Dave Chappelle made an interesting point during his infamous SNL monologue:
And watching the news now they're declaring the end of the Trump era. Now okay, I could see how in New York you might believe this is the end of his era. I'm just being honest with you, I live in Ohio amongst the poor whites. A lot of you don't understand why Trump was so popular but I get it because I hear it every day. He's very loved. And the reason he's loved is because people in Ohio have never seen somebody like him. He's what I call an honest liar. And I'm not joking right now, he's an honest liar. That first debate, I've never seen anything like it. I've never seen a white male billionaire screaming at the top of his lungs, 'This whole system is rigged,' he said. And across the stage was white woman Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sitting there looking at him like, 'No it's not.'
I said, 'Now wait a minute bro, it's what he said.' And the moderator said, 'Well Mr. Trump if, in fact, the system is rigged as you suggest, what would be your evidence?' Remember what he said, bro? He said, 'I know the system is rigged because I use it.' I said Goddamn. And then he pulled out an Illuminati membership card, chopped a line of cocaine up in it and [mimics sniffing].
[…]
No one ever heard someone say something so true and then Hillary Clinton tried to punch him in the taxes. She said, 'This man doesn't pay his taxes,' he said, 'That makes me smart.' And then he said, 'If you want me to pay my taxes, then change the tax code. But I know you won't because your friends and your donors enjoy the same tax breaks that I do.' And with that, my friends, a star was born. No one had ever seen anything like that. No one had ever seen somebody come from inside of that house outside and tell all the commoners we are doing everything that you think we are doing inside of that house. And he just went right back in the house and started playing the game again.
This phenomenon is also known as “taking the red pill”.
Trump won the election by pointing out the raw gears driving American politics, and even though his presidency proved yet another con, his theatrics still dominate our political discourse. A brief linguistic detour will show why.
The meaning of words often shifts as the words cross cultural barriers. Take a nice Greek term like ἀποκάλυψις, which English renders as “apocalypse”. We currently associate an apocalypse with a violent, world-shattering event, but the original meaning was more innocent: an unveiling.
This juxtaposition is no accident because an epiphany transforms not only the present but how one interprets the past. In pop philosophical terms, seeing a phenomenon with fresh eyes generates a new paradigm. Discarding an old worldview unsettles those who experience it as well as those who safeguard conventional wisdom. Trouble often ensues.
Which brings us to why it’s so hard to acknowledge the obvious: fear.
Not only the fear of losing one’s job, but also the fear of social ostracism that comes from disrupting the carefully managed social order. No one wants to be the one pitched over the city walls to be preyed on by highwaymen.
After the exile, of course, lies the promise of redemption. But forgiveness never erases the cycle of punishment → expulsion → begging at the gates for reentry. The scarlet letter may fade, but its imprint remains. So, rather than become a sinner in the hands of an angry scold, most people choose discretion. The art of lying is easy to master, especially when it removes the trouble of seeing what’s in front of one’s nose.
A scene from The Untouchables illustrates the power of revelation. Elliot Ness, sent by the Treasury Department to Chicago to dismantle Al Capone’s bootlegging empire, initially struggles to locate the source of the booze because local authorities tip off the mobsters prior to his raids. In response, Ness builds a small team of “untouchables” to help him fight Capone. The pivotal moment occurs when Jimmy Malone, a Chicago beat cop recruited by Elliot Ness, takes Ness to one of Capone’s liquor warehouses. They arrive at a nondescript building:
Malone: [at the post office] Well, here we are.
Ness: What are we doing here?
Malone: Liquor raid.
Ness: [looking at the police station across the street] Here?
Malone: Mr. Ness, everybody knows where the booze is. The problem isn't finding it, the problem is who wants to cross Capone.
Armed with this insight, Ness finally becomes an effective foil to the mob. The rest is history.
But for most people, it doesn’t matter if one knows where the whiskey is located if acting on that knowledge is dangerous, especially when the revelation uncovers the underlying social corruption.
I’d like to think that journalists ground their beliefs in reason and evidence instead of employing sophistry in service of tribalism. However, events often betray this optimism. Too often, the corporate media seems content to curate neoliberal principles rather than function as an independent pillar of civic life. As Sarah Haider so eloquently laments in her essay about the Coronavirus lab-leak hypothesis:
One of the more bizarre things about Modern Times is that journalists—the people we depend on to fish out the truth from a chaotic reality—are perhaps the class most captured by politics. There is a real tragic element to this–many starry-eyed young people go into journalism specifically to bring truth to light–to do the deep-diving, investigative work the rest of us simply don’t have the time or the skills to do. But these intentions are quickly overpowered by a greater force: social pressure.
In practice this means that journalists often do the opposite of truth-telling: rather than speaking “truth to power”, they can function as enforcers of the consensus of the powerful.
This brings us to the first argument for viewpoint diversity: Heterodox speech will force the corporate media to be, if not honest, then at least better apologists for its interests. It’s evident that the fourth estate has gotten flabby from the lack of push-back.
Let’s examine Exhibit A, the ever-shifting Coronavirus narrative.
When the Coronavirus-19 landed on North American shores in January of 2020, the government initially minimized its danger. The doyen of health advice, NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci, claimed that while we needed to “take [the virus] seriously” and follow CDC guidelines, “this is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Chinatown on February 24th to address the public’s reluctance to patronize Asian businesses. Meanwhile, President Trump assured us everything was fine despite having declared a public health crisis less than a month before. While publicly claiming that Covid was a typical flu that would soon dissipate, Trump had privately confided to Bob Woodward on February 7th that
[The virus’s airborne transmission is] always tougher than the touch. You don't have to touch things. Right? But the air, you just breathe the air and that's how it's passed.
And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.
The media grieved over what bigots we had become. Were we going to huddle in our homes rather than enjoy the diversity on tap? That was not who we were.
When the disease started to spread during late February and early March, Fauci and Surgeon General Jerome Adams warned Americans that walking around in masks was useless, if not irresponsible. As the health reporters at CNN patiently explained in a March 2nd article:
To be clear once again, Americans don’t need masks. The CDC says that healthy people in the US shouldn’t wear them because they won’t protect them from the novel coronavirus.
In fact, warns US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, face masks might actually increase your risk of infection if they aren’t worn properly.But medical workers who treat patients with novel coronavirus do need them. And, the CDC says, it’s crucial that those supplies don’t run out.
When it comes to hysteria and panic, though, reason takes a backseat.
“This is a psychological thing,” Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told CNN. “The coronavirus is coming, and we feel rather helpless. By getting masks and wearing them, we move the locus of control somewhat to ourselves.”
The media graciously accepted its mantle as counsel to an unruly mob.
By late March, however, the experts tacked left when they realized that there were enough masks to go around after all and that asymptomatic transmission was a greater threat than previously recognized. It turned out that even a homemade cloth mask could serve as a valuable prevention aid, and those who said otherwise were innumerate clods. A few cynics might have wondered how masks’ prophylactic powers could wax and wane in harmony with their relative abundance (as if the ability to block droplets obeys the same law of supply and demand governing the price of lobster tails); nevertheless, the media assured us at the time (and in retrospective fact-checks) that the discovery of asymptomatic spread made all the difference. Furthermore, this new evidence necessitated widespread lockdowns.
Yet when Georgia governor Brian Kemp confessed during an April 2 press conference that he had just learned about the asymptomatic transmission of Covid, the media pounced. They breathlessly reminded us that symptom-free transmission had been widespread knowledge for months (perhaps as early as January!). Armed with this insight, they courageously mocked Kemp as a knave for delaying shelter-in-place orders until April 3. This, in contrast with the clear-eyed Californian governor who had pioneered state lockdown orders on ... March 19.
Those skeptical of the prevailing narrative might wonder why the wisest among us had waited until March 19 to issue directives, since, unlike simple-minded Republican governors, even primary school children knew (as early as January!) the dangers of asymptomatic transmission.
Here’s a tentative explanation. From a policymaker’s perspective, there’s no material difference between believing 1) that asymptomatic transmission is impossible and 2) that it’s possible, yet rare. Since the experts didn’t consider symptom-free carriers a major risk, then government officials would naturally hesitate to enact sweeping reforms until further notice.
Unfortunately, any exponentially-growing contagion will magnify the harm caused from even a slight delay. Between March 19th and April 1, the number of official cases had multiplied fifteen-fold from 13,747 to 213,372. Kemp was surely negligent to ignore the mushrooming cases in late March. However, being aware (as early as January!) of the possibility of asymptomatic spread and dismissing this concern would have led to similar delays —as it clearly did. Furthermore, a single meeting with a health official would have cleared up any misunderstandings. Those seeking a detailed account of what experts knew at the time should read William Cummings’s April 2nd article. Even here, it’s worth noting that the editors couldn’t resist muddying the waters with the well-poisoning headline “Georgia Gov. Kemp slammed after saying he just learned coronavirus could spread without symptoms.”
But were the experts truly unconcerned about the danger posed by symptomless carriers? Let’s review the above timeline. On January 28, Dr. Fauci claimed that “even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.” This claim dovetails with the Surgeon General’s February warning about wearing masks. Fauci’s interview with 60 Minutes indicates that this view still held court as late as March 8th:
According to Fauci,
The masks are important for someone who’s infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.
[…]
Right now people should not be walk — there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
The Reuter’s team of fact checkers acknowledge that Fauci’s advice was predicated on the fact that “the extent of asymptomatic spread was unknown” at the time. Otherwise, Fauci’s advice would have been bonkers.
By the way, for those wondering how scientists licked the problem of mask-fiddling once they recognized Covid’s true danger, all I can say is:
Dear White Skeptic, please stop man-asking. Thank you.
Anyway, back to the timeline.
Even the very Newsweek April 2 article that led with the Kemp-jeering tweets of activists was forced to admit below the fold — after many readers had already moved on to the cat videos and recipes for rhubarb crumble — that the experts had underestimated the danger of asymptomatic transmission:
But Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of CDC, recently said that new data about the high rates of this type of transmission could lead to the agency recommending the broadened use of face masks. Both the World Health Organization and CDC have repeatedly advised that only people who have symptoms need to wear masks to prevent spreading the virus.
On Monday, Dr. Redfield said in an interview with WABE in Atlanta, that the guidance on who should wear masks was being "aggressively reviewed" and said that as many as 25 percent of infected people don't show symptoms. Some people are transmitting the virus for up to two days before showing symptoms, he told the station.
And, as a gentle reminder, it might be worth noting that this February 24th event may have slightly contributed to the delay in lockdown orders:
Just tossing it out there for discussion.
But the earlier advice was soooo three weeks ago. Now that the science had truly been settled, some media outlets began to scapegoat the conservative media as solely responsible for feeding the public crazy ideas about the inefficacy of masks and social distancing. As one state after another shuttered non-essential businesses, citizens were urged to stay at home unless they absolutely needed to go outside, in which case …. [quickly checks hospital supply cabinet] … remember to mask up!
In fact, it seemed that social distancing was the biggest act of patriotic love:
This vast majority is doing something amazing right now. By strong margins, according to recent Pew research data, Americans support social distancing and are worried that states will be pushed to lift restrictions too quickly. Distancing is the most impressive civic-minded act I’ve ever seen in this country.
The overwhelming collective commitment to social distancing reveals a patriotic urge toward the common good. It’s a story about not doing things, taking place in absences and solitude, so it is easily missed, especially as each of us tries to figure out how to make it through each day. Moreover, the burdens we face in distancing are not equal, whether because of poverty, lack of freedom of movement in one’s communities, myriad forms of discrimination, the situations inside our homes – or whether we have homes at all. But the bulk of us are all doing what we can. We mostly are listening to our best leaders and to scientists.
[my emphasis]
The new narrative took hold. An attorney who patrolled Florida beaches in a Grim Reaper costume received international coverage. Facebook dutifully shut down attempts to organize anti-lockdown protests that violated state orders. Opinion pieces from the Washington Post and New York Times connected the anti-lockdown protesters to shadowy right-wing cabals who threatened the existence of grandmothers across the nation. As the Times intoned,
Those fanning these flames, including President Trump and Fox News hosts, are unlikely to get burned by infection themselves, though they may be goading their followers to risk their health by attending mass demonstrations.
America is now facing three calamities: a deadly contagion, a capricious president and a well-funded right-wing infrastructure willing to devalue human life in pursuit of its political agenda. Some very rich men and women are making this medical disaster worse through their reckless bellows, inflaming people to demand that states open now no matter how many lives that costs.
To be sure, many journalists noted the potential psychological, social and economic drawbacks to the shutdown policy. Sober, balanced discussion was there for the taking, although it was soon eclipsed by pretty pictures wielded by the two-weeks-to-flatten-the-curve wonkocracy. Religious folk (well, at least Christian folk) were admonished to avoid sacred services lest all that indoor singing would spread the coronavirus far and wee. No more school. No more mall-shopping. Just snuggle up to the cozy warmth of Netflix and Amazon delivery.
Then something happened: On May 25, Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd.
Protests erupted around the nation, unleashing a mighty wave of nuance across the land. For, you see, protecting Nana wasn’t quite the moral imperative it seemed, and it turned out that some liturgies were jus’ a little more sacred than others. As Dan Diamond from Politico notes:
For months, public health experts have urged Americans to take every precaution to stop the spread of Covid-19—stay at home, steer clear of friends and extended family, and absolutely avoid large gatherings.
Now some of those experts are broadcasting a new message: It’s time to get out of the house and join the mass protests against racism.
You can see Mr. Dan twisting his mouth so far to the side that it wraps around the back of his head. Nevertheless, he continues:
“We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
If it’s a choice between chanting “Black Lives Matterrrrr” and keeping Uncle Charlie off the respirator …. well … sorry, Charlie.
“The injustice that’s evident to everyone right now needs to be addressed,” Abraar Karan, a Brigham and Women’s Hospital physician who’s exhorted coronavirus experts to amplify the protests’ anti-racist message, told me. “While I have voiced concerns that protests risk creating more outbreaks, the status quo wasn’t going to stop #covid19 either,” he wrote on Twitter this week.
With unassailable logic like that on display, it’s no surprise that to discover that Mr. Karan is an official STAT news wunderkind.
Back to the article.
It’s a message echoed by media outlets and some of the most prominent public health experts in America, like former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Tom Frieden, who loudly warned against efforts to rush reopening but is now supportive of mass protests. Their claim: If we don’t address racial inequality, it’ll be that much harder to fight Covid-19. There’s also evidence that the virus doesn’t spread easily outdoors, especially if people wear masks.
Admittedly, the last sentence has considerable merit.
Many people’s concern that massive protests would super-spread the virus turned out to be baseless. Taking the experts’ advice, the protesters generally wore masks and kept their hands clean; meanwhile, the circulating air mitigated much of the transmission caused by the singing and chanting. As a result, the protests didn’t significantly contribute to the spread of Covid and may have even decreased transmission by encouraging others to stay home. As to the latter point, however, I’m not sure that fear-based quarantining is a sound policy strategy going forward.*
Continuing with the article:
Some members of the medical community acknowledged they’re grappling with the U-turn in public health advice, too. “It makes it clear that all along there were trade-offs between details of lockdowns and social distancing and other factors that the experts previously discounted and have now decided to reconsider and rebalance,” said Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School. Flier pointed out that the protesters were also engaging in behaviors, like loud singing in close proximity, which CDC has repeatedly suggested could be linked to spreading the virus.
“At least for me, the sudden change in views of the danger of mass gatherings has been disorienting, and I suspect it has been for many Americans,” he told me.
You’re not alone, Mr. Flier. Surely the experts deserve some of the credit for the fact that mass protests didn’t cause spikes in Covid transmission, but the fact remains that they were perfectly willing to discard core medical principles for ideological reasons, risking people’s lives in the process. And it’s not as if the expert’s prior predictions would have given them the confidence to roll the dice. Quite the opposite, I’d wager.
Until the Floyd protests, the unstable messaging could be blamed on the reality of managing a rapidly spreading airborne pathogen. Under these circumstances, even the experts could be expected to be caught flat-footed, and despite their confident yet constantly mutating policy positions, boy were they ever!
Yet their flip-flop after the Floyd murder illustrates how scientific opinion can be refurbished to meet the demands of the current narrative. And even the numerous reversals before the Floyd murder demonstrate that experts often project a public confidence unsupported by the underlying data. Asserting that masks offer weak protection in the midst of a putative shortage and then shamelessly reversing course in a couple of weeks might make a skeptical Dan wonder how much our medical advice is based on similar sophistry. Who is up to the task of holding the experts accountable? If even a self-proclaimed progressive like Sarah Haider is starting to doubt the good-faith efforts of a media that mostly caters to her views, then perhaps we should all take notice. Her artful analysis of the changing fortunes of the lab-leak hypothesis is telling:
The lab leak hypothesis is a great example of the power such a consensus can have: dulling curiosity and infusing prejudices which subvert true journalistic impulses. I suspect that the label “conspiracy theory” had a lot to do with it—casting a shadow of racism and xenophobia that proponents could not shake off. […] The implications of such an origin are hugely important—if it is true, surely it is in the interest of the international community to know and to implement appropriate safeguards everywhere such research is conducted, lest we are treated to yet another global pandemic.
But even the accidental leak was repeatedly cast as a fringe theory and debunked on various “fact checks” (my favorite of the genre citing a political science professor from MIT as an “expert” on the matter. The other expert, chemical biology professor Richard Ebright, later became one of the signatories of a letter calling for an open investigation of COVID origins. In a move that displays the shift in the discourse over the last year, a correction has now been issued on the article by the Washington Post: “The term “debunked” and The Post’s use of “conspiracy theory” have been removed because, then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus”.)
I suspect what really did the theory in was its association with the lepers of respectable discourse, those with the power to damn an idea merely by agreeing with it: the R*publicans. […] Altogether, these associative signals were powerful enough to serve as veritable proof that this theory was too crazy for respectable people to bother with.
But how the media frames scientific issues is a subject for the next essay, in which I further build my case for free speech. And dip into the truly juicy parts of Mr. Chapelle’s monologue.
*Unfortunately, the soaring homicide rates in cities with extensive Floyd protests do provide further evidence for the Ferguson Effect.
For extra credit: Read the two Vox articles concerning the impact of mass protests on Covid transmission and crime rates. Then explain how the latter article uses strategies such as emotionally loaded headlines, poisoning the well, and false dilemmas to lessen the impact of discomforting evidence.
Also discuss how Mr. Fisk adroitly changes the subject to keep inconvenient facts from spoiling his patter. Back to your regular programming.