It makes sense really. If you dump everything all at once you risk overwhelming people, and for it to be ignored or forgotten. By dragging it out it remains fresh in minds of the voting public; something that will be remembered for a long time. This makes it more likely that change will result. Doing otherwise would be like running one ad and expecting to create a strong brand. The way a strong brand is created is through repeated exposure.
If you drip drip then it also incentivises public officials to be truthful when answering questions because they don't know whether their claims will be directly contradicted in a weeks time.
Exactly. Look at what happened to Obama. He had his press conference last Friday and told everyone that "No one is listening to your phone calls.". Then we found out yesterday that he was pretty much lying right to us.
No need to publicize it before hand? Why do movie studios run trailers and promote the hell out of what's coming?
Teasers tease and get people interested. It keeps people talking and when people are talking, there is a greater reach. This is really basic marketing at work here and it's a very wise move.
because this isn't a movie. This is about news. The facts will speak for themselves, and people are looking.
I'm not saying it's not good marketing, I'm saying it's a bit tasteless. I'd rather he spent more time looking over his articles so that there don't have to be 100 corrections after the fact.
It's naive to think that just because something has been published, people will beat a path to it. It doesn't matter whether it's a movie, news, or programming language; things have to be promoted if they're going to be widely noticed.
I'm not sure what 100 after-the-fact corrections you're talking about though.
It's not a teaser. It's a refutation to someone else's comment which said, "Sorry, a year from now we'll be snoozing about this. Not against you, just tired of your self-promotion."
