Presenting the purely ratings-driven platforming of a spectacle that only helps the far-right demagogue who tried to abolish democracy and constitutional government as a necessary civic service to get Libs and Lefties to leave their echo chambers is utterly cynical and insulting.
The claim itself is laughable. No one learned anything new last night. We are about 8 years into the Trump-as-leader-of-the-Right experience - there’s no journalistic justification for what CNN did. Forget the “exposing him” nonsense: If that actually worked, we wouldn’t be here.
This whole affair should serve as a reminder that the mainstream media will not change its approach. It’s futile to keep shouting “Have they learned nothing?!” They evidently haven’t - or, more precisely: They reject the lessons the (small-d) democratic camp wants them to learn.
The mainstream media is not coming to the rescue of American democracy. The struggle against both Trump the person and Trumpism the political formation will have to be won in spite of a media environment that provides fertile ground for this kind of rightwing extremism.
The cynical “You need to get out if your silo” spin is also indicative of how pervasive narratives of liberal “echo chambers” and “tribalism” on #BothSides - highly misleading dogmas that do not hold up empirically - are being weaponized in order to justify pseudo-journalism.
Let’s remember this every time we come across an “expert” or pundit who belongs to the sprawling industry that thrives on obscuring rather than clarifying the conflict with such “tribalism” nonsense and prescribes nothing but vacuous “reaching out” gospel. It’s actively harmful.
The argument is not that the established media should ignore Trump, that he and the forces that have fueled his rise would vanish if we only pretended they didn’t exist. But this wasn’t critical coverage - it was a spectacle staged in accordance with the demagogue’s preferences.
But we’ve been having this exact debate for many years. At this point, we are looking at a complete inability and/or unwillingness to “learn” - because financial incentives, ideological preferences, and the dogmas of neutrality-theater journalism all point in the same direction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We dissect the genealogy of the “cancel culture” idea in the U.S. and then turn our attention to Germany as a case study of how the moral panic has spread internationally. Across the “West,” the moral panic is, to a significant degree, a creation of the “respectable” center.
This is by far the longest episode we have ever released. And I promise it’s the deepest dive into the #CancelCulture discourse you could possibly hope for.
A thread outlining some of the key questions we discuss:
Let’s dive deep into the #CancelCulture moral panic, what it can tell us about U.S. society, culture, and politics, and how it has spread across the “West.” There is no one better equipped to help us do that than @adriandaub. 2/
The “cancel culture” narrative diagnoses a national emergency: an acutely dangerous situation in which radical “woke” leftists are undermining free speech by imposing an ever-more restrictive culture of censoriousness on the country, threatening anyone who dares to speak up. 3/
How White Men Have Always Fought – and Thought of Themselves
Reflections on the fallacies of Tucker Carlson discourse, what the Right *really* believes, and old-school white elite racism:
The latest act in the ongoing “Tucker Carlson’s Texts” drama: On May 2, the New York Times got hold of a message in which Carlson mused about “how white men fight” - or, rather, how they aren’t supposed to fight: 2/
Let’s leave aside the question of whether or not this specific message really played any significant role in Carlson’s firing: The text is actually interesting – as a window into the mind of the racist white elite. 3/
This perfectly encapsulates the fallacies of the “polarization” dogma: Zero engagement with the substantive issues that define the political conflict, just empty #BothSides rhetoric that dissolves everything into “Let’s be nice to each other” nothingness.
I don’t know the people behind this initiative, so I am not going to question their motives. But there are so many of these kinds of #unity projects, and if the goal actually is to get this country to become a functioning multiracial, pluralistic democracy, this isn’t helpful.
Apparently, everyone who approvingly responded to a thread in which I outlined the key arguments of our latest @USDemocracyPod on the problems with the pervasive #polarization narrative is now being addressed by these people and their empty unity gospel.
Everything about this is horrifying: The way this guy killed a man for being “annoying,” for making people uncomfortable; the way others helped him do it, the way so many are justifying such acts of violence.
And all of it is indicative of the kind of society the U.S. is.
It’s indicative of how this society treats the homeless, the mentally ill - of how the question of whether or not a person’s humanity is acknowledged very much depends on the color of their skin. A society in which the “comfort” of some is worth more than the lives of others.
It ties into the broader political conflict because it’s also indicative of a vision for society that has been the norm throughout U.S. history: A society in which some people - white men, in particular - have the absolute right to defend their place, status, and “comfort.”
“Polarization” not only obscures what the key challenge is – the anti-democratic radicalization of the Right and the threat of authoritarian minority rule – but also transports a misleading idea of America’s recent past and how we got to where we are now. 2/
We start by outlining the central arguments and claims of the #polarization narrative, looking both at how it’s been conceptualized in the political and social sciences as well as at how the idea of “polarization” has shaped the broader public and political discourse. 3/