It's cowardice. The same thing happened in Germany in the 1930s. One editor stood up to Hitler. His name was Fritz Gerlich and everyone should know his name. He died in 1934 in Dachau but the lesson isn't that he died, the lesson is that he knew the risk and refused to back down. We need more Fritz Gerlichs right now
BothSides-ism is so vile. 97% of climate scientists say whatever..., but the media "has" to report the other side: scientists funded by Big Carbon. Sigh.
Always like to hear you talk at length about this stuff; like “the tolerance paradox” applied specifically to your area of expertise.
Closely related to what you’ve said before about “sanewashing” but this contrast of “intent vs impact” feels pretty illuminating too. Especially on the topic of far-right extremism in North America.
~elaboration~
When reporting is framed in terms of large-scale systemic impact of an action, passing judgement on the individual and assuming their intent is less of a concern. You can stick to observable facts while still allowing room for meaningful judgement on the impact of the action.
But as the orgs where news is written become more entrenched in and consolidated with these systems, we see conflicting interests. There may be a kind of self-reinforcing incentive to frame more reporting in terms of individuals, lest news orgs open themselves up to meaningful judgment on the impact of their own actions in the systems with which they’re entangled.
Something like:
“If Musk can’t be held accountable for the higher-order effects of what he says and does, then we should be safe too, right?”
Or, less subtly:
“When the shadow-POTUS does a Nazi salute, best report in whatever manner is least likely to give anyone reason to think about how the past decade of our news coverage of emergent political extremism may have contributed to the existence of an information and political climate wherein a Nazi can become shadow-POTUS. Yeah, it was definitely just a weird gesture. Uh, sorry, I mean it was just two weird gestures. For sure. Just two instances of the same weird gesture. No sense looking into this further.”
To borrow that old phraseology: When it’s clearly getting darker outside, the journalist might be less inclined to actually bother looking out that window. They’re either just as afraid of the dark as anyone else, or they’re even more afraid of seeing their own reflection in the glass.
It's cowardice. The same thing happened in Germany in the 1930s. One editor stood up to Hitler. His name was Fritz Gerlich and everyone should know his name. He died in 1934 in Dachau but the lesson isn't that he died, the lesson is that he knew the risk and refused to back down. We need more Fritz Gerlichs right now
Excellent explainer! Thank you for this!
Keep calling them on it.
Glad I watched this, helps me realize I'm not going insane by all the spinning going on.
Brilliant Rachel
BothSides-ism is so vile. 97% of climate scientists say whatever..., but the media "has" to report the other side: scientists funded by Big Carbon. Sigh.
Always like to hear you talk at length about this stuff; like “the tolerance paradox” applied specifically to your area of expertise.
Closely related to what you’ve said before about “sanewashing” but this contrast of “intent vs impact” feels pretty illuminating too. Especially on the topic of far-right extremism in North America.
~elaboration~
When reporting is framed in terms of large-scale systemic impact of an action, passing judgement on the individual and assuming their intent is less of a concern. You can stick to observable facts while still allowing room for meaningful judgement on the impact of the action.
But as the orgs where news is written become more entrenched in and consolidated with these systems, we see conflicting interests. There may be a kind of self-reinforcing incentive to frame more reporting in terms of individuals, lest news orgs open themselves up to meaningful judgment on the impact of their own actions in the systems with which they’re entangled.
Something like:
“If Musk can’t be held accountable for the higher-order effects of what he says and does, then we should be safe too, right?”
Or, less subtly:
“When the shadow-POTUS does a Nazi salute, best report in whatever manner is least likely to give anyone reason to think about how the past decade of our news coverage of emergent political extremism may have contributed to the existence of an information and political climate wherein a Nazi can become shadow-POTUS. Yeah, it was definitely just a weird gesture. Uh, sorry, I mean it was just two weird gestures. For sure. Just two instances of the same weird gesture. No sense looking into this further.”
To borrow that old phraseology: When it’s clearly getting darker outside, the journalist might be less inclined to actually bother looking out that window. They’re either just as afraid of the dark as anyone else, or they’re even more afraid of seeing their own reflection in the glass.
What I think is that your podcasts would be an excellent basis for a high-school-level media literacy course.
You rock.