A few weeks ago, I posted this about the tricky subject of amplification. Today I would say "an" emerging divide, not THE. For there are many. (Short thread) 1/
Alerted by @oliverdarcy, I just listened to this episode of Season Four in the Slow Burn podcast, produced by @Slate. Season Four is about David Duke. slate.com/podcasts/slow-… In it, host @josh_levin explains why he has chosen not to interview Duke— that is, not to amplify him. 2/
The explanation @josh_levin gives for why he is not going to interview David Duke in a podcast season about Duke is one of the best I have heard. If you want to understand that "emerging divide" I mentioned, I urge you to listen. It starts at 09:12 slate.com/podcasts/slow-… 3/
To be clear, Duke's voice is heard repeatedly in the podcast, through audio clips. His arguments are made clear. So it's not a matter of keeping his point-of-view from listeners. "We’ll be sure to include Duke’s responses to allegations leveled against him," Levin says. But... 4/
"...His core beliefs—that black people are inferior to whites, that the Holocaust never happened—don’t deserve to be debated. And so, on this podcast, we’re not going to hand him the microphone."
That's an editorial call. It can be argued with. But there IS an argument here. 5/
That's an editorial call. It can be argued with. But there IS an argument here. 5/
Levin points to a 1974 appearance on Tom Snyder's NBC show, "Tomorrow." The two men sounded almost chummy together, he says, and plays a clip so you can hear it. "Snyder introduced Duke to a huge new audience. And I don't think he understood the gravity of that choice." 6/
First understand the gravity of your choices. That's where the debate around "amplification" begins. @josh_levin thought it through, and decided not to give David Duke, yes, a "platform."
I don't care if you've grown to hate that word. You still have to think it through. 7/
I don't care if you've grown to hate that word. You still have to think it through. 7/
To the question, "why are you amplifying that?" responses will have to be better than this. I think the arguments are strong for interviewing Bill Barr, and trying to get answers out of him. But Julie's question isn't crazy. And it's not going away. END
