Thread by @gorskon

This applies to *all* pundits regardless of topic or profession, actually.

An interesting (I hope) anecdote follows. 1/ mcgill.ca/science/outrea…

https://twitter.com/JHowardBrainMD/status/1425786396153978882

in 2010 I was invited by @joeschwarcz to speak about cancer quackery at the Trottier Symposium in Montreal, with @bengoldacre, @michaelshermer, and James Randi. It was a huge honor to me. 2/

The night before the symposium, there was a roundtable discussion with a lot more guests than just the main speakers. 3/

One part of the discussion that I remember (and will always remember) was when someone (I forgot who) said that pundits are chosen to appear on roundtable talking head shows based on how confident and certain they appear in their opinions and how concrete those opinions are. 3/

Basically, the idea is that on these shows (and their radio counterparts) nuance is penalized. If you are too nuanced, if you change your mind in response to arguments, if you, in effect, back down too easily, you won't get invited back on these shows. 4/

The reason is that it's all about the drama, the "debate' (argument, really). It's not about getting closer to the truth (or even just accurate conclusions). It's about the conflict. That doesn't mean that you have to be an obnoxious a-hole, just concrete and immovable. 5/

Not being a media professional in that area, I didn't know how accurate this was, but the assertion rang true. 6/

Just watching talking pundit shows on @CNN, @FoxNews, @MSNBC, etc. sure did make me think that these shows value pundits who stake out concrete, easy-to-understand positions and then don't budge in the face of disconfirming arguments and data. 7/

Of course, incentives of wanting to be invited back aside, there's also the human tendency, once one stakes out a position and becomes publicly known for it, to defend that position to the death and be very, very reluctant to change in the face of disconfirming evidence. 8/

In the era of #COVID19, I think back to that roundtable discussion 11 years ago and see it as prescient. So many of these COVID contrarians do exactly what was described. I'm not saying they do it intentionally (although no doubt some do). 9/

Rather, they find themselves invited on these shows because of their contrarian positions, with more invitations the better known they become. As they become better known, it gets harder and harder for them to admit that they might have been wrong. 10/

What if news actually rewarded more nuanced takes? What if it wasn't about the conflict or the "interesting" or "radical" contrarian take on #COVID19? Where would we be now? 11/11