Within that same edition yesterday, an alternative view was offered by a contributor who thought he glimpsed a greater truth in the outcome of the US election.

With a tone that critics of a certain mien like to adopt towards “mainstream media”, a letter writer tells us that “only 20% of people under the age of 30” follow the “hysterical rantings” of traditional television, radio, and newspapers.

It is certainly true that the information consumption repertoire of millennials and Gen Z is more fragmented and complex than the generations which precede them. True, also, that these habits change as they become older and/or assume different responsibilities. And true that they are not the only sectors of society who will be exercising their rights at the ballot box.

This aspect of consumer behaviour is rich with opportunities for debate. But for now we should concentrate on an even more pressing issue: The potential for disinformation from bad actors involving themselves in our national vote.

It is therefore a matter of some political and administrative sloppiness that our country has failed to put in place its first strategy to counter misinformation as the candidates of the Republic head towards the hustings.

This is another example of a Government which has become well-known for missing deadlines it has set for itself and is a record in which we can take little pride.

The National Counter Disinformation Strategy Working Group was established by Media Minister Catherine Martin in February 2023. Various drafts have been in circulation since earlier this year.

The impact of disinformation is a tangible area of anxiety for those organising the process. It can include erroneous claims on social media about polling stations, voting times, and the integrity of the voting system.

The scope for duping large numbers of people has been highlighted by a recent hoax Halloween parade on Dublin’s O’Connell St, when hundreds arrived for a non-existent event that had been shared on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.

The riots in England which followed the murders of children at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class were fanned by online claims.

The muddying of the wells and the poisoning of the waters do not necessarily have to be malign. 

It was interesting to note the successful compensation claim of a lifelong soccer supporter who booked expensive tickets to Armenia to watch Ireland play based on outdated information which appeared on the Football Association of Ireland website.

“Old mainstream media” correctly reported the fixture change. But the FAI’s digital service did not. 

Unfortunately for the authorities, the litigant only read the newspapers at the weekend and missed the news.

The moral is that it pays to check with more than one source. Never more so than in a highly charged campaign where the Government has, sadly, failed to formally establish its co-ordinated rapid response and rebuttal procedures in good time.

Lingering memories of Brat summer 

While supporters are struggling to come to terms with the failed campaign of Kamala Harris, at least one of its preliminary high points is being recorded in history as the Collins Dictionary word of 2024.

It seems a very long time ago — in fact July 22 — that English singer/songwriter Charli XCX declared the vice-president-turned-White-House-candidate to be “brat”, the same name as her latest album, released a month previous.

Traditionally, Collins defined the word as “someone, especially a child” who “behaves badly or annoys you”. However, the publishers offer a different and, they think, more contemporary, take, saying that it is “characterised by a confident, independent, and hedonistic attitude”.

While the modern practice of making words mean anything you want is highly annoying for many people, it was a process well to the fore in a presidential campaign which was notable for foxing the pollsters, consistently overstating the levels of Democrat support, and giving too much credence to celebrity endorsements and liberal commentary.

Although there has been general shock at the size and scope of the Republican victory, that should be magnified by the realisation that it is usually the incumbent party which wins a second term.

Before Donald Trump’s defeat in 2020, incumbents were re-elected 22 out of 32 times since the days of George Washington. This is just the third time since 1896 that a party took the White House and then gave it back four years later. And the second time was four years ago.

Although we can now see the reality of it, the mainstream polls overwhelmingly said the swing states were “too close to call” and are sheltering their reputations behind what were once regarded as acceptable “margins of error”.

It might be left to the veteran Bernie Sanders to write the epitaph for a campaign which included the fatal flaw of pretending that Joe Biden had the personal capacity and resilience to run for another four years in office.

“It’s not just Kamala,” said Sanders.

“It’s a Democratic Party which increasingly has become a party of identity politics rather than understanding that the vast majority of people in this country are working class. This trend of workers leaving the Democratic Party started with whites and has accelerated to Latinos and blacks.”

One person, a mystery French trader who is reported to have won more than €50m betting on a Trump victory, did so by following the results of “neighbour polls”, which ask respondents to guess who the person next door will vote for. This assumes that individuals will not share their own intentions, but are prepared to speculate about someone else’s preferences.

Mainstream research executives now have four years to ponder on what they got wrong while the Democrats need to learn from their mistakes.

The rest of the world has but a short time before it faces the practical consequences of the decision of the American people. These will be longer lasting than the ephemera of a Brat summer.