In an era defined by fleeting digital interactions and a relentless competition for eyeballs, the very essence of power, money, and governmental authority is undergoing a profound transformation. We are no longer solely governed by traditional financial and political structures; instead, a new force – attention – is rapidly reshaping our world. Chris Hayes, renowned MSNBC host and insightful author, stands at the forefront of understanding this seismic shift. In his acclaimed book, “The Siren’s Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource,” Hayes masterfully articulates how attention has surged to become the most valuable currency of the modern age, eclipsing conventional measures of influence and wealth. This article delves into Chris Hayes’s perspectives on this burgeoning “attention economy,” exploring its deep-seated impact on politics, media, and society, and examining its far-reaching implications for the future of power and governance. Hayes’s views provide a critical lens through which we can understand the evolving dynamics of control and authority in a digital landscape saturated with information and vying for our ever-diminishing focus.
The Attention Economy: Labor in the Digital Age
Chris Hayes draws a compelling parallel between the rise of the attention economy and the Industrial Revolution, arguing that attention is undergoing a commodification process akin to that of human labor centuries ago. Just as human effort was transformed into a tradable commodity in the industrial era, attention, once simply a facet of human consciousness, is now extracted, packaged, and sold in a burgeoning marketplace.
Hayes elucidates the historical trajectory of attention as a commodity, tracing its roots back to the advent of modern media. The penny press and early magazines marked the initial stages of this transformation, pioneering a business model where revenue was generated not just from content sales but primarily from selling audience attention to advertisers. Billboards, newspapers, magazines, radio, and television all operated under this foundational principle: attention as a valuable commodity.
However, Hayes emphasizes that the contemporary attention economy transcends these earlier iterations in both scale and sophistication. Several key shifts have propelled this transformation:
Firstly, the sophistication of attention capture has reached unprecedented levels. We now inhabit a world of nanosecond auctions, where our eyeballs are bid upon in real-time as web pages load and social media feeds refresh. This granular level of attention measurement and monetization was unimaginable in previous media landscapes. Sophisticated algorithms and data analytics enable precise tracking of user engagement, allowing advertisers to target audiences with laser-like accuracy and efficiency.
Secondly, the ubiquity of attention capture has fundamentally altered the landscape. The advent of the smartphone has ushered in an era where attention can be harvested anytime, anywhere. Unlike television or radio, which were confined to specific locations and times, smartphones are portable portals to the attention economy, constantly vying for our focus throughout the day. This always-on connectivity has created an environment where every moment is a potential opportunity for attention extraction.
Hayes highlights that this commodification process has profoundly altered both the supply and demand dynamics of attention. The internet, particularly social media, has become a vast “gain of function” laboratory, constantly experimenting with techniques to maximize user engagement. Platforms are perpetually tweaking algorithms and content formats to optimize for virality and user retention, often at the expense of user well-being and societal discourse. The “fracking” metaphor aptly describes this relentless pursuit of attention, as platforms delve deeper and deeper into our cognitive reserves, even encroaching upon sleep and demanding multi-tasking, to extract ever more attention.
The subjective experience of attention in this digital age has been profoundly reshaped. Our attention spans are being trained to crave constant stimulation, leading to a diminished capacity for sustained focus and deeper engagement. The constant barrage of information and notifications creates a sense of anxiety and restlessness when attention is not readily available. Multi-screening, once considered aberrant behavior, has become normalized, reflecting a fragmented and hyper-stimulated attentional state. Hayes argues that this altered subjective experience is a crucial, and often overlooked, consequence of the attention economy.
Political Attention: The New Political Capital
For Chris Hayes, understanding the attention economy is crucial to deciphering the modern political landscape. He posits that in the upper echelons of politics, attention has surpassed money as the primary currency of power and influence. While financial resources remain important, especially in lower-profile races, attention is the dominant force shaping political outcomes at the national level.
Hayes points to figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk as prime examples of individuals who have intuitively grasped and effectively wielded the power of attention. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, also emerges as a case study in leveraging global attention to mobilize support for his nation’s defense.
Donald Trump’s political ascendance, according to Hayes, is inextricably linked to his mastery of attention. Trump understood that in the contemporary media environment, conflict is attention, and attention is influence. His strategies, often deemed unconventional or even outrageous, were remarkably effective in capturing and maintaining public focus. Trump instinctively grasped the power of negative attention, recognizing that even criticism and outrage could amplify his message and solidify his position at the center of the political discourse. His approach echoes the “shock jock” model, where provocative and often offensive content is deployed not necessarily to persuade, but to command attention in a competitive marketplace.
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, despite its questionable financial rationale, further underscores the immense value of attention. Hayes suggests that Musk’s motivations, while perhaps stemming from personal needs, inadvertently revealed a profound truth: the attention that Twitter commands, and that Musk now controls, is arguably worth far more than the $44 billion price tag. The capacity to shape public conversation and direct collective attention holds a power that transcends traditional financial metrics.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy exemplifies how political leaders can strategically harness global attention to achieve tangible political goals. Hayes highlights Zelenskyy’s understanding that international attention on Ukraine’s plight is the “engine” driving the provision of weaponry and resources necessary for his country’s survival. By effectively capturing and maintaining global attention, Zelenskyy has been able to exert significant influence on international policy and resource allocation.
Hayes draws a critical distinction between aggregate attention and individual attention. While the collective pool of public attention is incredibly valuable, driving markets and shaping political outcomes, each individual contribution of attention is, in market terms, virtually worthless – “fractions of pennies.” This mirrors the Marxist critique of labor in the Industrial Revolution, where the aggregate labor of the working class is the source of all value, yet individual laborers receive only a fraction of that value in wages. Similarly, in the attention economy, our collective attention is the prized commodity, while our individual attention is fragmented and cheaply bought.
Democrats vs. Republicans: Competing for Attention in Different Ways
Chris Hayes astutely observes a fundamental divergence in attention strategies between the Democratic and Republican parties. He argues that Democrats largely remain tethered to traditional models of political influence, prioritizing financial resources and “mainstream media” narratives, while the ascendant Trumpist Republican party has embraced a more radical approach centered on maximizing attention volume, even if it entails negative attention.
Hayes contends that Democrats suffer from a degree of risk aversion when it comes to media engagement. Fearing gaffes and negative press, they often prioritize “not making news” over actively shaping the narrative and capturing public attention. This cautious approach contrasts sharply with the Republican strategy, particularly within the Trump wing, which views “any attention as good attention.” For Republicans, the volume of attention is paramount, and negative attention is not necessarily a deterrent, but potentially even an asset, fueling engagement and solidifying their base.
This strategic difference is evident in candidate behavior. Hayes points to examples of Democratic candidates, like Kamala Harris, who exhibited extreme caution in media appearances, seemingly terrified of missteps. Conversely, Trump and figures like J.D. Vance actively courted media attention, even in hostile environments, prioritizing visibility over carefully curated messaging. Vance, despite enduring numerous “bad” interviews, understood the value of sheer volume of attention.
Hayes highlights a sliding scale in the relative importance of money and attention in political campaigns. In low-profile races, such as state representative elections, money retains significant influence due to the relative lack of public attention. In these races, financial resources can effectively “buy attention” through targeted advertising and direct mail. However, as the political stakes rise, moving from state to national levels, the pre-existing volume of public attention increases, and the relative impact of money diminishes. In presidential elections, the sheer volume of attention already circulating renders massive campaign spending less effective, like “drops of rain in a river.”
The crucial battleground, according to Hayes, is the “attentional atmosphere” rather than individual advertisements or campaign messages. Trump and his allies recognized that shaping the overall public conversation, dominating the news cycle, and creating a pervasive sense of urgency and engagement is far more impactful than traditional persuasion tactics. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter is seen as an attempt to seize control of this “attentional atmosphere,” providing an “Archimedean lever” on the electorate.
Hayes criticizes the Democratic party’s continued “media problem,” which he argues is symptomatic of a deeper misunderstanding of the contemporary attention landscape. Democrats, he suggests, are overly focused on “mainstream media” outlets and gatekeepers, still operating under the assumption that winning over traditional media is the key to political success. They conceive of “media” as something to be “booked on” rather than something to be actively “attracted.” This perspective, Hayes argues, reflects a lingering belief that media institutions are still the primary arbiters of public attention, failing to recognize the decentralized and fragmented nature of the modern attention economy.
Hayes critiques the notion of creating a “Joe Rogan of the left” as a misguided Democratic strategy. He argues that this approach misunderstands the essence of Rogan’s appeal. Rogan’s success stems from his ability to tap into non-political spaces and engage audiences outside the traditional political bubble. Democrats, obsessed with political messaging and “perfect politics,” risk alienating these peripheral audiences by attempting to replicate Rogan’s model with overtly partisan content. Hayes emphasizes the need for Democrats to compete in “nonpolitical spaces” and draw “general attention” to reach those on the “outer periphery of politics.” While celebrity endorsements from figures like Beyoncé and Taylor Swift can provide some attentional boost, Hayes suggests that their impact is limited in the face of the more decentralized and grassroots influence wielded by “UC influencers and random podcasters” favored by Republicans.
The Dark Side of the Attention Economy: Sociopathy and Moral Degradation
Chris Hayes delves into the potentially corrosive effects of the attention economy, raising concerns about its tendency to reward and amplify negative traits, potentially selecting for what he terms “attentional sociopaths” and contributing to a broader “moral degradation” of public discourse.
Hayes suggests that the intense competition for attention may incentivize and reward individuals with certain personality types – those comfortable with negativity, conflict, and even hatred. He posits that the political and media landscape may increasingly select for individuals with a “sociopathic disposition” or at least a “very broken and compulsive one” – those who are driven by an insatiable need for attention, even negative attention, and are willing to disregard ethical boundaries to obtain it.
Hayes acknowledges that while figures like Trump and Musk may appear impervious to criticism, their actions often betray a deep sensitivity to negative feedback, suggesting that they are not truly immune to its effects. However, he emphasizes that even if negative attention is personally bothersome, it does not deter them from pursuing attention-seeking behavior, as it remains a potent tool for maintaining relevance and influence.
The attention economy, Hayes argues, fosters a negativity bias that skews public discourse towards sensationalism, outrage, and conflict. He cites the example of tabloid crime coverage, which, since its inception, has consistently exhibited a conservative and reactionary ideological slant. Competitive attention markets, driven by the need to maximize engagement, tend to amplify negativity and appeal to more primal emotions, potentially pushing individuals towards their “most reactionary selves.”
Hayes highlights the phenomenon of “trolling politics” as a direct consequence of the attention economy’s incentives. Trolling, by its very nature, is designed to provoke negative attention, recognizing that it is often easier to generate outrage than positive engagement. This creates a dilemma for those targeted by trolling: ignore it and allow harmful narratives to spread, or engage and inadvertently amplify the troll’s message. Trump’s political strategy, Hayes argues, is fundamentally rooted in this “trolling politics” approach, transforming political discourse into a spectacle of provocation and counter-provocation.
The pervasive influence of the attention economy, Hayes warns, carries the risk of cultural and political malformation. When attention becomes the ultimate metric of value, the incentives are skewed towards sensationalism and extremism, potentially distorting public perceptions and political priorities. He draws a chilling analogy to the pornography industry, arguing that just as internet pornography is “tuned not towards people who watch it, but people who buy it,” social media platforms are optimized for engagement metrics that may not reflect the broader public interest. This can lead to a distorted sense of public opinion, where extreme viewpoints are amplified and perceived as more prevalent than they actually are. Politicians and media figures, relying on social media as a barometer of public sentiment, risk misinterpreting these skewed signals, leading to misguided policy decisions and communication strategies.
Hayes underscores that attention is not a moral faculty. Drawing on Walter Lippmann’s observations from the Versailles era, he notes that public interest does not always align with what captures public attention. Just as people may be more drawn to the “gowns of the queen” than to complex geopolitical negotiations, the attention economy tends to prioritize the sensational, the lurid, and the morally dubious over more substantive and important issues. This inherent tension between what is attention-grabbing and what is truly valuable contributes to a form of “moral degradation” in the collective public sphere.
Is There a Way Out? Reimagining Attention and Engagement
Amidst the potentially dystopian implications of the attention economy, Chris Hayes offers glimmers of hope and explores potential pathways towards a more balanced and constructive relationship with attention. He suggests that counter-strategies, a potential backlash, and a reorientation towards “curiosity” and “mystery” could offer alternatives to the relentless pursuit of eyeballs and the associated negative consequences.
Hayes points to Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign as a potential counter-example to the prevailing attention-seeking political model. Biden, in contrast to many of his Democratic primary rivals, adopted a less online, less overtly attention-driven approach. Hayes speculates that this relative detachment from the digital attention economy may have been a factor in Biden’s success, suggesting that a less hyper-engaged, less reactive approach might resonate with an electorate increasingly weary of the constant clamor for attention. Biden’s victory, in this interpretation, could signal a potential limit to the effectiveness of purely attention-driven political strategies.
Hayes anticipates a potential backlash against the attention economy, drawing parallels to historical societal responses to the negative consequences of industrialization. He notes the growing movement to ban phones in schools as a tangible manifestation of this backlash, reflecting a broader public unease with the pervasiveness of digital technology and its impact on attention and well-being. He envisions a future political candidate who could “weaponize this feeling” of public disgust with the attention economy, running on a platform that critiques not just specific tech companies but the entire attention-driven culture. This candidate, Hayes suggests, would tap into a deep-seated public yearning for a society and politics that “shouldn’t feel like this” – a society less defined by constant stimulation, fragmentation, and the relentless pursuit of attention.
While acknowledging the limitations of traditional “solutions-based journalism” and “good news journalism” in capturing attention, Hayes proposes a shift in focus from “doom and gloom” narratives towards “curiosity” and “mystery.” He argues that the “opposite of doom” may not be simply “hope,” but rather a re-engagement with the world through a lens of curiosity, interest, and wonder. Podcasting, he suggests, offers a promising model in this regard, having cultivated large audiences by prioritizing in-depth conversations, exploration of diverse topics, and a less overtly negative or sensationalistic tone. Podcasts, often operating outside the algorithmic feeds of major social media platforms, have demonstrated the potential to foster sustained engagement through content that appeals to intellectual curiosity and genuine interest, rather than solely relying on negativity or outrage.
Hayes emphasizes the significance of open, non-algorithmic platforms like podcasting, highlighting their technical infrastructure – particularly the RSS protocol – as a crucial factor in fostering a different kind of attention economy. These platforms, less beholden to algorithmic optimization and commercial imperatives, can reward niche interests, in-depth exploration, and genuine curiosity, fostering a more diverse and intellectually stimulating online environment. He draws a historical parallel to the early internet, where an “open internet animated by curiosity” once triumphed over a “closed commercial internet” dominated by walled gardens like AOL. This historical precedent, Hayes suggests, offers hope that a more curiosity-driven, less commercially exploitative attention economy is still possible. Ultimately, Hayes envisions a future where technological and institutional setups can “cultivate different parts of ourselves,” drawing forth our innate curiosity and desire for deeper understanding, rather than solely catering to our more reactive and sensationalistic impulses.
Conclusion
Chris Hayes’s analysis of the attention economy provides a crucial framework for understanding the evolving dynamics of power, money, and governance in the digital age. His central argument – that attention has become the new currency of power, surpassing traditional financial and political capital – offers a profound insight into the forces shaping our contemporary world. Hayes meticulously dissects the mechanisms of the attention economy, revealing its commodification of our focus, its impact on political strategies, and its potentially corrosive effects on public discourse and individual well-being.
Key takeaways from Hayes’s perspective include: the comparison of attention commodification to the Industrial Revolution’s commodification of labor; the recognition of attention as the dominant political currency, particularly in high-stakes elections; the strategic divergence between Democrats and Republicans in their pursuit of attention; the potential for negative consequences, including the rise of “attentional sociopaths” and moral degradation; and the glimmer of hope offered by counter-strategies, potential backlash, and a re-orientation towards curiosity and open platforms.
Hayes’s work underscores the urgency and importance of critically examining the attention economy and its implications. As we navigate this increasingly attention-driven world, understanding Chris Hayes’s perspective is crucial for reimagining power, governance, and our own engagement with the digital sphere. For a deeper and more nuanced understanding of these complex issues, readers are strongly encouraged to explore Chris Hayes’s insightful book, “The Siren’s Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource.”
