Matt Taibbi Discusses the Modern News Media: An Industry that Fuels Hate for Profit.

The Profitable Siloed-Audience Business Model of Modern "News." Matt Taibbi explains how we got to this point, based on his book, Hate, Inc.

They want to make sure that they can wind you up as much as they can—not just every day, but in the internet era, there's a commercial imperative now to do this every hour, every minute, really every second. It's a moment-to-moment competition and the only way to really compete is to keep riling people up as much as much as you can. They use that CRossfire formula of constant combat to attract audiences and to keep them and addict them to this experience and this can be very damaging to people's mental health, to say nothing of what it does to society.

As a parting thought, I want to leave you all with this idea to recognize that when you watch the news, most people think of this as a public service and in some cases it is. But you really have to understand that it's also a consumer product very much in the same way that blue jeans or cigarettes or twinkies are news products and there are properties that we use to sell our product in the same way that those other kinds of consumer businesses use to sell theirs and what we've learned is that division is the thing that sells most in this current era and you have to understand that just as cigarettes or twinkies can be bad for you the news can also be bad for you. It can be bad for your mental health. It can be addicting in the same way that those products are. So please understand that from our point of view, we've gone from being something that was a business more in the direction of being just about delivering information to being very consumer-oriented, in the current incarnation, and much more about audience and demographic targeting.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi Discusses the Modern News Media: An Industry that Fuels Hate for Profit.

Princeton University Posing as a Critic

Excerpt of "Letter from Princeton Open Campus Coalition to Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber":

When university administrators speak officially on controversial matters of social importance, they must be cognizant of the fact that––as faculty at the University of Chicago recognized at the height of the Vietnam War––“[t]he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”[1] If the university itself becomes the critic––which occurs when administrators qua administrators opine on controversial issues not bearing a tangible impact on the university’s ability to function––it diminishes the openness of an academic climate that would otherwise invite dissenters to engage boldly with their peers and colleagues. This truth led the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee to recognize that institutional neutrality enables the “fullest freedom of its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action…” [2] We believe that the institutional neutrality principle, so articulated, reasonably restricts university officials’ speaking in their official capacities.

Unfortunately, recent events at our University suggest that the neutrality principle has been dangerously dishonored. In the case of Dean Jamal’s November 20th statement regarding the Rittenhouse verdict, the significant factual errors (while embarrassing) are not the cause of our protest. [3] What motivates our letter is a concern about the implications of a University administrator, speaking in her official capacity, promulgating to an entire community of students her moral evaluation of the outcome of a highly publicized and controversial trial. Her doing so in effect places SPIA’s institutional support behind a particular position on a matter which, as it engages the interests of so many, should invite a vigorous and respectful conversation amongst students and faculty alike.

Instead, students and faculty are left to read that a Dean has adopted a definitive stance on a matter about which reasonable people of good will can and do disagree. Dean Jamal writes with a “heavy heart” as she decries the “incomprehensib[ility]” of a not-guilty verdict, labels the defendant a “minor vigilante,” and situates the alleged outrageousness of the trial’s outcome within the broader context of racial inequalities pervading “nearly every strand of the American fabric.”

Each of these features––the verdict, the alleged vigilantism, and the systemic racism claim––are the subjects of genuine debate among serious legal commentators and academics. Contrary to Dean Jamal’s forceful assessment that some of these issues––viz., the systemic racism allegation––are settled “without a doubt,” these topics occupy the debates of students, faculty, and the public at large. Though no one claims that Dean Jamal’s statement directly forces dissenting students to remain silent or to affirm what they do not believe, it is no stretch to conclude that the establishment of an institutional position tends to draw restrictive parameters around a dialogue that would be otherwise unfettered.

[Emphasis added]

Continue ReadingPrinceton University Posing as a Critic

A Few Questions about Race

I enthusiastically support Glenn Loury's Substack. He often discusses race issues with John McWhorter. Glenn invited questions for their upcoming question and answer session. Here is my question. I hope they have time to address it on their Q & A:

Here’s a hypothetical for the two of you.

Assume that God visits the United States next Tuesday. After sizing things up, God performs a miracle. He/She/They decide to make it impossible for anyone to know the “race” of anyone else. There are no longer any physical or historical ways to determine the “race” of any people you meet. Two questions: What % of people would like this new world? What % would be distressed because they no longer have a quick proxy for judging the character of others? I suspect that some people doing DEI work will get upset because they will lose their jobs. Some people will get busy trying to determine new immutable characteristics upon which to judge the characteristics of other people—perhaps astrology and phrenology theories will again flourish. In the midst of all this panic, distress and commotion of this non-racial reckoning, the news media reports that someone (race unknown) murders 15 people (race unknown). Many people watching the news reports don’t know whether to give a shit in the absence of “racial” information.

Continue ReadingA Few Questions about Race

The Fictions Demanded by the Political Far Left

John McWhorter lists some today's most prominent fictions pushed by the political far left in his NYT article: "Here’s a Fact: We’re Routinely Asked to Use Leftist Fictions."

These days, an aroma of delusion lingers, with ideas presented to us from a supposedly brave new world that is, in reality, patently nonsensical. Yet we are expected to pretend otherwise. To point out the nakedness of the emperor is the height of impropriety, and I suspect that the sheer degree to which we are asked to engage in this dissimulation will go down as a hallmark of the era: Do you believe that a commitment to diversity should be crucial to the evaluation of a candidate for a physics professorship? Do you believe that it’s mission-critical for doctors to describe people in particular danger of contracting certain diseases not as “vulnerable (or disadvantaged)” but as “oppressed (or made vulnerable or disenfranchised)”? Do you believe that being “diverse” does not make an applicant to a selective college or university more likely to be admitted?

In some circles these days, you are supposed to say you do.

Continue ReadingThe Fictions Demanded by the Political Far Left

The Political Left Needs to Start Judging More Wisely

I saw this Rogan interview with Krystal and Saagar. I've watched a lot of Joe Rogan for the past two years. He leans far left on most issues he discusses, but that's not good enough for most people and news media on the political left, who seek to purification, not nuanced discussion. Many of them have no idea what to do with people like Rogan, who hold heterodox opinions. They reject the idea of human complexity and they are increasibly thinking in cartoons. That is the subject of Krystal Ball's 7-minute commentary. It was spot on. I've seen this rejection of the "impure" on FB over and over. IMO, this is ruining the political left and sending many voters over to the political right, which is morally bankrupt.

My advice to people on the political left: Quit demonizing people who are not aligned with your views. Quit writing off everyone who voted differently than you. Engage openly and respectfully with your family, neighbors and friends who think differently than you. I'm an atheist, but Jesus had it right when he gave the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies." I give thanks today that we don't all think alike. And I give thanks for the wisdom of John Stuart Mill. And I give thanks for the courage and soaring inspirational thoughts of Martin Luther King: Hate cannot drive out hate and we should judge each other only by the content of our character. Let's start judging each other more wisely starting today.

Continue ReadingThe Political Left Needs to Start Judging More Wisely