Many journalists are above all narrative crafters. They know that half the battle is getting people to talk about their target. Often this is simply whatever promises the juiciest prolonged story, but increasingly something ideologically motivated—fitting a bigger narrative. 2/5
Atlanta offers another example of this: the media's rush to frame Richard Jewell as the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bomber. Though it gave them a compelling news narrative while the facts remained unknown, it proved false (and nearly destroyed Jewell's life). 3/5
Though in that case most of the media were careful to avoid explicitly accusing Jewell of the bombing, they knew that simply focusing attention on him—alongside any facts that could be crafted into a narrative pointing to his guilt—would give them a compelling story. 4/5
The point is to recognize that journalists are strategic and selective about what they talk about and what they avoid, and the narrative that naturally flows from a news story often has little to do with the actual story. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This doesn’t mean showmanship lacks a place. On the contrary, leaders have employed it in every age. It may be more important than ever in our tumultuous time as traditional sense-making methods collapse. 2/8
But as digital technologies have allowed so many empty illusions to be unmasked, many digital natives instinctively seek proof of something deeper—an authentic commitment to the message, skin in the game, soul in the game—after their attention is grabbed. 3/8
I’ve noticed a curious linguistic pattern over the past few years. A sort of person—typically in educated/credentialed circles—who usually goes out of his way to sound circumspect likes to emphasize the word “lie” to describe statements by Trump. 🧵 1/11
This by itself would not be striking, except that such people almost never use that word (or similarly strong language) to describe *anything* else. A pretense of quasi-elite society today is to maintain a tone of “neutrality” marked by extreme circumspection; 2/11
...in a world where nearly everything is subjective—from morality to history to gender identity—this means the strongest claim such people typically make is that something is the best argument or “most reasonable position.” 3/11
I suspect this tweet particularly disturbs establishment-right types because of the uncomfortable questions it raises about immigration and fit in American political culture. 🧵
Many presume that immigrants—especially refugees, and certainly those who achieve the “American dream”—tend to be model Americans, and base many policies on this idealistic assumption.
Yet when people like Nguyen, who arrived as a refugee and achieved great professional success, express scorn for so much of American culture and values, it publicly throws that presumption into question.
The digital age has disrupted legacy media models. As mainstream advertisers become more politicized and censorious, any "dissident" views are increasingly punished.
Yet such media projects can be more valuable than ever. 1/11
The suppression of such views—any outside the ever-narrower bounds of woke political correctness—is not limited to mainstream media. These views are increasingly self-censored or punished in workplaces, schools, and social settings. 2/11
Institutions and activities that once connected people no longer suffice for projects where alignment around an independent point of view (POV) matters. Without alternatives, the connections that predicate such projects simply will not occur. 3/11
If an English prof with a large following doesn’t understand something in another field, she should consider what those in that space recognize, instead of jumping to a naive conclusion and sharing it with the world.
But it should not be a surprise such people are often given a platform in the Atlantic or favorable New Yorker profiles: the point is not to elevate the most thoughtful evangelical voices, but the people who can be counted on to tell us the right things.
Though @bpopken compares Musk unfavorably with Rockefeller and Carnegie for supposedly delaying serious giving, the bulk of Carnegie’s philanthropy began around age 65, and Rockefeller’s was also concentrated after age 60. Musk is 49.
2/6
Rockefeller and Carnegie had businesses generating significant cash flow for years by that point.
As recently as 2019 Musk was risking Tesla’s survival to bring out a lower-cost electric car (which could do more than billions of dollars of gifts to reduce emissions).
3/6