Duck Dynasty. There isn't much fine print there.
In the United States, land gets a vote because of the Electoral College and how senators are elected. Thus the map is not as misleading as you might believe. If you were only to look at population, you would conclude that Clinton won the election, but she did not.
Watching late night TV, it's interesting how political Seth Meyers' show has become -- on par with Jon Stewart and Trevor Noah. Colbert is slightly less biting. Then Fallon, very gentle.
Yet Fallon's ratings are still weak in the Duck Dynasty areas. (Being gentle doesn't buy him much?)
Yet Fallon's ratings are still weak in the Duck Dynasty areas. (Being gentle doesn't buy him much?)
People know when you're making fun of them and tune out.
I am a liberal and even I have tuned out of these late night shows as I got sick of the low quality mockery of "the other side". I initially had high hopes from Trevor Noah but his race baiting approach to mockery (and I say this as a "person of color" if that means anything) just put me off.
I've had a year without late night TV or "mainstream news" and frankly, I feel a lot better. I've been able to focus a lot on furthering my knowledge and experience in technical and scientific things.
I've had a year without late night TV or "mainstream news" and frankly, I feel a lot better. I've been able to focus a lot on furthering my knowledge and experience in technical and scientific things.
My issue with Trevor Noah and his ilk is they peddle the false, shallow version of "diversity" which is anything but. As long as a bunch of socioeconomically identical, young, childless, professional, and urban people have enough variance in the melanin content of their skin, they are a diverse group.
Former military? Drive a pick-up truck? Grew up in a trailer? Yeah, nobody wants THAT kind of diversity.
Former military? Drive a pick-up truck? Grew up in a trailer? Yeah, nobody wants THAT kind of diversity.
The tone of Colbert and Seth Meyers seems a bit more upbeat than Trevor Noah.
I think Noah will wear on people sooner; to me his tone is more bleak/grim (ignoring content, which is sometimes insightful). His interviews have a more upbeat tone, IIRC.
I think Noah will wear on people sooner; to me his tone is more bleak/grim (ignoring content, which is sometimes insightful). His interviews have a more upbeat tone, IIRC.
Are you referring to Fallon then?
They didn't mention it in the article, but a cursory glance makes Tosh.0 look like the battle ground map.
Odd that they chose African-American as a singled out demographic in addition to the urban/rural split. They could have selected Hispanic. It's a larger demographic.
Hispanic people tend to be more politically divided than those of African ancestry, who have historically voted as a bloc.
Which is why I find analysis of this nature to be very frustrating. I wish they could expand on why they did this.
Given the direct comparison to the result of the election in the opening paragraph, I was disappointed that they didn't quantify the similarity of each show's map to the electoral (county-by-county) map.
Tosh.0 (#10) has an interesting map
seem not especially urban, but with a pretty sharp drop off right at the Mason Dixon line
seems like maybe it perceived as too much making fun of southern culture? I haven't watched a ton of Ridiculousness (#13)
but my impression of it is that it's a less snarky show with highly similar clip content
and it seems to appeal to a much broader area of the country
seem not especially urban, but with a pretty sharp drop off right at the Mason Dixon line
seems like maybe it perceived as too much making fun of southern culture? I haven't watched a ton of Ridiculousness (#13)
but my impression of it is that it's a less snarky show with highly similar clip content
and it seems to appeal to a much broader area of the country
I'd be more interested to know which of the areas has the highest median fanbase of all the shows. Based on the conclusions this article wants us to draw, certainly that would be the "least culturally polarized" place in the U.S? Or is this just more data noise with very little signal value...
So it is confirmed watching videos of guys getting hit in the balls is universally funny among all groups. "Ow My Balls!" being most popular show in 2505 is looking like a very prophetic right now.
Nothing surprising here.
edit: douche points out that these maps are not purely based on county lines.