I love this man called Gurwinder and hate to quibble with him, but this little piece of his delicious meal caught in my throat like a chicken bone: "The mainstream media....take care to get the actual reporting right, and when they don’t, they usually issue corrections."
This may have been true at some point but is not anymore in the Trump/social media era. The Pulitzers scored from the Russiagate hysteria were never rescinded (and never will be), the 1619 propaganda is still coming to a high school near you, the "lab leak is racist" narrative was never questioned (nor the vax mandates nor the uselessness of masking), and the endless propaganda about Amerikkka being a white-supremacist patriarchy festooned with nooses shows no signs of abating, and results in a daily flood of toxic lies.
If the goal is rhetorical accuracy and intellectual honesty in the name of having a much cleaner epistemic ecosystem (both socially and internally), I think it's important to be honest and clear about the greatest enemy to all these things: the mainstream corporate media, which has transformed into a Big Lie factory and Thought Police Dept on behalf of the globalist ruling class.
It may not be the best intellectual hygiene to always reflexively disbelieve any of MSM narratives, but they are still obviously unscrupulous and untrustworthy, and need to be recognized as such.
In the earlier part of the subject paragraph Gurwinder admits that the media are "highly selective" in their reporting. As an example, I don't recall seeing any coverage on the mainstream outlets (except maybe for Fox) of the investigations Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger and others conducted at Elon Musk's request on how certain people and organizations (mostly on the right) were censored, deplatformed or shadowbanned on Twitter, how different Federal agencies asked for this, and how Twitter employees readily (if not eagerly) complied. That should have been front page news. Instead, crickets.
I agree that sometimes the media issues factual corrections. However, it seems that these corrections cover facts that don't threaten the narrative that is being pushed in the original story. Of course, I could be wrong!
You make a good point, Henry that sometimes media "lies via omission." That can occur by not covering stories at all; by giving them only brief, cursory coverage early-on and ignoring them later; alternately, by covering them far too late, after interest has waned; and/or by "covering" them but burying their coverage far away from readers on, say, page 57 of a print edition or on some obscure corner of their website. I've definitely come across such instances, much as you likely have.
However, it's quick and straightforward to check one's assumptions in each such case via Google searches in the format "{topic keywords} {name or site URL of MSM platform}." For "Twitterfiles" coverage, two examples of such searches might be: "twitterfiles site:cbsnews.com" and "taibbi twitter site:cbsnews.com". (You can then substitute "site:nbcnews.com", "site:abcnews.com", "site:msn.com", and so on for "site:cbsnews.com".)
At a quick and superficial glance, it looks like there's been a *slew* of coverage of the "Twitterfiles" topic on (at least) CBS News's website. It might or might not often be *critical* coverage, but it's clear they did give it a lot of attention. (This doesn't identify how much they covered it in their broadcasts/cable shows, or how prominently their coverage was displayed online.)
Here's one example of a CBS News piece summarizing that topic in mid-December 2022:
Thanks for sharing the info you found on this. I based my comments on what I see (or don't see) when I watch or read the news and in my conversations with a number of friends (maybe a dozen), both liberal and conservative. When I asked them if they had heard of the Twitterfiles not one of them had. And these are people I consider to be well-informed. All of them read or watch the major news outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Boston Globe, etc.).
I know that's not exactly a scientific poll. Nonetheless I figure something of the magnitude of the Twitterfiles would have received more attention.
That's wild, Henry! Thanks for sharing your own IRL experiences, and those of your circles.
Maybe this, in part, reflects differences between people who are "extremely online" and others, and/or in where they hang out online? For instance, anyone whose Twitter feed at least occasionally included some political tweets during late 2022 and early 2023 would have likely had considerable exposure to news, commentary, and opinion around Twitterfiles. I recall seeing a lot of that coverage there, during that time.
It could also well be the case that broadcast/cable TV and/or print coverage of Twitterfiles by many MSM outlets was, in fact, minimal, even if some of them covered it far more extensively via their websites?
Do you really believe that MSM is not in the same bed as Big Tech in the sense of going along with the forced official narrative to get along?? Maybe i'm one of them godam conspiracy theorists, but the twitter files and gazillion other things make it pretty damn clear to anyone who is not in the first group of conformists that there is plenty of rot in this here Denmark. Denmark incidentally has the highest excess mortality rate in the world right now. Sorry no link!
I think your speculation on how much this story was covered between the different outlets (I.e., TV versus the website) makes sense. Plus the amount of time that is available on TV is severely limited compared to what can be posted on their website. And, the outlets can defend themselves by saying, “What bias? We covered this story on our website!” 😬
I've asked over a dozen friends if they'd heard of the Twitter Files (it's Dec.'23) and got "nope" across the board. Same with "The Great Reset". Nope. crickets
"the "lab leak is racist" narrative was never questioned ..."
That may be?
But the early "COVID clearly came from an in-the-wild exposure and could never have been a lab leak" narrative itself was, in fact, vigorously questioned. And it was the persistent work of some Extremely Mainstream Scientists in (often-reviled) academia that has led to that early, forced narrative being overturned. (AIUI, at least two of those scientists were even of Asian ancestry.) Here's a list of just some of the key figures that questioned it:
i appreciate that but would just respond (though not passionately w certitude) that the "lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory" narrative was pumped out heavily by MSM outlets like the NYT, NPR, and especially the cable-news shows and the late-night "comedy" shows, was never corrected or rescinded, and thus probably has had at least a 10 to 1 reach more than any of the contary narratives.
either way, I think it's safe to say that this was another event that the MSM distorted and has never looked back to question or check.
Wondering if any of these pieces (some paywalled) might belie the notion that the MSM "has never looked back to question or check" how political and social biases got intertwined with the question of whether COVID's origins may have involved a lab leak?
All of these pieces involve some degree of reflection, methinks, either about how political and/or social biases got intertwined into what is at core a scientific and forensic investigation, or relating with some honesty how and why the narrative has shifted, since those early days in spring and summer 2020:
Based on just these articles alone – and these are by no means all of the pieces I found, in about ten minutes of Googling – I'm respectfully considering that you reassess your belief that "I think it's safe to say that this was another event that the MSM distorted and has *never* (emphasis added) looked back to question or check."
You are obviously much more passionate about this than I am. I will confess upfront a terrible bias against the modern MSM online "journalist", who I consider the social equivalent of the town whore who also feels entitled to deliver the Sunday sermon and the human equivalent of pubic lice.
I will just edit that and replace that particular example of "I think it's safe to say that this was another event that the MSM distorted and has *never* (emphasis added) looked back to question or check." with say, Hunter's laptop, BLM (especially its founders), the Floyd riots, the vax mandates (jab or lose your job) and a few hundred other fabrications that escape my mind at the moment.
Thanks again for your thoughts. And for engaging civilly with me, as well as being very direct about your own biases. All is appreciated!!
(One of my own biases is that whenever someone writes about absolutes, like "never" or "always," that stirs up curiosity and I want to find out if there's at least one exception, or even a number of them. :) )
Wondering if we might have some common agreement somewhere in the middle – not Gurwinder's dreaded 'averaging,' but rather some genuine consensus around facts – in this?
My naive impression is that the mainstream media (at least the large corporate part of it, which overall leans somewhat politically and socially left in the USA) can often:
* Get caught up in "groupthink" in advancing conventional narratives.
* Be slow – months or even years later – to question those original narratives, which can leave many readers/viewers still clinging to their erroneous early impressions.
* Be far less vigorous in its corrections and/or introspection ("what went wrong?") as they were in advancing its original narratives.
Is that an impression that we both share, even as we may agree or disagree about the specifics of whether any particular large story has seen sufficient correction and/or introspection? (The examples you gave were great – these four, much less many others that may also exist! And it'd be really interesting to explore sometime how much elements of the MSM have critically looked back at their early takes, with each of these four stories, in particular.)
FWIW, I'd argue – based on my own casual impressions only, which could well be wrong – that the 'alt-right' media ecosystem (e.g. Daily Caller, The Federalist, Gateway Pundit) is even worse at this. Corrections there seem few and far between.
It just takes guts – and goes against natural incentives – for some reporter, editor, editorial board, or corporation to publicly admit they were wrong and even put time, money, and effort into digging into the 'why,' so that they do better next time. People get embarrassed and don't want to look bad. And they might fear doing so will hurt their bottom line, costing them readership/viewership, subscriptions, and advertising.
Yet ironically, when they do so, that gives them more credibility, as well as improving the quality of their work – and their impact on society.
One more take. I've really, really enjoyed this article, and recommend it to you and all:
I don't have that many solid beliefs, but one of them is that there is almost always a compromise position, and that sane adults (and a responsible political class) should always be looking for ways to emphasize commonality over difference, peace over discord.
I think when I dig into my animosity toward the modern MSM journalist what gets my goat isn't necessarily their mistakes or rush to judgment, it's the sharp-edged Manichaean moralism, the modern online tendency to denounce opponents as not just mistaken but as EVIL, and thus beyond the moral pale. I can deal with writers and thinkers and their foibles, but priests and Church Ladies are the ultimate whited sepulchers.
Also, my wife is a writer who knows a bunch of the NYTimes Brooklyn clerisy, and in the Trump era they've morphed into these neurotic condescending petty tyrants who imagine themselves as both morally and intellectually superior, and their piety (esp in re their supposed adoration of the marginalized) is absolutely nauseating. (But of course this doesn't absolve their right-wing counterparts or mean they're any better.)
But I know it's important to always keep an eye on one's own biases and certitudes, and Gurwinder and his commenters really help w this.
Thanks for the link, I will add to my reading pile.
Great comment. I would say being a contrarian on most things right now would already point you in the right direction on how to think about some of these issues. And this does not necessarily pigeon hole you into the "contrarian" class either. I think a good mix of all these kinds of thinking is probably best, and then of course being able to take all of these ways of thinking and forming a unique and authentic opinion. Because what you should do more of may change between times as well. Perhaps one day it may be better to be a conformist than a contrarian on most things, etc.
Life is rarely between black and white options. I'm finding more and more that it is a large balance between things, how much of the things, and at the right times to do/think about the things.
Some very good thoughts in this article and very thought provoking. That said, at the risk of sounding like a #2 NPC, I have to say I agree with Clever Pseudonym 100%. Okay, maybe 99%. In any event, us "conspiracy theorists" have been right more often than ever during the plandemic, and I don't know where any apologies or retractions are happening in mainstream media about their lies. I haven't heard any, for example, for their constant reaffirming that the jab stopped "Covid" in its tracks. How many people thought this would be their magic freedom pill only to find out that MSM was only parroting the lies of Pfizer and the like? Still waiting for the apologies. Still waiting for the purgers (Fauci, et al) to face consequences.
This is thanks to the virutual perpetuity instilled upon anything outside of government, such as biology, sex, physics, reality, as "establishment".
When the governmnet is against reality, they can still rally ranks of "contrarians" to fight against reality, with them, maintaining their "skeptic status" while pushing regime talking points.
This is s fatal flaw in the mild whattabboutism presented here.
The contrarians outlined here are in fact NPCs as well.
Seems you are in the 'Contrarian' category and amply demonstrate the 'not holding their sources' to the same standards. Example. Read the Mueller report. Neither hoax nor hysteria. Extensive contact between Trump campaign associates and Russia, and of obstruction (evidence witheld/destroyed).
'Here' being a place where people comment on something without having read it (the Mueller) yet consider themselves 'free thinkers'. There's the irony. Anyone who uncritically repeats Trump's refrain about the 'Russia Hoax' is not a serious person.
And fascinating that the example he raises to illustrate is of course "Trump". This totalizing explanation of all harms of course reminds us of the old ones: Kulak, Jew, etc.
Im not repeating Trumps refrain. (are you repeating Bob Mueller's and projecting?)
Im going with all the indiepoendent journalism.
but Ill let your comments stand here for other readers to assess.
This is a fascinating ascent, shown in real time, as it were, as leftists always do, away from the immediate discussion and towards an immediate appeal to authority, projection, "deconstructing" concepts ("Free thinkers"), soft ad hominem, without ever digging in on the topic at hand.
once you see it folks.......
thanks for the real time demo for all to see.
Signed,
"Not a serious person"
please disregard any/all utterances, regardless of detail from me, from here on out.
An independent observer might also read your response as 'projection'. You seem to be arguing with an imagined opponent as the use of the term 'leftist' attests.
I note also that you did not say you had read the Mueller report rather that you had 'gone with all the independent journalism'. There's your appeal to authority. "All the independent journalism" is a hyperbolic claim, and not really credible. If this self-styled 'independent journalism' has reached consensus maybe its because you are reading the sources circulating in your bubble and dismissing dissenters as 'leftists'.
> It may not be the best intellectual hygiene to always reflexively disbelieve any of MSM narratives
Don't reflexively disbelieve them. But don't necessarily believe them either, unless (1) it is over a matter that is not an ideological controversy (so they have less motive to lie), or (2) there is independent confirmation.
This was written to perfection! And it hit so close to home too. I have shared this on my social media and I hope more people read this!! Thank you for writing!!
This post comes to all the right conclusions about how to school oneself out of being an opinionated arse. But it misses something nevertheless because it assumes a world in which everyone is too opinionated in one way or another and could do with being less so.
But there are millions of people (they're not on Substack or TwitterX; they neither read The New York Times nor Takimag etc) who find the whole idea of having strong opinions a bit of a turn off. I'm not particularly championing these people (because maybe they could do with having a bit more curiosity) just pointing out that they exist in huge numbers and don't fit with this NPC rubric.
Wouldn’t these people generally be tribalists? I know people (including extended family) who have zero interest in reading or learning, but have strong opinions they act in accordance with (generally unconsciously). For one example, few “return to traditional values” people independently and thoughtfully came to the conclusion that marriage is supposed to be only between a man and woman, and that the man ought to be in charge.
I'd probably categorize most of the people Graham speaks of as conformists. Lacking strong opinions, they tend to default to societal consensus, relying on Google, Wikipedia, etc. But yes, the "return to traditional values" people you speak of are probably tribalists, as their appeals to tradition are usually rooted in tribal beliefs (religion, patriotism, etc).
The people I was thinking of probably neither Google nor Wikipedia. For example an elderly friend of mine asked me the other day "what does Woke mean?...I keep hearing people talking about it on the telly".
I’m deliberately trying to have as few opinions as possible. I aim to have my default position be “it’s complicated”. I AM mentally lazy, but it is perfectly possibly to recognize one’s ignorance and remain neutral. Sometimes, anyway.
Fair comment....the point I was making was, like most things, more where one is on a spectrum that an absolute category divide. But the people I'm thinking of will have way FEWER opinions that people on a Substack thread like this.
I have a friend who claims he doesn't read any news but when Putin's name comes up he rails that he is a tyrant.... ie. he reads whatever google feeds him on his phone that he's on all the time.
This illuminating piece defines my personal struggle against swinging like a pendulum between thesis & antithesis, from one tribe to another and more. It requires constant self-vigilance. But the strange thing is that 3 years of this practice (and writing a Substack about it) has made me happier and less neurotic.
Thirty years ago, in my freelance writing days, I was preparing for a trip to east/southern Africa. I had a lowly job at a major media organization, which gave me access to a ton of information (pre-internet), and I prepared like mad. The more I learned, the more I realized how complex the subject was (this also happened for a radio doc I did, I spent so much time researching it I think my ultimate pay was about fifty cents an hour). Anyway, it became overwhelming. I wound up spending two years there, and the net result was that after all the research and time spent, I became more and more reticent about offering opinions, and less certain of my positions. It was odd, in a way - I knew quite a lot more than most of the people around me, but often had less to say. I feel similarly about anything controversial which interests me now - sometimes the more you learn, the harder it is to have a clear position. I'm now 60, and there are topics which I take an interest in and, while I may have a view about them, I don't believe I have enough information, so I don't say much. There are many other topics, and they can be important ones, where I just decide it doesn't much matter what I think and it would take too much work to develop a good defense of my position. (that said, there is one complex issue which sucked me in last year and I've devoted hundreds of hours to getting to an understanding of it, and can offer my views with quite a bit of confidence; ironically, I rarely do, because it's such a hot potato). ftr, I've never really belonged to a tribe, even back in high school I floated between various groups.
If you have nuance in your head, please add it to the conversation when that information is relevant! Not being a passionate partisan is not a reason to stay silent, it is a reason to speak up!
This excellent piece got me thinking about the pernicious phenomenon of NPCs rationalizing their own NPC position by mischaracterizing a position taken by another person as NPC.
I find that progressives often dismiss even the slightest disagreement with their orthodoxy as automatically tribalist on the other side. For them, you can’t be liberal unless you completely agree with them. Anyone slightly disagreeing with trans orthodoxy, or even just disagreeing with trans activist tactics, must be transphobic.
I’ve also been accused of being an averager, and thus dismissed, by people who wrongly assume that I’m proceeding from the idea that the truth is always in the middle. The frustrating aspect of that is that they’ve correctly identified averagers as a dubious group, but wrongly assumed that anyone whose opinion is moderate must be an averager.
As an NPC #2 I think being a contrarian is a better mental shortcut than being a conformist. Our batting average about what is true is better than that of conformists. But that’s exactly what one would predict a contrarian would say ;)
Ha! I'd say conformists have by far the best batting average. Most of the information we depend on in our lives, from effects of drugs to maps of the world, requires us to trust institutions.
In the past few years the credibility of the institutions has taken a big hit. I’m also old enough to remember when the consensus making institutions told us invading Iraq was a good idea. It took them years to course correct and admit it was a disaster. On major issues they have been repeatedly wrong. Which is why I am a contrarian NPC
Some institutions seem to be in decline since quite some time at least here in Germany.
The Catholic and Protestant Church have devolved into political party organs.
The education system is in steep decline, including university. I have seen people graduating with a PhD which were obviously so stupid that they would not have gone to university at all 20 years earlier and would not have finished high school 40 years earlier. In addition, I got the feeling even in the 90ies that indoctrination was on the rise in public schools while education was in decline.
Politicians nowadays show open contempt for the people they are governing. The will of the people is ignored. A good example: shortly before the unification of Germany, the media ran a poll in a live show on TV whether the Western German people are pro or contra the unification. When the poll reached 85% contra votes they just closed it as if nothing had happened at all. Funnily, the Eastern Germans are nowadays an approved enemy of the regime and their media lapdogs as they don't vote as expected. Politicians don't have to resign anymore if they are exposed as frauds.
The media have devolved into a propaganda organ of the state and corporations. Sure, they also report some truths but if something goes against their ideology, it is either ignored or twisted into a lie.
The Covid debacle destroyed a lot of trust in the medical establishment.
I could go on and on...most of our institutions reek of putrefaction. Quite a few people think that reform is impossible.
If covid taught us anything, it's that people are more fearful of losing their jobs than of not telling the truth. And that institutions are the very things those with malevolent intentions need to control. Control the big institutions and you control the conformists. And that works pretty well until you alienate enough of them. The return of covid 2.0 should tell us what the ratio of the control group is to the rest of us. Interesting times!!
And if you think the world is not run by malevolent folks, then why is there a proxy war in the Ukraine that has killed or injured about half a million young Ukrainians? To save democracy???
I would say it requires us to apply "the principle of limited trust" so our institutions are in check and people in those institutions are less likely to deceive and pursue interest which are against people.
Institutions are hired by people because they spend tax money. If they do a bad job, we can fire people in those institutions or dismantle the institutions to hire new people or new institutions.
This was especially true during Covid. The fact finding function of science was hijacked by one science “tribe” (fauci etc.). This made the often correct conformist suddenly more wrong than the contrarian. Other consensus making experts were ignored or worse. I’m thinking of Dr. Jay Battacharria, Dr McCullough and others.
Very interesting, provocative essay. Concerning the conclusion:
"Your brain will always try to save time when forming beliefs — it’s what it does — but the best way to save time is not to take a shortcut to “truth,” it’s to take no route at all. So if you want to stop being an NPC, simply say “I don’t know” on all the matters that don’t concern you. And this will give you the time to not be an NPC on all the matters that do."
If Robin Hanson were here, he would say that prediction markets are a way to induce this sort of behavior. You are less likely to spout an uninformed opinion if money is at stake. He might also say that cognitive strategies are not about truth-finding. They are strategies for playing status games.
Interesting, and engagingly written. But isn’t it all just the same thing? Don’t we all just pick up shit along the way, store it in the rolodex, and pull it out when it seems like it’ll fit? For everything... analyse how we act and it is a robot trying to fit past thinking onto the present. Sometimes its essential (stay away from the red berries. Tom died yesterday remember).... most of the time, it’s horseshit. Particularly when it comes to thinking about how our society is structured.
Plus, and i’ll happily hold my hand up if i’ve missed something in the article, hasn’t this trait of ours and it’s sound evolutionary requirement, been ruthlessly exploited and strengthened in us, by a societal system that teaches us to only seek knowledge from authority, and an education system that values regurgitation above all else.
An interesting person to read on how this functions throughout our psyche, and what can happen if you simply let go of that cycle of thought (much easier said than done) is Jiddhu Krishnamurti.
What an interesting way to look at the world. It's funny how easy it is to see others being NPCs and how difficult it is to see it in ourselves? Your first category reminded me of an Ayn Rand quote (loosely paraphrased), from Hank Reardon: "Mrs. X doesn't exist. She is just the sum of all clever opinions she has ever heard."
I feel the averager is the trickiest hole to get yourself out from. And that is because an averager has a way to neutralize a shock when experienced. Because there is nothing to protect, they can't suffer the loss of having to let a vital belief go. All other forms of NPCs have the potential to shake themselves out of their delusion if their worldview somehow collapses. The scary part is that the averager in times of peace seems virtuous and civilized when in fact in times of crisis when principles are most needed, can take a horrifying position as easily.
A lot of the culprit of the bot like behavior of people is how our life online has been gamified. Status, followers, clickbait and performance. But if we are in a gamified matrix performing as actors, the truth or beliefs don't actually matter. Being right or wrong has never mattered so little.
I love this man called Gurwinder and hate to quibble with him, but this little piece of his delicious meal caught in my throat like a chicken bone: "The mainstream media....take care to get the actual reporting right, and when they don’t, they usually issue corrections."
This may have been true at some point but is not anymore in the Trump/social media era. The Pulitzers scored from the Russiagate hysteria were never rescinded (and never will be), the 1619 propaganda is still coming to a high school near you, the "lab leak is racist" narrative was never questioned (nor the vax mandates nor the uselessness of masking), and the endless propaganda about Amerikkka being a white-supremacist patriarchy festooned with nooses shows no signs of abating, and results in a daily flood of toxic lies.
If the goal is rhetorical accuracy and intellectual honesty in the name of having a much cleaner epistemic ecosystem (both socially and internally), I think it's important to be honest and clear about the greatest enemy to all these things: the mainstream corporate media, which has transformed into a Big Lie factory and Thought Police Dept on behalf of the globalist ruling class.
It may not be the best intellectual hygiene to always reflexively disbelieve any of MSM narratives, but they are still obviously unscrupulous and untrustworthy, and need to be recognized as such.
In the earlier part of the subject paragraph Gurwinder admits that the media are "highly selective" in their reporting. As an example, I don't recall seeing any coverage on the mainstream outlets (except maybe for Fox) of the investigations Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger and others conducted at Elon Musk's request on how certain people and organizations (mostly on the right) were censored, deplatformed or shadowbanned on Twitter, how different Federal agencies asked for this, and how Twitter employees readily (if not eagerly) complied. That should have been front page news. Instead, crickets.
I agree that sometimes the media issues factual corrections. However, it seems that these corrections cover facts that don't threaten the narrative that is being pushed in the original story. Of course, I could be wrong!
You make a good point, Henry that sometimes media "lies via omission." That can occur by not covering stories at all; by giving them only brief, cursory coverage early-on and ignoring them later; alternately, by covering them far too late, after interest has waned; and/or by "covering" them but burying their coverage far away from readers on, say, page 57 of a print edition or on some obscure corner of their website. I've definitely come across such instances, much as you likely have.
However, it's quick and straightforward to check one's assumptions in each such case via Google searches in the format "{topic keywords} {name or site URL of MSM platform}." For "Twitterfiles" coverage, two examples of such searches might be: "twitterfiles site:cbsnews.com" and "taibbi twitter site:cbsnews.com". (You can then substitute "site:nbcnews.com", "site:abcnews.com", "site:msn.com", and so on for "site:cbsnews.com".)
At a quick and superficial glance, it looks like there's been a *slew* of coverage of the "Twitterfiles" topic on (at least) CBS News's website. It might or might not often be *critical* coverage, but it's clear they did give it a lot of attention. (This doesn't identify how much they covered it in their broadcasts/cable shows, or how prominently their coverage was displayed online.)
Here's one example of a CBS News piece summarizing that topic in mid-December 2022:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-files-matt-taibbi-bari-weiss-michael-shellenberger-elon-musk/
Thanks for sharing the info you found on this. I based my comments on what I see (or don't see) when I watch or read the news and in my conversations with a number of friends (maybe a dozen), both liberal and conservative. When I asked them if they had heard of the Twitterfiles not one of them had. And these are people I consider to be well-informed. All of them read or watch the major news outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Boston Globe, etc.).
I know that's not exactly a scientific poll. Nonetheless I figure something of the magnitude of the Twitterfiles would have received more attention.
That's wild, Henry! Thanks for sharing your own IRL experiences, and those of your circles.
Maybe this, in part, reflects differences between people who are "extremely online" and others, and/or in where they hang out online? For instance, anyone whose Twitter feed at least occasionally included some political tweets during late 2022 and early 2023 would have likely had considerable exposure to news, commentary, and opinion around Twitterfiles. I recall seeing a lot of that coverage there, during that time.
It could also well be the case that broadcast/cable TV and/or print coverage of Twitterfiles by many MSM outlets was, in fact, minimal, even if some of them covered it far more extensively via their websites?
Do you really believe that MSM is not in the same bed as Big Tech in the sense of going along with the forced official narrative to get along?? Maybe i'm one of them godam conspiracy theorists, but the twitter files and gazillion other things make it pretty damn clear to anyone who is not in the first group of conformists that there is plenty of rot in this here Denmark. Denmark incidentally has the highest excess mortality rate in the world right now. Sorry no link!
I think your speculation on how much this story was covered between the different outlets (I.e., TV versus the website) makes sense. Plus the amount of time that is available on TV is severely limited compared to what can be posted on their website. And, the outlets can defend themselves by saying, “What bias? We covered this story on our website!” 😬
I've asked over a dozen friends if they'd heard of the Twitter Files (it's Dec.'23) and got "nope" across the board. Same with "The Great Reset". Nope. crickets
A few of my own musings about the Twitterfiles topic, in a December 2022 Twitter thread ...
https://twitter.com/aronro/status/1599158864423059456
And a thread getting into the weeds of one of Taibbi's key claims, which *might* have represented a misunderstanding on his part (still TBD):
https://twitter.com/aronro/status/1644419366736519169
And the corrections could be at the bottom of page 13.
"the "lab leak is racist" narrative was never questioned ..."
That may be?
But the early "COVID clearly came from an in-the-wild exposure and could never have been a lab leak" narrative itself was, in fact, vigorously questioned. And it was the persistent work of some Extremely Mainstream Scientists in (often-reviled) academia that has led to that early, forced narrative being overturned. (AIUI, at least two of those scientists were even of Asian ancestry.) Here's a list of just some of the key figures that questioned it:
https://www.piratewires.com/p/covid-factory/comment/13157027
i appreciate that but would just respond (though not passionately w certitude) that the "lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory" narrative was pumped out heavily by MSM outlets like the NYT, NPR, and especially the cable-news shows and the late-night "comedy" shows, was never corrected or rescinded, and thus probably has had at least a 10 to 1 reach more than any of the contary narratives.
either way, I think it's safe to say that this was another event that the MSM distorted and has never looked back to question or check.
Wondering if any of these pieces (some paywalled) might belie the notion that the MSM "has never looked back to question or check" how political and social biases got intertwined with the question of whether COVID's origins may have involved a lab leak?
All of these pieces involve some degree of reflection, methinks, either about how political and/or social biases got intertwined into what is at core a scientific and forensic investigation, or relating with some honesty how and why the narrative has shifted, since those early days in spring and summer 2020:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/media/covid-19-origins-lab-leak-media/index.html (May 2021, looking at examples of the MSM's role in creating the 'looking into the lab leak theory is racist' narrative.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/chinese-lab-leak-hypothesis-coronavirus/619000/ (May 2021, paywalled for moi, so including this based solely on the sub-headline.)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/lab-leak-liberal-media-theory-china-wuhan-lab-cotton-trump.html (May 2021, paywalled for moi, so including this based solely on its – very direct and pointed – headline.)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/lab-leak-hypothesis-lying-about-science-is-bad-for-liberals.html (February 2023, Chait once again, getting prime time space in New York Magazine. Paywalled for moi, so including this based solely on its headline.)
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-wuhan-lab-leak-media-20230228-4nwbhxrhkfcvhm76biajuf3tty-story.html (February 2023, a bluntly-worded Chicago Tribute op-ed.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/19/us/politics/covid-origins-lab-leak-politics.html (March 2023, paywalled for moi, so including this based solely on the sub-headline.)
Based on just these articles alone – and these are by no means all of the pieces I found, in about ten minutes of Googling – I'm respectfully considering that you reassess your belief that "I think it's safe to say that this was another event that the MSM distorted and has *never* (emphasis added) looked back to question or check."
You are obviously much more passionate about this than I am. I will confess upfront a terrible bias against the modern MSM online "journalist", who I consider the social equivalent of the town whore who also feels entitled to deliver the Sunday sermon and the human equivalent of pubic lice.
I will just edit that and replace that particular example of "I think it's safe to say that this was another event that the MSM distorted and has *never* (emphasis added) looked back to question or check." with say, Hunter's laptop, BLM (especially its founders), the Floyd riots, the vax mandates (jab or lose your job) and a few hundred other fabrications that escape my mind at the moment.
Thanks again for your thoughts. And for engaging civilly with me, as well as being very direct about your own biases. All is appreciated!!
(One of my own biases is that whenever someone writes about absolutes, like "never" or "always," that stirs up curiosity and I want to find out if there's at least one exception, or even a number of them. :) )
Wondering if we might have some common agreement somewhere in the middle – not Gurwinder's dreaded 'averaging,' but rather some genuine consensus around facts – in this?
My naive impression is that the mainstream media (at least the large corporate part of it, which overall leans somewhat politically and socially left in the USA) can often:
* Get caught up in "groupthink" in advancing conventional narratives.
* Be slow – months or even years later – to question those original narratives, which can leave many readers/viewers still clinging to their erroneous early impressions.
* Be far less vigorous in its corrections and/or introspection ("what went wrong?") as they were in advancing its original narratives.
Is that an impression that we both share, even as we may agree or disagree about the specifics of whether any particular large story has seen sufficient correction and/or introspection? (The examples you gave were great – these four, much less many others that may also exist! And it'd be really interesting to explore sometime how much elements of the MSM have critically looked back at their early takes, with each of these four stories, in particular.)
FWIW, I'd argue – based on my own casual impressions only, which could well be wrong – that the 'alt-right' media ecosystem (e.g. Daily Caller, The Federalist, Gateway Pundit) is even worse at this. Corrections there seem few and far between.
It just takes guts – and goes against natural incentives – for some reporter, editor, editorial board, or corporation to publicly admit they were wrong and even put time, money, and effort into digging into the 'why,' so that they do better next time. People get embarrassed and don't want to look bad. And they might fear doing so will hurt their bottom line, costing them readership/viewership, subscriptions, and advertising.
Yet ironically, when they do so, that gives them more credibility, as well as improving the quality of their work – and their impact on society.
One more take. I've really, really enjoyed this article, and recommend it to you and all:
https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-the-narratives-b91ea06ddf63
"Long before the 2016 election, the mainstream news media lost the trust of the public ..."
Hey, I'll happily meet you in the middle!
I don't have that many solid beliefs, but one of them is that there is almost always a compromise position, and that sane adults (and a responsible political class) should always be looking for ways to emphasize commonality over difference, peace over discord.
I think when I dig into my animosity toward the modern MSM journalist what gets my goat isn't necessarily their mistakes or rush to judgment, it's the sharp-edged Manichaean moralism, the modern online tendency to denounce opponents as not just mistaken but as EVIL, and thus beyond the moral pale. I can deal with writers and thinkers and their foibles, but priests and Church Ladies are the ultimate whited sepulchers.
Also, my wife is a writer who knows a bunch of the NYTimes Brooklyn clerisy, and in the Trump era they've morphed into these neurotic condescending petty tyrants who imagine themselves as both morally and intellectually superior, and their piety (esp in re their supposed adoration of the marginalized) is absolutely nauseating. (But of course this doesn't absolve their right-wing counterparts or mean they're any better.)
But I know it's important to always keep an eye on one's own biases and certitudes, and Gurwinder and his commenters really help w this.
Thanks for the link, I will add to my reading pile.
Cheers!
Don't forget how the Russians blew up their own bridge and pipeline please!
Great comment. I would say being a contrarian on most things right now would already point you in the right direction on how to think about some of these issues. And this does not necessarily pigeon hole you into the "contrarian" class either. I think a good mix of all these kinds of thinking is probably best, and then of course being able to take all of these ways of thinking and forming a unique and authentic opinion. Because what you should do more of may change between times as well. Perhaps one day it may be better to be a conformist than a contrarian on most things, etc.
Life is rarely between black and white options. I'm finding more and more that it is a large balance between things, how much of the things, and at the right times to do/think about the things.
Some very good thoughts in this article and very thought provoking. That said, at the risk of sounding like a #2 NPC, I have to say I agree with Clever Pseudonym 100%. Okay, maybe 99%. In any event, us "conspiracy theorists" have been right more often than ever during the plandemic, and I don't know where any apologies or retractions are happening in mainstream media about their lies. I haven't heard any, for example, for their constant reaffirming that the jab stopped "Covid" in its tracks. How many people thought this would be their magic freedom pill only to find out that MSM was only parroting the lies of Pfizer and the like? Still waiting for the apologies. Still waiting for the purgers (Fauci, et al) to face consequences.
Yes theres some counterfactuals sprinkled in.
Note: the "contrarian" is still on the left.
This is thanks to the virutual perpetuity instilled upon anything outside of government, such as biology, sex, physics, reality, as "establishment".
When the governmnet is against reality, they can still rally ranks of "contrarians" to fight against reality, with them, maintaining their "skeptic status" while pushing regime talking points.
This is s fatal flaw in the mild whattabboutism presented here.
The contrarians outlined here are in fact NPCs as well.
Seems you are in the 'Contrarian' category and amply demonstrate the 'not holding their sources' to the same standards. Example. Read the Mueller report. Neither hoax nor hysteria. Extensive contact between Trump campaign associates and Russia, and of obstruction (evidence witheld/destroyed).
WOw. Well you got some balls to present that without irony here.
'Here' being a place where people comment on something without having read it (the Mueller) yet consider themselves 'free thinkers'. There's the irony. Anyone who uncritically repeats Trump's refrain about the 'Russia Hoax' is not a serious person.
And fascinating that the example he raises to illustrate is of course "Trump". This totalizing explanation of all harms of course reminds us of the old ones: Kulak, Jew, etc.
Im not repeating Trumps refrain. (are you repeating Bob Mueller's and projecting?)
Im going with all the indiepoendent journalism.
but Ill let your comments stand here for other readers to assess.
This is a fascinating ascent, shown in real time, as it were, as leftists always do, away from the immediate discussion and towards an immediate appeal to authority, projection, "deconstructing" concepts ("Free thinkers"), soft ad hominem, without ever digging in on the topic at hand.
once you see it folks.......
thanks for the real time demo for all to see.
Signed,
"Not a serious person"
please disregard any/all utterances, regardless of detail from me, from here on out.
An independent observer might also read your response as 'projection'. You seem to be arguing with an imagined opponent as the use of the term 'leftist' attests.
I note also that you did not say you had read the Mueller report rather that you had 'gone with all the independent journalism'. There's your appeal to authority. "All the independent journalism" is a hyperbolic claim, and not really credible. If this self-styled 'independent journalism' has reached consensus maybe its because you are reading the sources circulating in your bubble and dismissing dissenters as 'leftists'.
> It may not be the best intellectual hygiene to always reflexively disbelieve any of MSM narratives
Don't reflexively disbelieve them. But don't necessarily believe them either, unless (1) it is over a matter that is not an ideological controversy (so they have less motive to lie), or (2) there is independent confirmation.
Ironic, the believer in MSM cautions against disbelieving MSM.
the left is remarkably heavy on belief as a knowledge modality, then accuses everyone around them of it.
Social medial is just like everything else. It is evolving. Correcting the mistakes as it pushes forward.
This was written to perfection! And it hit so close to home too. I have shared this on my social media and I hope more people read this!! Thank you for writing!!
This post comes to all the right conclusions about how to school oneself out of being an opinionated arse. But it misses something nevertheless because it assumes a world in which everyone is too opinionated in one way or another and could do with being less so.
But there are millions of people (they're not on Substack or TwitterX; they neither read The New York Times nor Takimag etc) who find the whole idea of having strong opinions a bit of a turn off. I'm not particularly championing these people (because maybe they could do with having a bit more curiosity) just pointing out that they exist in huge numbers and don't fit with this NPC rubric.
Wouldn’t these people generally be tribalists? I know people (including extended family) who have zero interest in reading or learning, but have strong opinions they act in accordance with (generally unconsciously). For one example, few “return to traditional values” people independently and thoughtfully came to the conclusion that marriage is supposed to be only between a man and woman, and that the man ought to be in charge.
I'd probably categorize most of the people Graham speaks of as conformists. Lacking strong opinions, they tend to default to societal consensus, relying on Google, Wikipedia, etc. But yes, the "return to traditional values" people you speak of are probably tribalists, as their appeals to tradition are usually rooted in tribal beliefs (religion, patriotism, etc).
The people I was thinking of probably neither Google nor Wikipedia. For example an elderly friend of mine asked me the other day "what does Woke mean?...I keep hearing people talking about it on the telly".
I’m deliberately trying to have as few opinions as possible. I aim to have my default position be “it’s complicated”. I AM mentally lazy, but it is perfectly possibly to recognize one’s ignorance and remain neutral. Sometimes, anyway.
Ah yes, all religious people are just tribalists, as opposed to us enlightened freethinkers. WE have overcome such primitive behaviors…
practices is perhaps a better word than belief here
Fair comment....the point I was making was, like most things, more where one is on a spectrum that an absolute category divide. But the people I'm thinking of will have way FEWER opinions that people on a Substack thread like this.
I have a friend who claims he doesn't read any news but when Putin's name comes up he rails that he is a tyrant.... ie. he reads whatever google feeds him on his phone that he's on all the time.
Insightful. I can definitely see myself and others here. And the reminder that we are being controlled by algorithms is a crucial understanding.
This illuminating piece defines my personal struggle against swinging like a pendulum between thesis & antithesis, from one tribe to another and more. It requires constant self-vigilance. But the strange thing is that 3 years of this practice (and writing a Substack about it) has made me happier and less neurotic.
Thirty years ago, in my freelance writing days, I was preparing for a trip to east/southern Africa. I had a lowly job at a major media organization, which gave me access to a ton of information (pre-internet), and I prepared like mad. The more I learned, the more I realized how complex the subject was (this also happened for a radio doc I did, I spent so much time researching it I think my ultimate pay was about fifty cents an hour). Anyway, it became overwhelming. I wound up spending two years there, and the net result was that after all the research and time spent, I became more and more reticent about offering opinions, and less certain of my positions. It was odd, in a way - I knew quite a lot more than most of the people around me, but often had less to say. I feel similarly about anything controversial which interests me now - sometimes the more you learn, the harder it is to have a clear position. I'm now 60, and there are topics which I take an interest in and, while I may have a view about them, I don't believe I have enough information, so I don't say much. There are many other topics, and they can be important ones, where I just decide it doesn't much matter what I think and it would take too much work to develop a good defense of my position. (that said, there is one complex issue which sucked me in last year and I've devoted hundreds of hours to getting to an understanding of it, and can offer my views with quite a bit of confidence; ironically, I rarely do, because it's such a hot potato). ftr, I've never really belonged to a tribe, even back in high school I floated between various groups.
If you have nuance in your head, please add it to the conversation when that information is relevant! Not being a passionate partisan is not a reason to stay silent, it is a reason to speak up!
Another instant classic 🙌
This excellent piece got me thinking about the pernicious phenomenon of NPCs rationalizing their own NPC position by mischaracterizing a position taken by another person as NPC.
I find that progressives often dismiss even the slightest disagreement with their orthodoxy as automatically tribalist on the other side. For them, you can’t be liberal unless you completely agree with them. Anyone slightly disagreeing with trans orthodoxy, or even just disagreeing with trans activist tactics, must be transphobic.
I’ve also been accused of being an averager, and thus dismissed, by people who wrongly assume that I’m proceeding from the idea that the truth is always in the middle. The frustrating aspect of that is that they’ve correctly identified averagers as a dubious group, but wrongly assumed that anyone whose opinion is moderate must be an averager.
Excellent post. I will now fulfill my NPC programming and share on Facebook.
Good stuff, thanks for it!
Makes me think it's time to upgrade Tolkien's quote "Not all who wander are lost" to "Probably should look into that whole wandering thing."
As an NPC #2 I think being a contrarian is a better mental shortcut than being a conformist. Our batting average about what is true is better than that of conformists. But that’s exactly what one would predict a contrarian would say ;)
Ha! I'd say conformists have by far the best batting average. Most of the information we depend on in our lives, from effects of drugs to maps of the world, requires us to trust institutions.
Institutions can become untrustworthy over time. Then, it sucks to remain a conformist.
In the past few years the credibility of the institutions has taken a big hit. I’m also old enough to remember when the consensus making institutions told us invading Iraq was a good idea. It took them years to course correct and admit it was a disaster. On major issues they have been repeatedly wrong. Which is why I am a contrarian NPC
Some institutions seem to be in decline since quite some time at least here in Germany.
The Catholic and Protestant Church have devolved into political party organs.
The education system is in steep decline, including university. I have seen people graduating with a PhD which were obviously so stupid that they would not have gone to university at all 20 years earlier and would not have finished high school 40 years earlier. In addition, I got the feeling even in the 90ies that indoctrination was on the rise in public schools while education was in decline.
Politicians nowadays show open contempt for the people they are governing. The will of the people is ignored. A good example: shortly before the unification of Germany, the media ran a poll in a live show on TV whether the Western German people are pro or contra the unification. When the poll reached 85% contra votes they just closed it as if nothing had happened at all. Funnily, the Eastern Germans are nowadays an approved enemy of the regime and their media lapdogs as they don't vote as expected. Politicians don't have to resign anymore if they are exposed as frauds.
The media have devolved into a propaganda organ of the state and corporations. Sure, they also report some truths but if something goes against their ideology, it is either ignored or twisted into a lie.
The Covid debacle destroyed a lot of trust in the medical establishment.
I could go on and on...most of our institutions reek of putrefaction. Quite a few people think that reform is impossible.
The German state is increasingly aggressive in stamping out dissent.
If covid taught us anything, it's that people are more fearful of losing their jobs than of not telling the truth. And that institutions are the very things those with malevolent intentions need to control. Control the big institutions and you control the conformists. And that works pretty well until you alienate enough of them. The return of covid 2.0 should tell us what the ratio of the control group is to the rest of us. Interesting times!!
And if you think the world is not run by malevolent folks, then why is there a proxy war in the Ukraine that has killed or injured about half a million young Ukrainians? To save democracy???
I would say it requires us to apply "the principle of limited trust" so our institutions are in check and people in those institutions are less likely to deceive and pursue interest which are against people.
Institutions are hired by people because they spend tax money. If they do a bad job, we can fire people in those institutions or dismantle the institutions to hire new people or new institutions.
This was especially true during Covid. The fact finding function of science was hijacked by one science “tribe” (fauci etc.). This made the often correct conformist suddenly more wrong than the contrarian. Other consensus making experts were ignored or worse. I’m thinking of Dr. Jay Battacharria, Dr McCullough and others.
Very interesting, provocative essay. Concerning the conclusion:
"Your brain will always try to save time when forming beliefs — it’s what it does — but the best way to save time is not to take a shortcut to “truth,” it’s to take no route at all. So if you want to stop being an NPC, simply say “I don’t know” on all the matters that don’t concern you. And this will give you the time to not be an NPC on all the matters that do."
If Robin Hanson were here, he would say that prediction markets are a way to induce this sort of behavior. You are less likely to spout an uninformed opinion if money is at stake. He might also say that cognitive strategies are not about truth-finding. They are strategies for playing status games.
Interesting, and engagingly written. But isn’t it all just the same thing? Don’t we all just pick up shit along the way, store it in the rolodex, and pull it out when it seems like it’ll fit? For everything... analyse how we act and it is a robot trying to fit past thinking onto the present. Sometimes its essential (stay away from the red berries. Tom died yesterday remember).... most of the time, it’s horseshit. Particularly when it comes to thinking about how our society is structured.
Plus, and i’ll happily hold my hand up if i’ve missed something in the article, hasn’t this trait of ours and it’s sound evolutionary requirement, been ruthlessly exploited and strengthened in us, by a societal system that teaches us to only seek knowledge from authority, and an education system that values regurgitation above all else.
Oops, fat thumbed that publish button -
An interesting person to read on how this functions throughout our psyche, and what can happen if you simply let go of that cycle of thought (much easier said than done) is Jiddhu Krishnamurti.
What an interesting way to look at the world. It's funny how easy it is to see others being NPCs and how difficult it is to see it in ourselves? Your first category reminded me of an Ayn Rand quote (loosely paraphrased), from Hank Reardon: "Mrs. X doesn't exist. She is just the sum of all clever opinions she has ever heard."
I feel the averager is the trickiest hole to get yourself out from. And that is because an averager has a way to neutralize a shock when experienced. Because there is nothing to protect, they can't suffer the loss of having to let a vital belief go. All other forms of NPCs have the potential to shake themselves out of their delusion if their worldview somehow collapses. The scary part is that the averager in times of peace seems virtuous and civilized when in fact in times of crisis when principles are most needed, can take a horrifying position as easily.
Are you talking about Germany in WW2 or America in Covid2?
A lot of the culprit of the bot like behavior of people is how our life online has been gamified. Status, followers, clickbait and performance. But if we are in a gamified matrix performing as actors, the truth or beliefs don't actually matter. Being right or wrong has never mattered so little.