The readers of this Substack most likely already follow Matt Taibbi’s Racket News, but if you missed it, this recent piece on the disinformation industry is quite revealing.
Another great piece that came out this week traces the potential paths that have led to censorship, the firing of Tucker Carlson, and the decline of the media industry in general.
You know, publishing this schlock about how poor little Republicans ("respected figures") are being oppressed for expressing their views about how vaccines are evil and deadly under the rubric "the truth tellers" tarnishes this whole publication.
As an academic research and instruction librarian, I'm bewildered by the abysmal evidentiary threshold implied by some of the content produced and shared here.
1) Last I checked, ad hominem, strawman argumentation, guilt by association, and faulty generalization were logical fallacies. You clearly did not read the referenced pieces if you think they are about "poor little Republicans" (neither Matt Taibbi nor Glenn Greenwald identify as Republican; RFK Jr. is running as a Democrat; Andrew Lowenthal is not even American).
2) I'm confused why we would hold commentary about current events to the same standard as academic research? False equivalency is also a logical fallacy. What exactly about citing commentary informed by primary evidence of what journalists have come to call the censorship industrial complex do you find bewildering or abysmal?
I haven't read the first linked article; my comments pertain to the second one.
"I could tell the people on it were lying, and I could feel subliminal things being done in the broadcast to manipulate my emotions, my state of mind and my beliefs"
"Subliminal" means of mass persuasion, like "brain-washing", is mythology. That someone expresses belief in such things -- or, even worse, presupposes they are real phenomena but are themselves special snowflakes endowed with greater powers of discernment and resistance than the supposedly gullible multitudes -- is a good reason to downgrade credence in their epistemic reliability on matters bearing on how human psychology is designed by natural selection to navigate communicated information.
Regarding "popular misconception of propaganda," what is your conception of propaganda? Is it that you believe it exists but people aren't persuaded by it?
I read both linked pieces. Tucker Carlson knowingly lied to his audience on air multiple times, and tried to get Fox’s fact-checker fired, because apparently facts annoy him. So that is why the juxtaposition threw me. Because he is a known liar. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/business/media/fox-dominion-lawsuit.html
On the other hand, the New York Times spent years lying about WMDs in Iraq, so difficult to know who is telling the truth, which is why I don't think "conspiracy theorist" is necessarily a bad thing to be.
Also, I love conspiracy theories! My last name is Forrestal! (Do a quick Google for James V. Forrestal, first US Secretary of Defense.) But all these recycled anti-Semitic garbage tropes like George Soros is gonna make you eat bugs have given conspiracy theorists a bad name. You’ll have to take that up with them.
I don't think it is anti-Semitic to criticize Soros. The same people who don't like Soros don't like Gates, and he's not Jewish. Soros is a billionaire and he has caused a certain amount of havoc in his past and meddles in countries he does not live in so I think he is fair game.
Unfortunately I can't think of one right now. Maybe there never was a truly "neutral" source, although some may have at least aimed for that. But when I was growing up it seemed like talk show programs were much more willing to have a variety of voices on their shows and people were much more willing to discuss topics across the aisle.
Yes but if you have a zillion voices, adding more noise to that mix doesn’t help anyone get closer to the truth. Oh the damage Oprah did by having outright scammers on her show.
I never watched Tucker (I don't have a TV) but I did notice secondhand that he was willing to have a lot of people on his show that other people wouldn't.
I read mostly through that article before realizing Jenny Holland is a TERF, and while that is useful information to have, life is too short for me to engage with people who deny humanity to me or my loved ones. Also, Rupert Murdoch doesn’t fire people for being woke. He fires people for costing him money. Why are we pretending that woke America got him fired?! That’s just wild to me. Woke America has wanted him fired for AGES. He got himself fired. For once in his life he is meeting the consequences of his actions.
I don't know how I missed this one until today. I think we have to be careful. "Stating a heterodox viewpoint" is NOT the same as "truth telling." Some heterodox viewpoints are bone-deep bullshit and some tired cliches are perfectly factually accurate. And, a frustrating point for those who wish to be convinced of timeless truths is that what is bullshit now can become true later and vice-versa. That's why we have to let it all hang out as often as possible. But I think we do our philosophical stance a disservice when we stand before a temporal snapshot of the moment's information in flux and point to one of the public information-suppliers and label him a "truth teller." I would hesitate to call ANY public figure a truth teller, especially a Tucker Carlson type. "Viewpoint supplier" could work. "Aggressive and vocal doubter of official narratives." But "truth teller" is more loaded than the nachos at an upscale bar.
As far as the "truth" I agree it can only be approximated, but in the second link the author is describing an "Emperor's New Clothes" type of situation, where I think the description does hold.
You know, publishing this schlock about how poor little Republicans ("respected figures") are being oppressed for expressing their views about how vaccines are evil and deadly under the rubric "the truth tellers" tarnishes this whole publication.
To each his own.
Agree with curiositykeeper.
As an academic research and instruction librarian, I'm bewildered by the abysmal evidentiary threshold implied by some of the content produced and shared here.
We always welcome response pieces.
Huge respect for your willingness to face criticism.
1) Last I checked, ad hominem, strawman argumentation, guilt by association, and faulty generalization were logical fallacies. You clearly did not read the referenced pieces if you think they are about "poor little Republicans" (neither Matt Taibbi nor Glenn Greenwald identify as Republican; RFK Jr. is running as a Democrat; Andrew Lowenthal is not even American).
2) I'm confused why we would hold commentary about current events to the same standard as academic research? False equivalency is also a logical fallacy. What exactly about citing commentary informed by primary evidence of what journalists have come to call the censorship industrial complex do you find bewildering or abysmal?
If I recall correctly Midwestern Doc wrote he was a Democrat and former socialist.
I haven't read the first linked article; my comments pertain to the second one.
"I could tell the people on it were lying, and I could feel subliminal things being done in the broadcast to manipulate my emotions, my state of mind and my beliefs"
Yeah, I bet.
Also, problems with invoking "logical fallacies":
https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html
That's called propaganda.
Or rather popular misconception of propaganda.
"Subliminal" means of mass persuasion, like "brain-washing", is mythology. That someone expresses belief in such things -- or, even worse, presupposes they are real phenomena but are themselves special snowflakes endowed with greater powers of discernment and resistance than the supposedly gullible multitudes -- is a good reason to downgrade credence in their epistemic reliability on matters bearing on how human psychology is designed by natural selection to navigate communicated information.
https://reason.com/2020/02/09/people-are-less-gullible-than-you-think/
https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/what-do-you-really-know-about-gullibility
https://www.persuasion.community/p/propaganda-almost-never-works?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=61579&post_id=108590894&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Phs2TgK9Pkfu4iiJqkh_VsLIM3vRKZ9c/view?usp=sharing
Regarding "popular misconception of propaganda," what is your conception of propaganda? Is it that you believe it exists but people aren't persuaded by it?
On another note, ABC News just ran a televised interview with RFK Jr. where they CUT OUT many of his responses, labelling them as disinformation. https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1651773745336295425
This headline over a picture of Tucker Carlson is JARRING.
Read the second piece.
I read both linked pieces. Tucker Carlson knowingly lied to his audience on air multiple times, and tried to get Fox’s fact-checker fired, because apparently facts annoy him. So that is why the juxtaposition threw me. Because he is a known liar. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/business/media/fox-dominion-lawsuit.html
On the other hand, the New York Times spent years lying about WMDs in Iraq, so difficult to know who is telling the truth, which is why I don't think "conspiracy theorist" is necessarily a bad thing to be.
What is a source you consider neutral?
Also, I love conspiracy theories! My last name is Forrestal! (Do a quick Google for James V. Forrestal, first US Secretary of Defense.) But all these recycled anti-Semitic garbage tropes like George Soros is gonna make you eat bugs have given conspiracy theorists a bad name. You’ll have to take that up with them.
I don't think it is anti-Semitic to criticize Soros. The same people who don't like Soros don't like Gates, and he's not Jewish. Soros is a billionaire and he has caused a certain amount of havoc in his past and meddles in countries he does not live in so I think he is fair game.
Unfortunately I can't think of one right now. Maybe there never was a truly "neutral" source, although some may have at least aimed for that. But when I was growing up it seemed like talk show programs were much more willing to have a variety of voices on their shows and people were much more willing to discuss topics across the aisle.
I can imagine back in the day where a show like Donahue might have had on both feminists and transgender women and led a dialogue between them.
The only way to get near the truth is to allow a variety of voices to be aired.
Yes but if you have a zillion voices, adding more noise to that mix doesn’t help anyone get closer to the truth. Oh the damage Oprah did by having outright scammers on her show.
They have a clip here of Tucker Carlson saying on air that he had not been able to find any facts to support the claims against Dominion, so apparently he said publicly what he was also expressing privately. https://rumble.com/v2kbilm-the-real-reason-tucker-carlson-was-fired-by-fox-news.html?fbclid=IwAR0hJij5d8E--AzKGQvIu2kOjMHI_Xfs6O0Fg_ibYi35NG3b8wsRK_1Tjxs
I never watched Tucker (I don't have a TV) but I did notice secondhand that he was willing to have a lot of people on his show that other people wouldn't.
Yes, he likes to platform racists and conspiracy theorists. I would argue that’s not necessarily a good thing.
Here is another take on Tucker Carlson from Jenny Holland: https://jennyeholland.substack.com/p/corporate-america-has-filed-for-divorce?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I read mostly through that article before realizing Jenny Holland is a TERF, and while that is useful information to have, life is too short for me to engage with people who deny humanity to me or my loved ones. Also, Rupert Murdoch doesn’t fire people for being woke. He fires people for costing him money. Why are we pretending that woke America got him fired?! That’s just wild to me. Woke America has wanted him fired for AGES. He got himself fired. For once in his life he is meeting the consequences of his actions.
I don't know how I missed this one until today. I think we have to be careful. "Stating a heterodox viewpoint" is NOT the same as "truth telling." Some heterodox viewpoints are bone-deep bullshit and some tired cliches are perfectly factually accurate. And, a frustrating point for those who wish to be convinced of timeless truths is that what is bullshit now can become true later and vice-versa. That's why we have to let it all hang out as often as possible. But I think we do our philosophical stance a disservice when we stand before a temporal snapshot of the moment's information in flux and point to one of the public information-suppliers and label him a "truth teller." I would hesitate to call ANY public figure a truth teller, especially a Tucker Carlson type. "Viewpoint supplier" could work. "Aggressive and vocal doubter of official narratives." But "truth teller" is more loaded than the nachos at an upscale bar.
As far as the "truth" I agree it can only be approximated, but in the second link the author is describing an "Emperor's New Clothes" type of situation, where I think the description does hold.