Thread by @EricRWeinstein

1/n Have you wondered why folks you previously thought of as Left of Center, are appearing on @TuckerCarlson, @EpochTimes, @theblaze, etc.?

It’s effectively the story behind this tweet. Before 2011, outfits like @npr were left leaning news services. About 10yrs ago that changed.

https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1561695035069870080

I used to talk to folks at @cnn, @npr, @washingtonpost etc all the time on inflation, physics, immigration, science policy, etc. Then, mysteriously reporters slowly started complaining about the situation at work much more. It seemed like we went from news with spin to narrative.

Narrative driven news was the @nytimes special brand. On the one hand it *was* written with lively prose. On the other hand, I hated the idea that the narrative arc was constructed to fit facts that sometimes hadn’t even happened yet.

This idea of narrative beyond spin took off.

Reporters started warning me:

“We’re hiring kids who don’t believe in objective factual reporting.”

“We’re being pushed to be on Twitter.”

“Editors aren’t letting our best stories through as much.”

“I can’t use you any more if you aren’t going to play ball. It sucks. Sorry.”

I can probably figure out the last time a reporter called me up trying to understand a story as opposed to trying to get grist for a gotcha piece. But it seems like years ago.

So what happened? Many democrats tried to go back to @NPR etc., but found a door slammed in their face.

Eventually we took the hint. Journalism at prestige legacy media properties was changing. News desks were dropping stories entirely that didn’t fit house narratives. They weren’t forced to report them and spin them. They would just spike a story that previously would be a scoop.

And this lead to a question: “If @FoxNews is willing to run and spin a story that @nytimes or @cnn is pretending doesn’t exist, do I go on that channel?”

Now at first you think “Why would left leaning media push smart left leaning academicians to the Right?” But then you get it.

The answer is that if you’re a Democrat in the US who doesn’t agree with the new crazy direction of the party and its media, then in the new world you need to become one of two things:

A) Silent
B) identified with the discredited far loony tunes Right.

Hence: “You went on Fox!”

So you’ll see the following tweet: “If you want to know who Prof. ABC **really** is, look at where she chooses to appear!”

But the good doctor ABC isn’t making this choice. She is choosing not to be silenced by media that stopped reporting and started defending news narratives.

So expect more & more ordinary dissenting Professors, Physicians, Economists, Technologists to show up on Right of center platforms.

They aren’t making the choice you are being led to believe they are. Ask instead “Why did you CHOOSE @Fox over @NPR?”

And then you’ll learn why.

The last piece of diabolical BS is you will hear this “Boo hoo. People with enormous platforms whine about being cancelled or silenced. Go cry to your millions of listeners.”

Not the point. Institutions can ignore almost any individuals with large followings, but not big media.

The point of cancellation is making sure that you have to go on @joerogan to spread reasoned dissent. If you could really do it through legacy media it would FORCE hearings. It would force disclosures. It would force resignations. But experts can’t get the needed access anymore.

MORAL: When you want to know why dissenting democrats are all over Right wing media, it is largely about blackballing all those who would disassemble the house narrative and strategies of the institutions. Legacy media is by and *for* institutions now. That’s why it seems insane.

Don’t fall for the “Dr. XYZ went on the EPOCH TIMES!!” It’s a trick. Learn it.

Instead ask: “Why didn’t you go on @MSNBC, @npr, @nytimes, @cnn instead.

And brace yourself for the answer.

Thanks!

End

🙏