About a month ago, as I was browsing twitter, I stumbled upon the following article by Cathy Young:
https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/the-making-of-the-maga-hoax-about
At the time, talk about pet-eating Haitian immigrants was all over twitter. Donald Trump had just referenced it in the latest presidential debate, and his his running mate, J.D. Vance had tweeted about it. It was fascinating how the story played out. Every day, I would see a new story that supposedly validated the claim. Also every day, I would find that an earlier story had been debunked. Either it wasn’t about a Hatian, wasn’t about an immigrant, wasn’t in Springfield, or wasn’t about a pet getting eaten. The article seemed like it would be an interesting read.
Early on in the article, I came across the following paragraph:
It started with an X hatefest I happened to catch at the outset. On Sept. 7, a full three days before the debate, I saw left-wing-crank-turned-right-wing-loon Naomi Wolf share a post from misinformation superspreader End Wokeness (an account that may be run by far-right troll and Pizzagater Jack Posobiec), containing what seemed like an obviously made-up story: “ducks and pets” in Springfield, Ohio being gobbled up by Haitian migrants. The evidence: an anonymized Facebook post about a “neighbor’s friend’s daughter” who had seen her lost cat being carved up by the Haitians next door. I decided to post a sarcastic comment, unaware that I was wading into a dumpster fire.
Nothing about this paragraph is factually incorrect as far as I know, but something in there caught my eye: “Misinformation superspreader End Wokeness”
I am familiar with the End Wokeness twitter account. They’re pretty prominent on twitter, and they are not exactly what I would call trustworthy. I can understand why they might be described as an misinformation superspreader. That characterization isn’t entirely wrong, but even so, it put me on alert.
I think what I’m sensitive to is the way this pattern judges a thing at the same time it’s introduced. It wants me to make up my mind about who End Wokeness is before I’ve had the chance to evaluate them and come to my own conclusion.
When I see that pattern, it always puts me on alert. I’m so sensitive to it, that it sticks out like a sore thumb even in articles that I’m predisposed to agree with (like this one). “Misinformation superspreader” isn’t the only example of it here; “hatefest” “left-wing-crank-turned-right-wing-loon” and “far-right troll” are all examples of this pattern.
Furthermore, it’s trying to persuade me of something without being an actual argument. It’s like when a movie plays sinister music just to let me know that a character supposed to be bad. If I didn’t already know who End Wokeness was, I shouldn’t just take Cathy’s word for it that they’re a misinformation superspreader. Any writer can introduce someone with whatever label they want to, regardless of whether or not it’s accurate.
It also indicates bias. It makes Cathy seem predisposed to be against them. With an introduction like that, it seem unlikely that she would give them a fair shake. It may be that they don’t deserve a fair shake, but I still need to get my bearings as a reader. I can’t always be expected to already know who they are, and I need a way to validate their trustworthiness for myself.
Right-wing publications do this too. I think that Cathy herself would be sensitive to it in these cases. Take this passage for instance:
Just when you think the barrel-bottom standards at Politico cannot get any more bottomer or barreler, the disgraced outlet publishes talking points from a man who is not only facing murder charges, but who is alleged to have tried to commit one of the worst crimes imaginable: assassinating an individual who represents the will, hope, and future of tens of millions of Americans — and I would say the same about Kamala Harris had she been a target.
Does that seem like a reliable narrator to you? Do you think they’ll accurately present what the Politico really said? I know I wouldn’t trust them after reading the above paragraph. You can read the full article here.
I’m sure this sort priming is persuasive to some people. That’s probably why It’s so common. Still, it makes me feel skeptical, and I think for good reason. When I get skeptical like this, I’ll occasionally have the patience to go thorough the article, validating and double-checking the whole way through. Most of the time, however, I’m not that motivated, and I will probably decide the article isn’t worth engaging with.
This is a phenomenon I’ve been meaning to write about for some time. I don’t have anything against Cathy young, but when I read the article, the pattern really just jumped out at me, and it seemed like a good anchor point for this article. It’s an even more interesting case due to the fact that it’s an article that I essentially agree with, which means my aversion to it was pure sensitivity to the pattern, and not bias against the content itself.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I honestly don't even understand what you are attempting to say. Let me make myself as clear as possible.
The Republican position was "having almost 30% of your town become third worlders on welfare overnight sucks" and the Democrat position was "Having almost 30% of your town become third worlders on welfare overnight is awesome!"
The people in the town who can vote, voted by a nearly unprecedented margin "Yeah nah, it sucks". Like, that's not a lie with the specifics off. There was an actual vote, with actual numbers! We can check!
Were the stories about specific ways it sucks to have your town overrun by barbarians from a distant country inaccurate? Yeah. Were the stories about how totally well adjusted and harmonious everything is also inaccurate? Clearly. But the fundamental question of "Does this suck?" was overwhelmingly answered.
You’re grasping for the truth, clamoring for something to hold on to. It doesn’t prove that having haitians sucks. Springfield just voted that way, allegedly. And the legitimacy of the vote is something Trump has repeatedly attacked. He claimed ‘the actual numbers we can check’ were false. In that lie, those were the specifics that were off, which you dismiss here. In order to justify one lie, to diminish the truth-value of one statement, you have to rely on on the truth value of another statement, which your side has already destroyed. Lying’s been sawing the branch you’re sitting on.
I’m not a fan of haitian immigration. I’d just like to understand what you two (deep blue and deep red) are doing. You both apparently think lying is fine and advantageous for you, but immoral or counterproductive for the other.
I can't talk for deeply red or blue people, but I can talk for myself, as a big fan of the truth. I felt like I was lied to so much over the past decade that I barely know what truth is any longer. And it turned out I was right, the people in charge of information at every level were lying to everyone about almost everything. They lied about covid, about the economy, about Jan 6, about the laptop, about Biden's health, about immigration, about Kamala's chances of winning. How exactly do you find the truth when the people in charge of collecting data refuse to give it to you?
At least the lies Trump told uncovered an inconvenient truth being hidden by the democrat government, and yes, that is a better lie. When Trump starts lying to cover things up, I will be disappointed but unsurprised, I am a pessimist at heart and as everyone knows, politicians always lie. But all this talk about transparency and accountability gives me some hope we can course correct. It is at the very least better than the previous administration's open disdain for transparency and accountability.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link