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 applaud this writeup, and just want to share something on Cathy Young herself. I have a... fond?... opinion of her, as she was someone I used to read more of last decade.
Cathy Young, not to be confused with the Demcratic senatory Catherine Young who often goes by Cathy in media, is as an older-school republican, the sort most concerned with government proceduralism and how rule of law is handled (treating all people equally). She was an earlier opponent of progressive excess, and as a female journalist of clearly conservative leanings, she was able to carve a niche by being the contrarian to the expected demographic alignment (i.e. a jewish woman who was not a progressive democratic partisan for social justice).
Back then, and in the early Trump, she was something of a 'sane moderate' writer, who was sympathetic enough to give a fair hearing (and presentation) to rightwing people she personally clearly did not fully agree with, while resisting / calling out the excesses of leftwing actors who would be undoubtable in progressive media. She took some public stances that won her no friends, and contributed to her exile to the substack realm, where the sort of quippy/zippy/unprofessional judgments you speak of is more or a survival strategy since that's what the subscribers pay for. If you ever look at the venues she wrote for, you can see shifts by the presidential administration.
Two examples of the classic Cathy that stood out was that she was a relatively clear opponent of the Obama administration's zeitgast rape culture- with articles such as The Injustice of the 'Rape Culture' Theory- and in another she took a large stab at a major progressive media pinata, with the article (Almost) Everything You Know About GamerGate Is Wrong.
Cathy made some harsh critics with those articles, but they were also very much progressive cows she gored, so when I was reading OP's initial post I was surprised when I thought he was perceiving a left-wing bias. Looking back at those articles, though, it's also clear that she has always been rather... opinionated? Or at least very clear on her opinions on matter. The subtitle of the Rape-Culture article, after all, is "For those in the grips of hysteria, proof is the enemy," and her opinion on the Colombia University matress girl saga is similarly unsubtle.
Of course, she also gores in other directions. Cathy is an older-style Republican at heart, and while she rose in conservative media circles for her willingness (eagerness?) to oppose progressivism, her star fell with her opposition to Trump, proof that going sacred cows comes with drawbacks if you gore 'your' side. I don't recall her being an example of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the extreme, but she could reasonably be considered a Never Trump republican, or at least one who is far more down than up. You can read her thoughts on the initial Trump cabinet, and while it's clear she has some strong opinions, and doesn't intent to recant them, it's also notable that she at least tries to note counter-balancing points and doesn't go full doomer. (I believe her general position is 'Trump is bad and high-risk, but checks and balances can constrain the worst.')
In that respect, I'd chalk her up to the same category as the comments on Marina Hyde and Glenn Greenwald- being opinionated is part of her brand. You're not 'wrong' if it sets off your manipulation allergies, but it's less an attempt at subtle manipulation and more a result of her brand being one built on long repetition / expectation of similar tracks.
I follow Cathy on twitter, and generally like her. I also think she's almost entirely right about the substance of her article. She just did the thing in this article, and it stood out so much that it was a perfect example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link