#and liking of conspiratorial tweets | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 6 months

Text

A media literacy handbook for Israel-Gaza

Next Tuesday (Oct 31) at 10hPT, the Internet Archive is livestreaming my presentation on my recent book, The Internet Con.

Media explainers are a cheap way to become an instant expert on everything from billionaire submarine excursions to hellaciously complex geopolitical conflicts, but On The Media's "Breaking News Consumers' Handbooks" are explainers that help you understand other explainers:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/breaking-news-consumers-handbook-israel-and-gaza-edition-on-the-media

The latest handbook is an Israel-Gaza edition. It doesn't aim to parse fine distinctions over the definition of "occupation" or identify the source of shell fragments. Rather, it offers seven bullet points' worth of advice on weighing all the other news you hear about the war:

https://media.wnyc.org/media/resources/2023/Oct/27/BNCH_ISRAEL_GAZA_EDITION_1.pdf

I. "Headlines are obscured by the fog of war"

Headline writers have a hard job under the best of circumstances – trying to snag your interest in a few words. Headlines can't encompass all the nuance of a story, and they are often written by editors, not the writers who produced the story. Between the imperatives for speed and brevity and the broken telephone between editors and writers, it's easy for headlines to go wrong, even when no one is attempting to mislead you. Even reliable outlets will screw up headlines sometimes – and that likelihood goes way up in times like these. You gotta read the story, not just the headline.

II. Know red flags for bullshit

The factually untrue information that spreads furthest tends to originate with a handful of superspreader accounts. Whether these people are Just Wrong or malicious disinfo peddlers, they share a few characteristics that should trip your BS meter and prompt extra scrutiny:

High-frequency posting

Emotionally charged framing

Posts that purport to be summaries or excerpts from news outlets, but do not include links to the original

The phrase "breaking news" (no one has that many scoops)

III. Don't trust screenshots

Screenshots of news stories, tweets, and other social media should come with links to the original. It's just too damned easy to fake a screenshot.

IV. "Know your platform"

It used to be that Twitter got a lot of first-person accounts from people in the thick of crises, while Facebook and Reddit contained commentary and reposts. Today, Twitter is just another aggregator. This time around, there's lots of first-person, real-time reporting coming off Telegram (it runs well on old phones and doesn't chew up batteries). Instagram is widely used in both Israel and the West Bank.

V. "Crisis actors" aren't a thing

People who attribute war images to "crisis actors" are either deluded or lying. There's plenty of ways to distort war news, but paying people to pretend to be grieving family members is essentially unheard of. Any explanation that involves crisis actors is a solid reason to permanently block that source.

VI. There's plenty of ways to verify stuff that smells fishy

TinEye, Yandex and Google Image Search are all good tools for checking "breaking" images and seeing if they're old copypasta ganked from earlier conflicts (or, you know, video-games). The fact that an image doesn't show up in one of these searches doesn't guarantee its authenticity, of course.

VII. Think before you post

Israel-Gaza is the most polluted media pool yet. Don't make it worse.

There's plenty more detail on this (especially on the use of verification tools) in Brooke Gladstone's radio segment:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-breaking-news-consumers-handbook-israel-gaza-edition

The media environment sucks, and warrants skepticism and caution. But we also need to be skeptical of skepticism itself! As danah boyd started saying all the way back in 2018, weaponized media literacy leads to conspiratorialism:

https://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2018/03/09/you-think-you-want-media-literacy-do-you.html

Remember, the biggest peddlers of "fake news" are also the most prolific users of the term. For a lot of these information warriors, the point isn't to get you to believe them – they'll settle for you believing nothing. "Flood the zone with bullshit" is Steve Bannon's go-to tactic, and it's one that his acolytes have picked up and multiplied.

It's important to be a critical thinker, but there's plenty of people who've figured out how to weaponize a critical viewpoint and turn it into nihilism. Remember, the guy who wrote How To Lie With Statistics was a tobacco industry shill who made his living obfuscating the link between smoking and cancer. It's absolutely possible to lie with statistics, but it's also possible to use statistics to know the truth, as Tim Harford explains in his 2021 must-read book The Data Detective:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/04/how-to-truth/#harford

There's a world of difference between being misled and being brainwashed. A lot of today's worry about "disinformation" and "misinformation" has the whiff of a moral panic:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/10/are-we-having-a-moral-panic-over-misinformation.html

It's possible to have a nuanced view of this subject – to take steps to enure you're not being tricked without equating crude tricks like sticking a fake BBC chyron on a 10-year-old image with unstoppable mind-control:

https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/28/fog-o-war/#breaking-news

#pluralistic #media literacy #fake news #disinformation #misinformation #israel gaza #gaza #israel #palestine #conspiratorialism #hoaxes #infowar #on the media #breaking news #npr #flood the zone

2K notes · View notes

communistkenobi · 1 year

Text

I always get a little annoyed at posts saying “btw did you know conservatives don’t know what they’re talking about? did you know that they’re incorrect about x?”. And it’s not because that’s wrong per se (conservatives don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re almost always factually incorrect, which is a significant part of why their politics are awful), but focusing on the factual substance of their claims tends to obscure the reason why they’re being incorrect in the first place. like yes they sound ridiculous when they say “I don’t believe in pronouns” but its not because they don’t understand how grammar works. The purpose of that statement is to argue that gender should not be negotiable through language, that to use “pronouns” is to attempt to alter someone’s god-given ontological gender and is therefore morally wrong. And because this discussion is dominated by English-speakers (gendered pronouns are not universal) living in imperial countries, a deeper claim is being made, that trans people are perverting the most enlightened language, the language of the West, the language that dominates all others. This also very neatly fits into right wing antisemitic conspiracies about the oncoming death of western civilisation, which is not an accident!

So conservatives are latching onto a word that has been recently infused with fresh political meaning in public discourse and using it as a rhetorical platform to be disgusting. They know how language works - language is contestable, it is both subject to constant change and a medium through which that change is negotiated. Trans people are making a claim (gender is partially mediated through language and therefore gender is reinforced and expressed linguistically) and conservatives are making a counter claim (no it isn’t). “I don’t believe in pronouns” is not an argument about the technical structure of language, it is an argument that trans people are so perverse that we infect and degrade the base components of language itself.

So yes, point out that they’re incorrect, but they aren’t incorrect because they’re stupid or ignorant, and being incorrect is not the primary problem with their rhetoric. That is a strategic statement which is deliberately inflammatory, can fit neatly inside both tweets and headlines, and makes a very grand conspiratorial claim about reality (any mention of pronouns is evidence of a transgender plot to destroy western civilisation and indoctrinate children), and this is all accomplished with a 5-word sentence that can be repeated ad nauseum. So the issue at hand isn’t a failure to observe the basic components of language, it’s a violent call to action to remove trans people from public discourse, and eventually public life entirely.

Conservatives are incorrect for a reason. They are incorrect on purpose because they don’t care what the truth is. They are politically savvy and incredibly successful at gaining and maintaining power. They know what they’re doing, and if your only critique of them is that they don’t have their facts straight, I think that’s just a really weak position to hold. What happens when they saying something factually correct? What happens when they know more than you? What happens when they’re well-spoken, well-read, and reasonable? What will you object to then?

#effortpost

590 notes · View notes

tiktaalic · 10 months

Text

the thing about. the end of supernatural. what you have to understand. about the end of supernatural. is that i am no fool. i pride myself on not being a fool, even. i am so set in my unfoolish ways that i naysayed for weeks prior to 15.18. i was bringing a Bad Vibe. I was bringing a you can just choose not to be queerbaited by supernatural in 2020 vibe. i was bringing a idk guys i think the tenth year they pull the football and you fall for it. it IS on you . vibe. only to. watch 15.18. and get egg on my face. but this did not deter me. from my commitment to being unfoolish. i continued to say things like. well contracts for actors are often for a maximum amount of episodes and not actual amount of episodes. i watched gamey thrones i played the heres how jamlam can still win game. this piece of evidence iknow it and we can discard it. i continued to say things like. maybe we should ignore aaaaaaall the metatextual stuff and tweets and boards and instagram posts which are imo too wishy washy and conspiratorial and not a great leg to stand on even when it looks like it. and look purely. at the story. but. heres the thing. when i . noted cynic. noted hater. noted pessimist. noted bringing a theres not going to be destiel in supernatural you stupid fucking bloggers. well. i started to . hesitantly. go. well. i think. the logical conclusion. of these pieces. is that it gets addressed? that they address this huge plot point that is the culmination of 12 years? i'm worried isound like a crazy person who makes 200 page powerpoints about how insert pairing here is going to be canon but. all i am saying is that. it makes sense. narratively. to follow up. on a plot point. that killed a major character. and recontextualized. 12 years. of a relationship. AND THEN I WAS CRAZY! I WAS EXPECTING TOO MUCH! I WAS READING INTO THINGS! AND THEY DIDN'T!

#etxt #spnwatch

497 notes · View notes

stone-stars · 2 months

Text

Transcript:

Murph: Uh, suddenly you guys see, uh, over your shoulder while you're talking to this Dragon Turtle, uh, you see this old sea hag, hunched-backed and blue-skinned. She's got long, stringy hair like seaweed that sticks out under a cloak, this patchwork fabric of sewn together rags. She cocks her head and smiles at you with rotten, yellow teeth, and suddenly [snaps] you guys are cuffed at your ankles and your wrists with dimensional shackles. Caldwell: O--Oh. Jake: No. Murph: These gold chains covered in runes that crackle with energy any time you move. Uh, and the sea hag is suddenly over your shoulder. She went from smiling at you to suddenly at the edge of this island. Beverly (Caldwell): You don't look like you have any Werther’s Originals, and that worries me. Sea Hag (Murph; old woman, exaggerated): Hah! I don't! Yer all gonna come with me! Beverly: What do you want? What is it you desire from us? Sea Hag: Shut the fuck up! Murph: --she smacks you. Beverly: Oh! Hardwon (Jake): Ohhh, dear. Sea Hag: Alright, yer all comin' with me! Murph: You see two more arms burst out of her chest and she grabs each of you by the back of your necks. You are powerless to stop her as she drags you off towards one of her huts. But, on the wind, you catch the faintest hint of baby's breath and lavender. Caldwell: Wait a minute. Jake: Ho-ly shit. Murph: … and that's where we'll end our session! Jake, yelling: No wait! Caldwell: No! Nonono! You can't! Jake: Let me in the hut! Caldwell: (distressed) Dimensional shackles! Oh no! She's in another plane! Aaaaugh! Emily: (conspiratorial) A-lan-is~ Jake: You--you d--we're not ending this episode. We're still playing. Murph: (laughs) Let's finish this episode though. Let's wrap it, then we'll keep playing. Jake: Fine. Caldwell: Okay. Okay. Okay. [Clip cuts forward. Emily is laughing.] Murph: And tweet about the show using hastag naddpod that's N-A-D-D-P-O-D! Everyone, as the end music fades in and Jake sings increasingly faster than the group: We are we are! The youth of the nation! Jake: 'cmon! Everyone, speeding up: We are we are! The youth of the nation! Jake: Perfect, we got it, let's record another episode! Emily: Go go go! [Laughter as their voices fade out and the music fades in.]

#naddpod #bahumia #reveal of all time <3 #emily axford #brian murphy #caldwell tanner #jake hurwitz #naddclips #i love how much jake rushes the outro

128 notes · View notes

thepastisalreadywritten · 1 month

Text

It was always going to end this way. The truth about Catherine Middleton’s absence is far less funny, whimsical, or salacious than the endless memes and conspiracy theories suggested.

In a video recorded and broadcast by the BBC, the princess says she has cancer and that she had retreated from the public eye to deal with her condition, while attempting to shield her children from the spotlight.

Instead, she had to contend with the internet giggling about whether she’d had a Brazilian butt lift.

My colleague Helen Lewis summed it up succinctly this afternoon: “I Hope You All Feel Terrible Now.”

What is there to learn from such a sad situation? The internet is made up of people, yet its architecture abstracts this basic truth.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, at the center of this months-long story was essentially “a sea of people having fun online because it is unclear whether a famous person is well or not.”

Underneath the memes was always something a little bit gross and indefensible.

Perhaps humans are just wired this way — to gawk and gossip.

There’s nothing new about hounding a member of the royal family or invading the privacy of a celebrity to sell tabloids or go viral.

You don’t even have to be a scold about it: Famous people are wealthy and beloved at least in part because they’re fun to talk about.

Exactly what we do and don’t know about their internal lives is part of the allure — the discourse comes with the territory to a degree.

But Catherine Middleton, of course, is a human too.

During this saga, I kept thinking about the reappraisal of Britney Spears in 2021, as well as the backlash toward past media and tabloid coverage of her rise.

A New York Times documentary dredged up old coverage of Spears from the mid-aughts, showing a young woman clearly in distress, being picked apart by glossy magazines.

Her suffering became entertainment. The response to this film was swift.

Some of the people and institutions that had shamelessly delighted in her pain backtracked: Glamour publicly apologized to the pop star on its Instagram account, noting, “We are all to blame for what happened to Britney Spears.”

Contrast the Spears reckoning with the Middleton drama and, if you’re being generous, you can see some of that newfound attitude in the media.

I was struck by Lewis’s observation that “Britain’s tabloid papers have shown remarkable restraint” throughout this mess.

Progress, perhaps, but what’s also telling is that they didn’t really need to do the dirty work: Random people on the internet were doing it for them.

They recklessly speculated, memed, and used their amateur sleuthing and networked faux expertise to concoct elaborate, semi-plausible explanations for her absence.

Was Catherine’s face actually Photoshopped from a Vogue spread? It wasn’t, but the conspiratorial tweet got 51.1 million views anyhow.

Missing from much of the discourse was the idea that its main character was a person who was likely struggling.

In essence, the internet democratized the tabloid experience, turning the rest of us into paparazzi and addled editors workshopping headlines and cover images — not to sell magazines but to amass some kind of fleeting online popularity.

In my least charitable moments, I see this toxic dynamic as the lasting legacy of social media — a giant, metrics-infused experiment in connectivity that has had a flattening, pernicious effect.

In 2021, I interviewed Elle Hunt, a journalist who’d tweeted an innocuous opinion about horror movies one evening and woke up to find she was trending on Twitter, her feeds choked with thousands of furious replies and threats.

When I asked her to describe the experience of becoming Twitter’s main character for the day, she summed it up thusly:

“You’re repurposed as fodder for content generation in a way that’s just so dehumanizing.”

Three years later, these words resonate even stronger.

What Hunt described to me then as “a platform failure,” feels to me now like a learned behavior of the internet, where people, famous and not, are repurposed as fodder for content generation. The cycle repeats itself endlessly.

This afternoon, the memes about Middleton shifted — from jokes about her whereabouts to jokes about how awful it was that everyone had been making fun of a cancer patient.

Feeling bad about the memes tweets immediately became a meme unto themselves.

Despite the tone shift, the reason for these posts is the same: They’re a way to take a person and repurpose their life for entertainment and engagement.

If this sounds exhausting and depressing, it’s because it is.

But the internet is also too big to be one thing. Clicking through social media this afternoon, I saw dozens of heartfelt testimonials, apologies, and well-wishes for the princess.

For a moment, from my perspective, it felt like watching a collective of people come to their senses.

A recognition, perhaps, of the humanity of the person at the center of the maelstrom.

Then, only a few seconds later, I saw a different post. It was a screenshot from the blockchain platform Solana, where users can create their own cryptographic tokens for others to invest in.

The name of the token in the screenshot is “kate wif cancer,” and its logo is a still of the princess sitting on a bench, taken from this afternoon’s video.

The coin’s market cap briefly surpassed $120,000. Only six minutes later, the price had cratered — the result of a standard memecoin sell off.

An awful thing happened. Some people made a joke about it. Other people made some money. And then everyone moved on.

NOTE: Edited

#Princess of Wales #Catherine Princess of Wales #Catherine Middleton #Kate Middleton #British Royal Family #cancer #chemotherapy #internet #memes #fake news #disinformation #misinformation #platform failure #social media

57 notes · View notes

unhonestlymirror · 8 months

Text

We honestly don’t mock “realists” enough for getting absolutely everything wrong about reality - especially regarding russia’s war.

I’m no academic, but we can all spot a grift as blatant as “realism”.

Realists say they just describe the world as it is - shaped by “great powers” - yet are constantly angry that the world isn’t how they’d like it to be - and that people in smaller nations actually have agency too. In a desperate attempt to prove their analysis, they’ll cheer on and collude with a so-called “great power” in the hope it can destroy international law and the rules-based order of co-operating sovereign states that is so inconvenient to their analysis.

Hence they still publish pure delusions like this, written as if it’s Ukraine that’s invading russia (at the West’s behest) and has the luxury of giving up the war. It throws out every Kremlin line in a weak attempt to discourage resistance to russia’s genocide.

Articles by realists encouraging a deal with russia that would reward its aggression always suddenly increase exponentially when russia needs to pause Ukraine’s momentum. It’s so predictable.

The obscured face on the cover of this article is an accidental reflection of how they prefer others unseen.

The article focuses in on analysing Ukraine’s counteroffensive by summarising every critical western report over recent months, alongside analysis from western realists. Out of the many people who provide their analysis in this article, there are ZERO Ukrainians asked for their perspective. Only one anonymous Ukrainian official and a tweet from Zelenskyy are quickly referenced to support her narrative.

The article has ZERO consideration for the reality of Ukrainians under russian occupation who face mass murder, mass repression, mass deportation, torture, sexual abuse and the elimination of their culture and nationhood. Lynch’s main argument means that Ukraine should settle for this - yet addressing this reality never crosses her mind.

Out of thousands of words, there is one reference to “many atrocities” from someone’s quote but in a paragraph with vaguely conspiratorial analysis of the media controlling the narrative. “Scepticism” has been “suppressed” says Lynch.

Lynch is using carefully worded atrocity denialism.

And we see through it all. We remember how bad all their past predictions were - from their mockery of people concerned about the invasion to their expectation of a swift victory for russia. Instead, we see the hubris of a “great power” and the agency of Ukrainians determined to fight for their own future.

Ironically, realists just can’t compete with reality.

I don’t think these realists are as dumb as they pretend to be. They could structure a proper argument and write a half decent article if they wanted to. They know an article analysing Ukraine should have Ukrainian perspectives (especially when using their bodies for the click bait cover). They know it would be more credible to at least address the “counter argument” about what happens when a genocidal invader is unopposed.

They choose not to because realism is - let’s get real about this - just an ideology focused on denying agency to people deemed not to live in “great powers”.

Reality is so disappointing to them.

I forgot to add that Lynch’s article characterises the nature of the war as merely “primal for both Russia and Ukraine”.

What does that even mean? It’s an odd description that serves no purpose except to portray false equivalence between those who chose to wage a war of aggression and those defending themselves from genocide. She knows exactly what she is doing.

#hetalia fandom this you?#stop russian aggression #support ukraine #genocide of ukrainians #russia is a terrorist state

96 notes · View notes

canichangemyblogname · 4 months

Text

No. See. You need to understand.

Right wing conspiracy theorists aren’t actually afraid of billionaires. When they’re tweeting and posting about billionaires putting microchips in our heads or under our skin with vaccines; or when they’re shouting about shady billionaires controlling our politics; or even when they say things like “capitalists control the world” or “the elites are oppressing the working man,” they are being antisemitic. It’s not class consciousness.

They aren’t commenting on the power of “dark money” (where donors are undisclosed) in US politics or the influence of “big money.” They aren’t critiquing decisions like Citizens United or complaining about the obscene amounts of money funneled into campaigns. They don’t actually care about these things. In fact, if you let them talk long enough, you’ll find they agree with these things as part of a “free market” or something.

They are being antisemitic. They don’t believe that men like Elon Musk are a problem. They’d probably characterize him as the embodiment of the American Dream. They’d defend his right to do absolutely stupid shit with his money. They’d say he’s a genius, an innovator, and that the only reason you’re angry about his politics is because you’re jealous. They also tweet about “billionaires” trying to implant microchips into us through the vaccines while remaining silent about Musk’s neuralink. Why? Because when they use words like “billionaire,” “capitalist,” or “elite,” they mean “Jews.” Because they genuinely believe Jewish people control every monetary and financial system around the globe.

It seems many leftists do not recognize this. This ignorance of dogwhistles combined with a friendliness to anti-capitalist rhetoric makes many leftists susceptible to conspiratorial antisemitism and recruitment by the right.

These right-wing conspiracy goons aren’t the perfect subject for your Marxist praxis. You’re not going to convince them of the benefits of socialism. They’re just going to condition you to propaganda and make you further susceptible to an antisemitic worldview and policies. You might think they’re being ideologically *inconsistent* right now and are writing them off as dense and witless, but you will eventually find yourself far enough down the rabbit hole that what they’re saying “makes sense” and is ideologically consistent.

They don’t actually hate capitalism. They don’t actually see it as an exploitative economic system. Fuck, their most lukewarm seemingly anti-capitalist ideas are often incredibly vague and half-formed. “Capitalists control the world.” Okay? Thanks for a very… non-specific, vague, and half-formed ideological statement that fails to understand the complexity of capitalism as an economic system. Anything else? Any commentary on the instability of an economic system based on private profit? Any analysis on what this capitalist dominance means for the world, like its relationship with colonialism? Any suggestions for how to create a more equitable economic system? Any study of class consciousness, the intersectionality of class, the social bounds of a class, or class struggle? Anything beyond capitalism? Do they consider misogynistic, racist, colonial, or ableist systems? Are they normal about Jewish people? No. Nothing.

#antisemitism

36 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 month

Text

Conspiracy theories and the people creating them have overwhelmed the US political process, and they’re becoming only more prevalent with each passing year. 2024 will be no different, if not worse: We’re already uncovering all kinds here on the WIRED Politics desk, from election conspiracy groups to claims that Boeing planes were made faulty on purpose. In the past few days alone, we’ve seen theories swirl online about the Baltimore bridge collapse and Kate Middleton’s cancer announcement.

A number of conspiracies were also given a boost this week by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s long-shot presidential campaign. Let’s talk about them!

The Longest VP Announcement

On Tuesday, RFK Jr. officially announced his VP choice: Nicole Shanahan, a tech entrepreneur, lawyer, and very wealthy ex-wife of Google cofounder Sergey Brin. I checked in with WIRED contributor Anna Merlan to debrief what was probably the longest veep announcement in recent history, and to talk about the conspiracies, digital campaign strategies, and vaccine skeptics driving Kennedy’s campaign. I’ve been taking a hard look at how the campaign is reaching voters online, and Anna covered the announcement for WIRED. She’s also been reporting on RFK Jr. and the anti-vax conspiracy ecosystem for years.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

MK: Ok. Nicole Shanahan. When they played her introductory video at the RFK Jr. event, I wasn’t expecting her to come off so conspiratorial. Were you surprised by what she said at all?

AM: Obviously, Shanahan was widely reported to be the VP pick. I did not know her stance on medical conspiracy theories, but I figured there had to be something there because you probably wouldn't agree to appear on a ticket with RFK without that.

So in her introductory video, she said that her daughter started showing signs of autism spectrum disorder in her infancy, and then she segued into making a series of claims that are very legible to people in the anti-vaccine movement. She claimed that chronic illnesses and conditions like autism can be caused by environmental exposure, wireless technology, and medication. And then she added that science can't assess the cumulative effects of multiple childhood vaccines—which is not true. The childhood vaccine schedule is very, very, very studied. Vaccines are some of the safest, most tested medical products on earth. It's not true, but as a talking point, it is again incredibly recognizable to the anti-vaccine movement. So for me, hearing her saying that stuff solved a little bit of a mystery of why she's involved.

MK: There were a lot of other people on stage yesterday and I didn’t recognize all of them. Who were those people?

AM: This was obviously a very long event—I think you even tweeted that it was only slightly shorter than Dune 2, which is true. There was a parade of speakers: Some of the bigger ones were Del Bigtree, who is really well known among anti-vaccine activists and is currently serving as the Kennedy campaign’s communications director; Jay Bhattacharya, who is a very prominent anti-lockdown figure; a former border patrol agent; and a couple of people who are active, if not super well known, in the natural health space. Basically, these speakers were each meant to speak to a slightly different constituency, because RFK Jr.’s main focus for so long has been anti-vaccine activism.

MK: Let’s talk about Bigtree. I’m curious about the space he occupies in the online conspiracy world.

AM: Bigtree was definitely the biggest speaker who was on the stage. He’s a very well-known anti-vaccine activist and is the CEO of a group called Informed Consent Action Network that is funded by billionaire foreign donors. He was the producer of an extremely famous and successful vaccine movie called Vaxxed, with Andrew Wakefield, who is the father of the modern anti-vaccine movement. And he’s the person who first falsely claimed that there might be a link between vaccines and autism, and set off a huge panic. So, Bigtree is incredibly well known. He’s incredibly popular and his place on the Kennedy campaign, I would opine, is meant to signal to RFK Jr. supporters in the anti-vaccine community that it’s still going to be a concern for a theoretical Kennedy administration.

MK: It did feel like the campaign was trying to thread the needle between the left and the right.

AM: It’s an awkward fit, isn’t it? I mean, RFK Jr.’s campaign had a YouTube livestream where you could watch the announcement, and if you looked at the comments during the land acknowledgement for the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, they were pretty, unsurprisingly, racist. This is not a reflection on his campaign necessarily, but it's a reflection on some people who might have been inclined to support him. The sort of tug between having a Bay Area tribe on stage to get the land acknowledgement and then having somebody come on stage to talk about his history as a border patrol agent is awkward. Is that actually going to work on a large number of undecided voters? I don't know, but clearly that was what it was meant to do.

MK: Earlier today, I saw an ad on Twitter promoting an RFK Jr. documentary. It feels like such an investment in highly produced storytelling for the campaign. And this announcement event being so highly produced, it read like the campaign is trying really hard to make all of this pseudoscience appear legitimate. What did you think?

AM: RFK Jr.’s campaign, as you wrote about, has been very aware of sort of appealing to online spaces. One of those ways that you do that are these highly produced, slick little videos that look good on social media. So I wasn’t surprised.

But I was surprised that the announcement event was so long. I was surprised that there wasn't a little bit of attention to what the attention span is for an internet audience. I would definitely expect to see things that are highly produced, that are sort of media savvy, and that are also completely focused on burnishing RFK’s individual reputation. Because ultimately, in a long-shot candidacy like this, which may or may not be a sincere run for the White House, candidates are seeking to burnish their reputations in the worlds that they come from, and to even grow their market or their audience and become better known to a consumer base that they might not be known by already. Marianne Williamson, for example, had huge success with that.

MK: Another reason I can imagine why it was so long is because they knew how many eyes were going to be on this, and that it was probably one of their last big announcements and attempts to convince people to vote for him.

AM: The last big announcement. It's the last big chance to raise money, really. And they need money to get on the ballot. You’re trying to appeal to everybody, and you’re trying to make the most of what is probably your last moment.

The Chatroom

Occam’s razor doesn’t really exist on the internet. Or with conspiracy theorists. That couldn’t have been more apparent after a cargo ship tragically crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore this week, resulting in the presumed deaths of six people. Instead of assuming that the collision was due to a systems failure on the cargo ship, online conspiracy theorists have taken to blaming everyone from Nickelodeon to the CIA to DEI initiatives, as reported by my colleague David Gilbert.

We still don’t know too much about how and why the Tuesday morning collision took place, but if one were to guess—it’s unlikely that wokeness is the primary culprit.

But hey, maybe you know better than me. Leave a comment or send me an email at [email protected] and let me know.

12 notes · View notes

ammg-old2 · 1 year

Text

Isabel Fattal: In your newsletter post, you wrote that anti-Semitism is not just a personal prejudice—it’s a conspiracy theory. Can you explain this concept?

Yair Rosenberg: When people think about anti-Semitism, they often think about it through the prism of other prejudices they encounter, which typically take the form of people saying, “I don’t like people like that.” “Like that” could be Jewish, Black, Muslim. And that is certainly a component of anti-Semitism, but it's not the only component. Anti-Semitism shares things with other prejudices, but it also has things that distinguish it from other prejudices. One of these distinctions is that anti-Semitism can take the form of a conspiracy theory about how the world works. It blames society’s problems on some sinister, string-pulling Jewish cabal behind the scenes.

This conspiracy theory is infinitely malleable. Whatever the problems you perceive in the world, you can blame them on the same invisible culprit. So you end up with people who have entirely opposite worldviews who somehow land on the Jews as their enemies. You can have an Islamic extremist who takes a synagogue hostage in Texas, and you can have a white supremacist who [allegedly] shoots up a synagogue in Pittsburgh because he sees the synagogue as facilitating the entry of Muslims into the United States as refugees. [Robert Bowers pleaded not guilty; his trial is set for April 2023.] These are people who have completely disparate ways of seeing the world, but somehow, they’ve ended up in the same place, because they’re both conspiracy theorists.

Isabel: You write that because anti-Jewish bigotry is a conspiracy, it becomes a “self-sustaining cycle.” How does that cycle work?

Yair: In Kanye West’s anti-Semitic tweets, he [implies] that he’s going to attack Jewish people, and his rationale is that they blackball and silence those who act against them. This is a very clever little paradox, because if you, as a Jewish person, then say, “I think this is anti-Semitic,” and as a result of that, Kanye or anyone else who voices anti-Semitic sentiments suffers any consequences at all, then the anti-Semite can turn around and say, “Ha, you see? That proves that the Jews do control the things I said they control. Because when I tried to say anything about it, people tried to shut me up.” It’s a self-fulfilling conspiracy theory that provides its own evidence and can never be falsified in the mind of the anti-Semite.

Isabel: Those are some of the strongest conspiracy theories in general, right? The ones that feed into their own evidence in that way.

Yair: Exactly. A big question about anti-Semitism has always been how it has managed to persist for so long. You would think that at a certain point, a lot of these crazy ideas about Jewish people would be exposed as untrue, and that would lead people to reject them. And of course, many people do. But when you have a conspiracy theory that feeds on itself, it’s a perpetual-motion machine that will continue to sustain itself for quite some time.

[...]

Isabel: We’re living in a moment where conspiracy theories abound on the American right. How does the conspiracy of anti-Semitism fit in with other conspiracies, such as QAnon?

Yair: The more conspiratorial discourse your society has, the more likely people will become anti-Semites. You might start out as a freelance, equal-opportunity conspiracy theorist, but you’re just one Google search away from somebody telling you that the people behind the problems that you perceive are Jewish people. And that’s why you see a phenomenon where QAnon becomes Jew-Anon. It’s how you see someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is just your garden-variety conspiracy theorist, suddenly liking a tweet about how the Mossad, Israel’s security service, was behind the assassination of JFK.

And that’s why I think combatting conspiracy theories is a key component to combatting anti-Semitism. A lot of times, people parse anti-Semitism in political terms—left wing, right wing. But those are just ways people express their anti-Semitism. Fundamentally, anti-Semitism predates the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, communism, capitalism—all these categories that we use now. But the human propensity for conspiracy theories, for attributing simple, single explanations to complex phenomena, is old. And we’re all susceptible to it.

#current events #antisemitism #conspiracy theories #psychology #sociology #prejudice #yair rosenberg

49 notes · View notes

passerkirbius · 1 year

Note

What do you think about the timing of the article? It seems very weird to have it come out in the final week of the TMA kickstarter especially considering the followup tweets from the author and the shows they're associated with urging people to pull their pledge from TMA and move it to OTHER shows?

Honestly? I don't think the timing is more than coincidence - having chatted with some of the people behind the article, this is something they've been working on for months, and they've been shopping it around for some time. I think, if they had their way, they would have published this way earlier than they did.

Honestly, releasing it in the last week is probably the point where it was gonna do the least damage - If someone wanted to really hurt Rusty Quill's chances of success, you'd release something like this in the first week, when people are already looking up Rusty Quill, when the buzz about the project is at it's height. By the last week, yeah, if it were struggling, this would probably kill it, but this Kickstarter is over 4,000% over it's goal right now, with over 9,000 backers. Even if 50% of those people unbacked, they're still 2000% over their goal. And looking at the daily figures? Yesterday lost them 47 backers, and today they've increased their backer count. Once you're backed, it actually takes a conscious choice to unback. The key to destroying a Kickstarter is to ensure it never gets momentum in the first place. Add to that the fandom doing an amazing job of muddying the waters here - fans looking to the fandom for guidance aren't getting anything, so you have to make the choice yourself. Without the social push, you're most likely to make the choice that takes the least effort - if you haven't backed, you won't back, if you have backed, you'll keep backing. That's it.

So, no - if you're being conspiratorial about this, they should have published this way earlier, if they really wanted to screw with Rusty Quill.

#rusty quill #tma2 #the magnus protocol #kickstarters #industry explainer

65 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 9 months

Text

X Corp., the parent company of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court Monday against a nonprofit organization that monitors hate speech and disinformation, following through on a threat that had made headlines hours earlier.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) of orchestrating a "scare campaign to drive away advertisers from the X platform" by publishing research reports claiming that the social media service failed to take action against hateful posts. The service is owned by the technology mogul Elon Musk.

In the filing, lawyers for X. Corp alleged that the CCDH carried out "a series of unlawful acts designed to improperly gain access to protected X Corp. data, needed by CCDH so that it could cherry-pick from the hundreds of millions of posts made each day on X and falsely claim it had statistical support showing the platform is overwhelmed with harmful content."

The complaint specifically accuses the nonprofit group of breach of contract, violating federal computer fraud law, intentional interference with contractual relations and inducing breach of contract. The company's lawyers made a demand for a jury trial.

The lawsuit was filed just hours after the CCDH revealed that Musk's lawyer, Alex Spiro, had sent the organization a letter on July 20 saying X Corp. was investigating whether the CCDH's "false and misleading claims about Twitter" were actionable under federal law.

In a statement to NBC News, CCDH founder and chief executive Imran Ahmed took direct aim at Musk, arguing that the Tesla and SpaceX tycoon's "latest legal threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook — he is now showing he will stop at nothing to silence anyone who criticizes him for his own decisions and actions."

"The Center for Countering Digital Hate’s research shows that hate and disinformation is spreading like wildfire on the platform under Musk's ownership and this lawsuit is a direct attempt to silence those efforts," Ahmed added in part. "Musk is trying to 'shoot the messenger' who highlights the toxic content on his platform rather than deal with the toxic environment he's created.

"The CCDH's independent research won’t stop — Musk will not bully us into silence," Ahmed said in closing.

The research report that drew particular ire from X Corp. claimed that the platform had failed to take action against 99% of 100 posts flagged by CCDH staff members that included racist, homophobic and antisemitic content.

Musk has drawn fierce scrutiny since buying Twitter last year. Top hate speech watchdog groups and activists have blasted him for loosening restrictions on what can be posted on the platform, and business analysts have raised eyebrows at his seemingly erratic and impulsive decision-making.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate's research has been cited by NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and many other news outlets.

Musk, who has been criticized for posting conspiratorial or inflammatory content on his own account, has said he is acting in the interest of "free speech." He has said he wants to transform Twitter into a "digital town square."

Musk has also claimed that hate speech on the platform was shrinking. In a tweet on Nov. 23, Musk wrote that “hate speech impressions” were down by one-third and posted a graph — apparently drawn from internal data — showing a downward trend.

#nunyas news #make them spell out what they consider hate speech

13 notes · View notes

whatisreggieshortfor · 2 years

Text

See Him As a Friend

Here’s a fluffy take on the lie detector test for @litgwritersroom’s prompt.

Bobby x MC

When Lucas read off the text about the lie detector, you could see how nervous the other Islanders got. You couldn’t understand why. This late in the show, they should trust who they’re with or they shouldn’t be with them. You figured it was that simple. Bobby was an open book to you.

Of course when you said as much to the other girls, Lottie had things to say. “Did you forget that he was called a player in the Mean Tweets challenge?”

“Did you forget you didn’t come out of that challenge looking too good either?” You argued, and there was beat of silence as Lottie clearly tried to come up with a retort.

But Marisol cut in, the only girl that never wavered from your side, “Let’s be honest for a minute though, Bobby has only ever had eyes on her. Even when I was in the friendship couple with him, it was obvious where his heart was. I think he was more worried about one of the other boys winning you over than anything else.”

“Same here.” Hope offered, though she clearly wasn’t sure if she really wanted to step in Lottie’s signature drama again, “I’ll always be thankful he saved me from getting dumped so Noah and I could be together, but I can’t see him having eyes for anyone else. In here or out there.”

Chelsea giggled to herself, clearly not sensing the tense air, “You guys should’ve seen his Beach Hut confessions! Literally every single one, no fail. Always Y/N. It was how I knew I’d get on with the two of them so well!” God, you loved your Bra.

You watched with the other Islanders as Gary was mercilessly torn apart by Lottie’s questions, and Bobby looked like he felt terrible just for needing to read them out. You asked Hannah questions for Lucas, and he went miles easier on her in comparison, which wasn’t much of a surprise since they’d only been together for a few days. Noah asked Gary’s questions for Lottie, and you could see the blonde girl feel remorse when his were easy. And it kept going, Lottie asking Jo the questions. Lucas asking Hope. Hannah asking Henrik. Ibrahim asking Chelsea. Henrik asking Ibrahim.

Until eventually, Gary was reading your questions to Bobby. “First question to make sure it’s still functioning like we haven’t been doing this for over a half hour, is your first name Robert?”

Bobby snorted, “Yup.”

Ding.

“Perfect. Okay. First question from Y/N- oh wait hold up this one has a note from Marisol written on the side, am I allowed to read that?” No one from the production team stopped him, so Gary shrugged, “It says ‘I bet you can guess who made her ask this question in under three seconds, and if you get it right I will finally try your hot chocolate.’”

You shared a conspiratorial smile with the law student beside you as Bobby laughed, “Now I’m very intrigued.”

Gary made a big show of clearing his throat, ��In the Mean Tweets challenge,” You could already feel Lottie’s glare on you, “Would you consider the one about you being a player to be true?”

“Naw, no way. But nice question, Lottie.” Marisol laughed brazenly beside you as you snickered, waiting until the machine dinged it was the truth.

“Very nice, Bobble. It doesn’t say who the question came from, so I guess when you go out there they’ll tell you if you got it right. Next question, who else in the Villa did you feel a spark with?” Gary looked interested in the answer, but Bobby just grinned at him.

“Nobody.” Ding.

“Not a single girl caught your fancy?” Gary asked, mouth gaping like a fish.

Bobby shook his head, “Nope. Been Y/N for me since day one.”

“Class act, Bobs. Last question, and probably the easiest for you. Ready?”

“Fire away, Gareth.”

“What’s your favorite thing about Y/N?”

“Her butt.” Beeeeeeep.

Gary gasped, “That’s a lie, Bobby!”

“Okay, okay! But the real answer is cheesier.” The Scottish boy grinned, totally unbothered, “Definitely her laugh. Not only is it lovely, but it means my jokes are landing.” Ding.

As soon as he walked out, Bobby planted a big kiss on your cheek, “Had to go makin’ me sound like a melt, didn’t ya, lass?”

You giggled, pressing your lips to his briefly, “Act like you don’t melt for me all the time. Might as well be a popsicle in the sun.” He chuckled as he pulled you into a cuddle.

“So…” he tried to look nonchalant but his eyes were sparkling with mischief, “Did I get it right? Was it Lottie?”

“Yes.” You, Marisol, and Chelsea chirped in unison.

Bobby pumped his fist into the air, “Soon as this is over, I’m making that hot chocolate, Marisol!” You pouted but he just tickled you, “I’ll make you one, too, babe. I’ll always make you some.” You beamed, giggling when the other Islanders voiced their own requests for a cup.

Eventually it was your turn, and you followed Chelsea into the Hideaway. Once you were hooked up, she giggled, “It doesn’t actually give me a starter question. Should I do an obvious one? Like who your best girlfriend is in the Villa? Or a crazy one like were you born in a field?”

You snorted, “I’ll answer both. My best bra is you, Chels. Though Marisol is a close second. And I actually was not born in a field, but my mom has said I was almost born in a barn.” The machine dinged twice in rapid fire.

“Oh! Both true! Though now I wanna hear the barn story…”

“Later, babes.” You grinned, “I promise.” The machine dinged true again and Chelsea clapped her hands before grabbing the question cards.

“Alrighty, babes! Bobby’s first question is…do you genuinely think he’s funny?”

You didn’t even hesitate, “Of course. Funniest person I’ve ever met.” Ding. “His pranks could use some workshopping though.” You winked at the camera as the machine beeped angrily.

Chelsea gasped, hand flying up to her mouth, “You lied! You don’t think his pranks need work.”

You shrugged, still smiling, “Like I said, funniest person.”

“Okay, time for number two!” Chelsea beamed, she made you even more relaxed than you already were about answering these, “Do you still see Bobby as a friend?”

You pursed your lips, contemplating the question in its entirety, “Am I allowed to give an explanation to my answer?” A producer off to the side nodded to you. Back in the observation room, Bobby looked instantly panicked, even as Gary told him he had nothing to worry about. “Okay. Do I see Bobby as a friend? Yes.” Ding. “And I know Bobby, I know that answer is sending him spiraling down a rabbit hole, so Gary! You better make sure he’s paying attention!” Both of their heads snapped to the screen as you cleared your throat. You continued seriously, but your smile never left, “From day one, Bobby has made me feel comfortable. Literally. He was willing to sleep on the daybeds if I didn’t feel up to sharing the bed, and he always knows what to do when something goes wrong. He’s not just my best friend-“ Chelsea grunted, and you amended, “He’s not just my best male friend, he’s my person. When I need a laugh, he always has a joke ready. When I need to cry, he’s offering his shoulder. He’s there to relax, he’s there to goof around, he’s there for the drama, and he’s been there for every moment between them. So yeah, he’s my best friend. But he’s more than that, too.”

Chelsea leaned forward, watching the machine anxiously, and when the sound came out and the light came on, she was already shouting, “That was the truth! Aw, babes, that was beautiful. Keep it in mind for this last one. It’s the biggest.” Your eyes widened, what could be bigger than he’s biggest insecurity about being here? Chelsea held the card up, covering her face because she knew your answer would make her happy cry, “If Bobby told you he loved you, would you be able to say it back and mean it?”

“Absolutely.” Not even a second of time between the end of the question and your answer, and the responding ding reverberated through the air as Chelsea started fanning her eyes.

“Dammit babes! I knew I’d cry!”

Making your way out with Chelsea, you suddenly had the air knocked from your lungs as a body collided with yours, picking you up and sweeping you through the air. Once your feet were back on solid ground, you met Bobby’s teary eyes, “Lass,” his voice was breathy, almost filled with the laughter you loved so much, “Y/N, I-“

You slapped a hand over his mouth, shaking your head at his confusion, eyes darting around to the very visibly interested Islanders that weren’t even pretending to look away, “Not right now. Not in front of everyone. I want it to be a moment for us.”

His eyes somehow softened even more, and he slowly pulled your hand away, “Okay, lass. I’ll leave it up to you then.”

The next morning, the two of you were having an early breakfast while the other Islanders took a lie in. Just watching the sun rise, enjoying pastries Bobby took the extra care to make for everyone, his fingers on one hand drawing lazy circles on your thighs as you relaxed in the beanbags together with your legs thrown in his lap. “Hey, Bobble?”

He hummed, eyes peeking open to take a glance at you, watching the barely hidden excitement that was practically rolling off of you. “What’s up? You get a text or something?”

Shaking your head, you gave him a gentle smile, “I love you, Bobby.”

His face went blank, mouth falling open, before his lips stretched into his widest smile as he tugged you closer by the waist, punctuating each word with a kiss to your face, “I-“ your cheek, “love-“ your forehead, “you-“ your nose. “I love you, lass.” Finally your lips.

Masterlist

#litg bobby #litg season 2 #litg fanfic #litg Bobby x mc #lie detector #just fluff #let Bobby have his love #boy is always stuck in friendship couples

133 notes · View notes

omahdon · 6 months

Text

Had a dream about my dad the other night, over a week ago now. Apparently there’s some kind of superstition about that? My mom told me she’s had several about him already, so I don’t know what it says about me that I only just had the one almost five months after he passed away.

In the dream, we were on our way back to Kuching (I think? Got a little hazy with the passage of time, as all dreams get) and when we got to his apartment he leaned in conspiratorially and said "I actually got this place because the best rojak stand was close by". Man did love his food.

Anyway, the dream was very lowkey, comfy vibes. We never really had a "father-son" bond thing that I see in All My Hollywood Movies but it was a mild approximation. A lot of shooting the breeze about nothing in particular and reminders to do this or that or otherwise the ants will get in. I remember at one point thinking "oh this can't be real. You're dead." but then shoving that thought aside to live in the moment.

When I woke up, I quietly got out of bed, walked to his bedroom, and opened the door. And of course he wasn't there. How could he be? We'd scattered his ashes in Sibu. I'd brought the container back with some of him still left inside. Reality once again settled upon me like a shroud.

I guess that's why I didn't tweet about it until now. I was hoping that maybe by not talking about it: the dream would somehow come about. Like spooking a wild animal by being too loud, but doing the opposite of that. But of course not. That would be too silly. Silly Edwyn.

#personal post #dreams

8 notes · View notes

policemanofprincesspark · 4 months

Note

I mean, Louis has addressed the conspiratorial nature of larries about three times now, one being that interview and the latest being the whole parmesan chicken ordeal. People interpret those as failed denials, but really, I interpret is as telling people maybe they’re digging too deep. The reasons as to why exactly, I don’t know. I’m not saying I’m 100% right because I’m not Louis.

Yeah, really only Louis knows what those denials mean. His denying it definitely does not negate Larry, but it's still a denial all the same. I have a few hypotheses about his denials, because I don't think anyone is ghostwriting them for him (as that just seems pointless when they could just tell him to write them, because all of those tweets sound like him to me):

• He is being told and pressured to write them, with potential consequences if he doesn't

• He gets fed up with people making everything about Larry

• He is afraid of being outed for personal reasons

I'm willing to bet it's a mix of these options, with the first seeming more likely to me because, from what I've seen, Louis is proud of his sexuality, and he doesn't seem offended by rumors (he didn't even care about the Freddie being a doll rumor; he said it was so far-fetched that he just didn't feel bothered by it). Because of how angry he tends to seem (via word choice) in his written denials, I think these denials are motivated by fear.

#ask #larry stylinson

5 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) went on a bizarre tangent after she was called out for lying about her past comments suggesting the Parkland, Florida, school shooting was staged.

During an interview with CBS News’ Lesley Stahl broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes,” Greene was asked for her stance on the 2018 massacre, which left 17 students and staff dead. Two years before she was elected to Congress, Greene responded to a comment on Facebook calling the shooting a “false flag” operation.

But when asked about it by Stahl, Greene tried to rewrite history.

“I never said Parkland was a false flag,” Greene said. “No, I’ve never said that. School shootings are horrible. I don’t think it’s anything to joke about.”

As she was speaking, “60 Minutes” showed a screengrab of Greene’s now-deleted 2018 Facebook comment.

“We fact-checked,” Stahl replied. “Before I got to this interview.”

Greene offered a word-salad comeback, derailing the discussion.

“Have you fact-checked all my statements from kindergarten through 12th grade and in college? And as I’ve paid my taxes and never broken a law, and the only, I got a few speeding tickets, do we need to talk about those too?” she said. “Because I think where you’re going down is the same attacks that people have attacked me with over and over.”

Stahl didn’t challenge Greene further.

Greene, a Trump-supporting firebrand who was the first open supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory to be elected to Congress, has on multiple occasions endorsed conspiratorial nonsense about school shootings and was filmed in 2019 harassing a Parkland victim who advocates for gun control.

In another 2018 Facebook comment section unearthed by the Media Matters for America watchdog, Greene responded “this is all true” to a user who said that “none of the School shootings were real or done by the ones who were supposedly arrested for them.”

Greene, during her “60 Minutes” interview, tried to shift blame for her past social media activity, suggesting that “other people also ran my social media” when she liked a 2019 comment suggesting Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should get a bullet to the head. (Greene was not a member of Congress in 2019.)

Even if that were the case, Greene has publicly alluded to her belief that school shootings are staged. Last year, Greene suggested in a video that the July 4 shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, was orchestrated “to persuade Republicans to go along with more gun control.”

CBS News faced significant backlash over the weekend for interviewing Greene and giving a platform to her dangerous rhetoric. Following the release of the sit-down, Stahl was criticized for allowing Greene to hijack the conversation, failing to adequately call out the lawmaker’s false claims, and normalizing the extremist’s unhinged behavior.

“I have known Lesley Stahl for more than 40 years, worked alongside her for many election weeks. She has been a great journalist, but this is a disgraceful, cringeworthy performance. Shameful to the max,” tweeted Norman Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

“This is even worse than I thought it would be,” wrote The Atlantic staff writer Tom Nichols. “Imagine getting outflanked by MTG, whose answer was ‘what, are you going to go back to everything I’ve said and done since kindergarten’ and Stahl just took it.”

28 notes · View notes