Blog Entry #5

Essentially, the "plain folks" technique aims to make the speaker (this could be an advertiser, political candidate, etc.) appear as one of "the people," in order to gain favor among voters, buyers, or whomever their target audience is. Some common and recognizable examples include recent presidents of the United States. For example, the current president, Donald Trump, allied with January 6th Trump supporters, stating "You're the real people." Both Trump and Kamala Harris (2024 presidential candidate) used the plain folks technique in their campaigns. Trump loves (remind you of Bill Clinton?) and "worked" at a McDonald's; Harris used the diss, "They're weird" like a Gen-Zer (who made up 41 million of the voter population in 2024). Both candidates followed suit of prior candidates to win over voters by displaying themselves as "one of you."

"Plain folks" is able to undermine knowledge and create a disregard for experts or "the facts," because it reflects people and puts them in a situation that they can relate to. It creates an argument based on a shared "common sense" rather than forgein or complicated information. With a greater lack of trust in experts and the government, "plain folks" is a particularly potent technique. Despite efforts by X and other platforms to combat misinformation, including propaganda, "plain folks" is still effective, because their efforts don't always convince people out of their "rightness" coming from "righteousness." How can you argue with someone who thinks they are doing what is the objective good? Facts won't change their mind. Additionally, "plain folks" has a heavy emotional appeal (as it is part of appealing to someone's morals, as being for the people, "you"). This plays into making rumors go viral and hijacking critical thinking. 

Users of plain folks will often look for similarities between themselves and their audience (basic persuasion). This could mean using phrases like "I'm born and bred in the same town as you, I understand what it's like" or "We all want the best for our children." The goal is to find common ground to empathize on and manipulate from. Watching out for language like that while watching an advertisement or campaign is a great tool. 

Look for "plain-spoken" or "colloquial" ways of presentation--it "ensures more trust because that's the language people communicate in," according to Edmund Lee, assistant editor on The New York Times Trust team. 

Another interesting aspect to "plain folks" is what the speaker is wearing. Are they very wealthy yet wearing "cheap" or "everyday" clothing? What does that say about them? Notably, Watches of Espionage said, “You can tell a lot about a person by their wristwatch. This is particularly true with politicians, who meticulously curate their image.” 

While it's not inherently bad for a speaker to (attempt to) relate to their audience, whenever they are doing so, it's important to recognize that and ask why they're doing so. 

While all the information I'm sharing is pertinent to any media consumer (so everyone), it's particularly important to me that X and TikTok users input this information. I've noticed the most polarization and "plain folks" propaganda on the two platforms--to a point that I've seen my friends victim the same propaganda without a clue. I think it's particularly rampant on the two platforms because they create so much discourse (which is great), but don't actually foster conversation. Social media algorithms have been found to push content that "evokes anger and outrage from its users to maximize engagement" (NPR, 2022). Both platforms allow for tons of engagement and commentary, yet their quick and easy-to-digest-lots-of-information doesn't force people to take the time to listen to one another. Additionally, 59% of X users and 48% of TikTok users use the platforms for politics. In other words, they're great platforms for politicians to reach the average voter or user. 

On social media platforms, influencers were reportedly being paid to spread partisan messaging. Specifically smaller influencers were being targeted, as they reach a more specific group and cater to the "plain folks" through their sharing of personal stories and "translating campaign messages in to the language understood by their followers" (Goodwin & Woolley, 2021). Sound familiar?

Voters between the ages of 18-34 make up the youth voter population of the United States. In the 2024 election, only 47% voted. Additionally, 36% of youth who declined to vote, did not vote because they found "it's not important to me." Despite the fact that Gen Z is active in gun control, environmental issues, education, racial justice, and more, for some reason, 53% of Gen Z chose not to vote. While I was unable to find any studies on if there's an air of "why bother" (like the Beat generation ideas surrounding existentialism and despair), it makes me wonder if that was a big factor. Many of my friends expressed feelings of "why bother" and "it's all rigged" or "it's all just propaganda." The "plain folks" idea was unimpressive to them (or even an "ick"), so they felt no inclination to vote. My hope is that after reading this, youth voters will understand how "plain folks" is used, and feel empowered to vote for the candidate that truly best supports them--rather than feeling despair or pointlessness. 

Lateral reading allows readers to evaluate the credibility of a source by comparing it with other sources (this also includes finding weaknesses and contextualizing information). Research has shown that the technique is quite effective. If a reader were to apply this to "plain folks," that could include assessing what the speaker is wearing, what their net worth is, and who the people they surround themselves with are. Providing context to the information that they ingest is one of the most powerful tools for understanding when a speaker is manipulating them by "relating" to them. 

Another effective way at combating "plain folks" is by focusing more on "connecting humans, embracing differences" over focusing on knowledge (as I already established that it's not the most effective technique) (Mihailidis & Viotty, 2017, p. 451). For example, my dad, attorney Andrew Reid, brought together a group of people from all walks of life, including nuns, native peoples, and environmentalists to combat the nuclear warheads that the Reagan administration was pushing for. The group, Western Solidarity won the case and set multiple precedents. This wasn't because they were combating the Reagan administration's use of "plain folks" and fear mongering to push their agenda through knowledge and experts (although that was an important part of it); it was because they listened to one another as true "plain folks" and citizens and found that they're not so different after all and really do want the best for the future (Andrew Reid, personal communication, 03 May 2025). Ultimately, one of the most powerful tools for "plain folks" that are being targeted by "plain folks" propaganda is for them (us) to listen to one another and put aside their (our) differences. 

On a more technical note, despite how distraction (think emotional manipulation) spread misinformation, simply thinking about accuracy can reduce it. In other words, just recognizing when "plain folks" is being used can be helpful. This backs the idea that "inoculation" can fight against misinformation on social media--kind of like what this post is aiming to do.