Thread by @JeremyLittau

Can think of several moments when as a young reporter I thought I had a bombshell story and then it became a merely average story or not news at all after an editor poked at it with skeptical questions. Beware media folks who think they’re too big-brained for editorial standards.

https://twitter.com/robferdman/status/1601040075760234497

B+T are part of a larger collective of people who fled to Substack because they could no longer work within the checks-and-balances system of a newsroom. Sometimes editors are wrong. But the behind-the-scenes process of talking it out, defending it is critical to good journalism.

Normally I try to hear people out, but these folks have a track record of using data to fit a predetermined narrative that they have not earned the benefit of the doubt.

Consider their constant claims of "bombshell" as a necessary side effect of going it alone. They have to overhype everything to keep their paid subs, spin banal data into conspiracy. Otherwise there is no rationale to pay for paid propaganda you can get for free anywhere.

Literally everything has to be a bombshell that exposes the status quo. Free Thought(TM) is their brand. Everything against them is against Free Thought. Editors are censorship. Their whole reason for existing is to be contrarian. But after a while, that's a box of its own.

I pity them in a way. They claim independence but really are locked in a rhetorical prison of their own making. Nothing they disagree with can be good, thoughtful, or honest. Things cannot be merely the messy problem of change. Because their income depends on it being conspiracy.

You know what would be some really interesting journalism that is in the public interest from these files? Use the docs (ethically, mind you) to show how damn messy content moderation is. Help the public gain some empathy while showing us how fraught big tech power is.

Something that doesn't turn these deciders into supervillains. They often are just as worried about tech's power and overreach as detractors are. I know because I've met many of them.

It's easy to turn these folks into The Joker for clicks - T Files is taking the easy way out.

But back to my original point: a good editor would not let you come back with a bunch of selectively read docs and cherry-picked examples and let you get go unrestrained. And that's before the huge legal/ethical problems @moorehn was talking about earlier.

https://twitter.com/moorehn/status/1601162953314959362?s=20&t=mSZmDuJtLn8QU-kIW6E20A

And a good editor would ask what the story is here. OK, so moderation is messy. Why is that a scandal? Spell it out. What principle or duty is violated here? Ask skeptical questions of your assumption that it's a violation (i.e. what is the good-faith rationale for it to exist?)

For example, Kirk. So he was deboosted (I refuse to use their made-up term that sounds more nefarious than what's happening). But it's not like he had no voice. He's quite popular on here. I don't follow him but he's constantly in my feed. So is it harm or an attempt at balance?

There's a rhetorical game being played here. They cry for balance when they believe conservative views are suppressed, and they call it suppression when progressive voices are amplified to balance the very real fact that conservative voices tend to dominate social platforms.

So that, to my editor eye, is where this whole thing falls apart. There is no internal consistency to the rationale. There are data and screenshots, but they're being twisted to make a point they want to make in the moment while ignoring opposite hot takes *they* have made.

I suppose it's good TV to the people who, like Fox Mulder, Want To Believe. It scratches all those conspiracy itches.

But it's unserious and, worse, boring because the hype can't ever seem to match the earnest urgency they're projecting for the sake of a few more Substack subs.

(I don't have a Soundcloud but here's something I published today in Slate if you want to read my words about subsidizing local journalism: slate.com/technology/202… )