Thanks for this write-up. For the last few years I had a nagging feeling that maybe Adams’ online persona might be a bit, an in-joke between him and his fans. This goes a long way to dispel that impression and confirm that he actually believes what he’s been spouting.
Here's a relevant quote from the editor of the New York Times between 1860 and 1870, John Swinton (quote from wikipedia):
"There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
Okay, here's my last comment, and then I'll stop bothering you!
One thing I'd love for you to consider is that having a high level of trust in mainstream news media is a rare position. "Only 7% of adults have a ‘great deal’ of trust in news media, a new Gallup poll found. 38% say they have none at all." And the long decline of trust in the news media precedes the Trump era.
Your trust in establishment news is pretty common among highly-affluent blue-city Biden supporters, but it is very rare for Americans overall. Given that, your default position of surprise and confusion that anyone wouldn't trust the news can start to look disingenuous, or hyper-partisan, or out-of-touch.
As a thought experiment, it would be interesting for you to flip things around. Instead of asking people to prove to you that the news is fake, think about how you'd try to convince people that it's real. Imagine that you had to convince a bunch of skeptical farmers to believe that they could trust the news.
They might observe that people who trust mainstream news tend to be similar to the people in the news producing ecosystem...highly-affluent, credentialed, blue city residents...and share some of the same goals (like getting Democrats elected, increasing trust in government, etc.)
They might also observe that the news media is owned by billionaires, funded by corporate advertisers, sourced from government officials, written by political partisans, and sometimes infiltrated by intelligence agents. It would be up to you to explain that none of these special interest insiders are tempted to influence the farmers in ways that increase the insiders' political power or profits, but rather that the insiders are exclusively devoted to providing these farmers with accurate information.
What could you say to them that would convince them? What could you say to them that you yourself would find convincing? You don't have to answer; I'm just suggesting this as a thought experiment that you might want to try.
Anyway, that's it! Thank you for how you've engaged on this topic with so many people and also with me. You are a gentleman and a scholar. And also thank you for your big role in helping me fall in love with sketch comedy!
It was a very frustrating hour and 40 minutes! Love you, Micheal, have seen you live in Brooklyn a bunch of times and I do align strongly with your politics. I used to love Dilbert -- I had several books! -- something like 25-30 years ago, which is fine, I just outgrew it. I knew Scott Adams had become part of the Twitter "Right" but that doesn't often show up on my feed, so I didn't know much specifically about his views--but I eagerly played the YouTube hoping that you might "win" an argument that would somehow make me pleased in some way... this did not happen. You definitely "won" the arguments, but it was so very very disheartening to hear a seemingly intelligent person (Adams) go on and on about what an "expert" he is at "spotting bullshit" as a way to convince you--or "train you", I think was his aim--not to believe the "fake news", science, experts, or to your point in the article anything that didn't agree with his current worldview. Then when you finally had enough and asked him (repeatedly) to talk about the topic at hand (why he thinks all news is fake) you were basically able to sow doubt about all his supposedly ironclad theories but in the end, he just assumed you were woefully under informed about the "truth" (his crazy right wing conspiracy theories) and you were right to assume this was kind of a massive waste of yours (and my) time. And that's what was even more frustrating. I think I learned some truths about "why" Adams and his ilk are stubbornly clinging to conspiracies about the election, Covid, "Fauci" - wow he REALLY hates that guy-- and ignore the overwhelming evidence that Trump (and the right wing media) are actively lying to them all the time ("hyperbole" lolol) but the why they "believe" outright falsehoods and deny scientific evidence and "mainstream media" doesn't really help me think of any way to bridge the massive chasm between the two sources of news that you describe and makes me honestly much less hopeful we will ever get out of this Trump-induced hysteria we've been living under... Not your fault at all, Michael, you did your best, but man that was a disheartening thing to watch :(
Adams, like almost everyone on the modern American right, isn't interested in having serious, good-faith conversations. He exists to use his platform to harass and impugn anyone who disagrees with him, and then to point at well-intentioned guests on his show and make fun of them for being dumb enough to be arguing in good faith.
Michael, you rock. I am a huge fan, since way back when when you fell in love with that love seat and also bought 240 dollars worth of pudding!
Sorry your discussion was a little frustrating. I totally agree that you didn't really get to address the topic at hand. I was yelling at the screen as Scott kept talking at length about HIS credentials for how HE spots fake news even as you begged him to move on to the main topic. He just insisted that that was the best way to have the conversation, which it wasn't, and he couldn't seem to adjust to your request.
On the subject of the fine people thing, I think this was a missed opportunity for both of you. Scott's idea was to open your eyes to an example of fake news that mainstream news consumers were fooled by. But he didn't do it clearly enough, he didn't get through his points, he didn't have the video or the quotes handy, etc. And for your part, you seemed a bit triggered by such a contentious and partisan topic. You left listening mode and went into debate mode, and therefore you never really got to hear the whole example.
But I still think the "Fine People" thing could have been an eye-opener for you if you had been willing to suspend disbelief for a minute and just listen without nitpicking sub-points. This is my attempt to state the whole story clearly. Even if you disagree with little bits of it, just go with it and read to the end.
1) Trump said, during the same press conference: "There were very fine people on both sides, You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name" and "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."
2) Biden and the entire establishment media deliberately took the quote out of context and edited out Trump's condemnation of these bad groups. They convinced mainstream news viewers that Trump had referred to neo-Nazis and white nationalists as "very fine people."
3) Biden claimed that he decided to run for President specifically *because* Trump had praised these terrible people as "very fine people." Biden said "“That’s when we heard the words from the president of the United States that stunned the world and shocked the conscience of this nation." Biden said Trump “has publicly proclaimed a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and Klansmen and those who would oppose their venom and hate.” And Biden said “And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I’d ever seen in my lifetime.”
Biden is clearly claiming that Trump has done something terrible and Hitleresque here. He IS implying that Trump's "fine people" remark was about the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, not the statue defenders, even though he is legalistically careful to not say the specific phrase "Trump called neo-Nazis fine people."
4) Biden, Democratic politicians, and journalists repeated the false smear against Trump hundreds and hundreds of times. It was the centerpiece of Biden's stump speech. And both Biden and the establishment press never mentioned that Trump had specifically condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists in that same interview. Mainstream news consumers were repeatedly told that Trump had called neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people, when in fact, Trump had specifically condemned these groups in that very interview.
5) Republicans cried foul at the misleading reporting, pointing out the full quote in which Trump condemned the groups that Biden accused Trump of praising.
6) Left-leaning "fact checking" sites claimed for many years that Democrats and journalists were RIGHT to say that Trump had praised neo-Nazis and white supremacists as "very fine people" and that they WERE NOT taking Trump's words out of context
7) This week, right before the Trump/Biden debate, left-leaning "fact checking site" Snopes finally, many years later, admitted that the Biden/Dem/News Media claim that Trump had called neo-Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people" was FALSE! The timing is interesting, coming just a few days ahead of the debate.
8) Everyone who reads Republican-leaning news is aware that the leading Democratic fact checking site now agrees with them on this issue. One of the biggest news stories about what a white supremacist enabler Trump was, was debunked by fact checkers. The central claim of Biden's 2020 campaign, in fact his stated reason for running, was debunked by fact checkers. But no-one who reads Democratic-leaning news is aware of this change to the leading fact-checking site. Why? Because it makes Biden and the mainstream media look bad. So of course the Democratic-leaning media doesn't want to report it. The news isn't trying to inform you so you can make your own judgment. The news is trying to influence your beliefs. By selective reporting as well as misleading reporting.
9) The average news consumer thinks Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people." The average news consumer does not know that Trump actually specifically condemned those groups in the very same minute. The average news consumer does not know that the entire Democratic-leaning establishment media specifically edited out Trump's condemnation of those groups, and never mentioned that part of the quote. The average news consumer does not know that the leading Democratic-leaning fact checking site now agrees with the Republicans that these claims from Biden and the media were false.
You can nitpick and say that Biden didn't technically lie if he was careful to never specifically include the words "neo-Nazis" in Trump's "very fine people quote." You can nitpick and say that other quotes from Trump justify the news media taking this one out of context and hiding Trump's specific condemnation of neo-Nazis and from news consumers.
But the fact remains that news consumers were misinformed. By the news. And that most news consumers will never know that. Because the mainstream news media is not going to retract their previous misleading claims nor apologize for them for it, at least not in any way that will reach most news consumers.
So here's Scott's tweet summing up the news this week:
"Our so-called "Republic" elects its leaders based on how successfully the corporate news keeps the truth from Democrats.
Literally.
For example, the entire news-watching portion of the Republican party recently learned that left-leaning Snopes ruled the Fine People Hoax to be a hoax.
No media outlets that are followed by Democrats mentioned it, and it was by far the biggest story of the week, given the upcoming debate, and the fact Biden ran for office based on promoting the hoax.
And two of the hoax promoters are the debate hosts."
The problem is that Democrats tend to think that partisan Democratic journalists are fully informing their audiences of all relevant facts. If anything, Democrats consider anti-Trump journalists EXTRA credible because of their anti-Trump bona fides. "It means they're smart!" But journalists can't be simultaneously aggressively partisan in their news coverage and rigorously even-handed.
The biggest difference between Dems and Reps is that the Dems aren't fully aware of what gets discussed in the Republican media. Many Dems consider it a point of pride not to "pollute" their minds with Republican news. But Reps can't avoid the Dem news. It's everywhere. Everyone knows what CNN and the NYTimes say. But not everyone knows what Fox News or the New York Post say. Which leaves Democrats exposed to an inaccuracies or omissions at CNN or the NYTimes.
Anyway, I hope you'll take this as food for thought.
Crush, while you are correct that the MSM often didn’t play all of Trump’s speech that included his condemnation of neo-Nazis, that is because it wasn’t newsworthy. EVERYBODY CONDEMNS NEO-NAZIS. What WAS newsworthy was the comment that seemed quite in opposition to that, which made it obvious he was trying to cater to “both sides.” MSM played this one with basic common sense.
The fine people words were actually spoken, they're on record.
It's such a predantic and momentary example of news reporting. Also trivial in the enormous tip full of Trump quotes. Trump has and continues to say far more outrageous things.
If all news is fake, he should have been able to pick up the front page of today's newspaper, any paper, and explain/prove that the news is fake.
His delusions of being special, more special than any other semi literate person, is mystifying.
It's fine to hate Trump, but you shouldn't encourage fake news. Yes he said the words "fine people" but then he immediately said he was talking about people against statue removal, NOT neo-Nazis and white supremacists who should be condemned totally. Based on his full point, there was no news here at all, but it was spun up by the news media as a huge event, the worst thing ever said, and The Reason Joe Biden ran for President.
You would NOT want the media to do this to you. You would say, correctly, that they published fake news and lied about what you said and meant. If they did this to a friend of yours, you would be outraged. If they did this to Barack Obama, you would be outraged. The question isn't whether or not Trump is bad. The question is whether or not people should assume the news is always telling the truth. And this example proves that the answer to that question is no.
It's not an anecdote, it's a proof point. Reasonable people should be shocked that the entire diverse mainstream news media consisting of newspapers, cable news, broadcast news, etc. all worked in lock step to effectively convince mainstream news consumers that the President of the United States said the exact opposite of what he provably said! Just imagine if this had happened to Joe Biden 4 years ago and cost him the election and it stuck you with another four years of Trump. You would be shocked and outraged. Don't confuse yourself that news lying is okay if it's for the benefit of your team. It means you are being lied to.
Thank you for this very detailed criticism. I understand your point. I also think there's a certain amount of disingenuousness to the entire conversation because so much of the problem here is Trump himself. On one hand, he's happy to dance around the support that white supremacists have given him. On the other, he's forced to condemn them when they kill somebody. But, as we have seen from him time and again, his attitude towards bigotry is, at worst, tolerant. So when Biden claims to have run because of Charlottesville, he's not just taking a sloppy few days of Trump's response to Charlottesville without context; he's weighing the totality of the man's messages and remarks, his cozying up with the worst elements of our society, and framing it around Charlottesville. Which is fair, in my opinion. As for the media, I think I agree with you that the media - in general - DID allow the impression to persist that he had called Nazis "very fine people." The reason they did this, in my opinion, is that his "condemnation" didn't hold as much weight as his previous remarks about Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants of all stripes, his casual antisemitism, his comments about shithole countries, etc. etc. etc. So his comments about C'ville obviously fell flat precisely because they felt disingenuous. Should the media have done a better job of clarifying that Trump also condemned Nazis? I take your point that they could have and maybe should have. I also think Trump's remarks were ludicrous on their face. Were there people protesting a fucking statue there that had no affiliation with the Unite the Right? I'm sure there were. But not very many, and why didn't they turn the fuck around when they saw hundreds of Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us?" When Trump talks about the fact that one side had a permit and one did not, as a way of blaming the people without the permit for the violence, the fact of the matter is the permit was specifically issued TO THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS. So yes, he DID condemn out of one side of his mouth while giving them cover with the other.
Michael! Thank you for such a quick response! (Sorry my comment was so long; thank you for reading and responding.)
The sentence I'm happiest about in your response is, of course, this: "As for the media, I think I agree with you that the media - in general - DID allow the impression to persist that he had called Nazis "very fine people." (Although I'd prefer you to use the active "falsely reported" instead of the passive "allowed the impression to persist." ;-)) But your openness to the main point is great. The news media can be deliberately misleading. And at least some of the time, you are making a mistake if you rely on it to provide you with an accurate fact base.
Even if I accept your overall premise that Trump tries to dance around the support that white supremacists have given him, it's worth mentioning that a common media tactic against Republicans is constantly making them "disavow" various groups. Which they should do in some cases, and which Trump did do repeatedly. But the purpose of the question is a political tactic to trap the Republican candidate into either insulting people on the right (who prefer the Republican candidate) or not insulting them and then being tarred as endorsing their hateful views. But the mainstream media doesn't do this to Democrats. Joe Biden is never asked by any of your favored news sources if he "disavows" the legacy of Mao, or the collapse of Socialist Venezuela, or the Communist Party USA, or the law-breaking of Antifa, or the fraud committed by the founders of Black Lives Matter. Some of what you saw as Trump insufficiently denouncing various groups is not evidence of him harnessing racism but rather just evidence that, like many Republican candidates, he is regularly subjected to this media tactic.
But the more important point is that even if Democratic-leaning journalists believe that there actually is a pattern of racism with Trump, it doesn't justify attempts to make that seem even more true by deliberately misleading people about specific quotes or incidents. A lot of voters incorrectly believe that Trump called the neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people. Because the media falsely reported that as news. Repeatedly. For years.
You're saying that it's okay for them to do that because it's consistent with a theme. Trump has said other offensive things. But some of your other examples are media exaggerations too. For example, Trump's famous comment about Mexico not sending it's best people was not racist. He was specifically talking about illegal immigrants who engage in criminal activity. Which some do. It only seemed racist if you heard a CNN reporter repeatedly "report it" as racist by deliberately pretending that a quote about *some* illegal immigrants was actually a racist slur directed at *all* Mexicans.
But in the news media and in your memory, it was an outrageously racist comment which then justified and reinforced the media's later false claim that he was praising neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Many mainstream journalists admitted they vehemently opposed Trump and considered "stopping him" to be a more important priority than reporting on him fairly, objectively, or accurately. And, unsurprisingly, they helped create an impression in "the news" that happened to align perfectly with Democratic Party attack ads and campaign talking points.
Again, this is a tough example because you are so anti-Trump. You feel like the media got it right in spirit even if they weren't being perfectly accurate or using the best journalistic ethics. But your takeaway shouldn't be about whether or not they were kinda right in general about Trump not denouncing white supremacists hard enough. Your takeaway should be the evidence that the mainstream media is willing and able to deceptively edit quotes to "report" the opposite of the truth of what the President of the United States says. He said he condemned these groups totally, the news said he called them very fine people and that he "publicly proclaimed a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and Klansmen and those who would oppose their venom and hate." (Biden's false claim, never fact checked nor disputed in the mainstream media.) Every mainstream media outlet reported this falsehood, consistently, for years. And they got away with it. In spite of consistent Republican complaints about this falsehood, most mainstream media consumers are STILL unaware that they were lied to about this. Not even the President of the United States and the entire Republican party, with the video evidence in hand, could convince the average mainstream media news consumer that they had been misled about this.
Once you see what they are willing to do and how easy it is for them to get away with it, it helps you to realize that "the news" isn't always a reliable source of the truth.
“I’m sure there were, but not very many” that’s an ironic critique from someone who feels necessary to interject “not ALL, not 100%” anytime you hear a generalization that is directionally true (i.e. men are taller than women)
So Trump's quote "There were many fine people on both sides" is NOT directionally true. What IS true is that there were many people there representing the Unite the Rally, most of whom were not "very fine people." To use your example, it would be like saying, "Most women are taller than most men." There ARE women who are taller than men, but directionally speaking, it is incorrect.
This is such a struggle for me. When I try to have these conversations with friends who think similarly (though much more reasonably and fact-based) to Adams, as soon as I point out any flaws or inconsistencies in their thinking they immediately shut down and change the subject. They *know* they can’t justify their positions/opinions but are unwilling to even consider anything different. It’s exhausting and disheartening. Good on you.
I have had the same experience with left-leaning friends and family. I think most people don’t reason themselves into their politics, but absorb and repeat a collection of shibboleths which sounded good at the time. Advancing an actual argument from such a position requires a lot of hasty retroactive work, and is very stressful. You can't be too hard on them; one carrot is worth ten sticks.
Agreed, it’s that exact lack of reason that frustrates me. The stick most assuredly doesn’t work but I haven’t had much success with the carrot either. Perhaps a soft pretzel instead.
You're a brave soul. Lol. I honestly don't have your patience. Scott is a misogynistic, racist, bigotted asshole. I'm pretty sure I'd end up punching him. Lol. Best I keep my distance😉
Yes Terrence is a fucking buffoon🤣 I watched another video debunking Terrence about a month ago and wow! Listening to Terrence's ideas about broke my brain🤣 Absolutely no logic to be found anywhere. Terrence had some absolute bonkers ideas with no attachment to objective reality. Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking in way too many in our species, which does not bode well for us😞
I'm only about 30 minutes in but must say you are much more patient than I am and an excellent critical thinker on your feet. At about 10 minutes in, the "reading comprehension" check clarifying that he is "always exaggerating" and "universals are never universals" logically translates to me that he has also exaggerated his ability to detect bullshit and therefore the rest of the portion of the conversation dedicated to him proving that he has some collection of credentials to prove his bullshit detectorist expertise is irrelevant. Followed up by the conversation about how you cant trust research because the "assumption drives the results not the data" while also saying that studies showed that Havana Synd. is not related to a weapon but no comment on who conducted that study and why he trusts the results of that particular study other than the fact that it supported his assumption / assertion.
Thanks for this write-up. For the last few years I had a nagging feeling that maybe Adams’ online persona might be a bit, an in-joke between him and his fans. This goes a long way to dispel that impression and confirm that he actually believes what he’s been spouting.
Here's a relevant quote from the editor of the New York Times between 1860 and 1870, John Swinton (quote from wikipedia):
"There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
All I can tell you is I once published an opinion piece in the New York Times that was EXACTLY my honest opinion. Here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html
Yes, and good op-ed!
Okay, here's my last comment, and then I'll stop bothering you!
One thing I'd love for you to consider is that having a high level of trust in mainstream news media is a rare position. "Only 7% of adults have a ‘great deal’ of trust in news media, a new Gallup poll found. 38% say they have none at all." And the long decline of trust in the news media precedes the Trump era.
Your trust in establishment news is pretty common among highly-affluent blue-city Biden supporters, but it is very rare for Americans overall. Given that, your default position of surprise and confusion that anyone wouldn't trust the news can start to look disingenuous, or hyper-partisan, or out-of-touch.
As a thought experiment, it would be interesting for you to flip things around. Instead of asking people to prove to you that the news is fake, think about how you'd try to convince people that it's real. Imagine that you had to convince a bunch of skeptical farmers to believe that they could trust the news.
They might observe that people who trust mainstream news tend to be similar to the people in the news producing ecosystem...highly-affluent, credentialed, blue city residents...and share some of the same goals (like getting Democrats elected, increasing trust in government, etc.)
They might also observe that the news media is owned by billionaires, funded by corporate advertisers, sourced from government officials, written by political partisans, and sometimes infiltrated by intelligence agents. It would be up to you to explain that none of these special interest insiders are tempted to influence the farmers in ways that increase the insiders' political power or profits, but rather that the insiders are exclusively devoted to providing these farmers with accurate information.
What could you say to them that would convince them? What could you say to them that you yourself would find convincing? You don't have to answer; I'm just suggesting this as a thought experiment that you might want to try.
Anyway, that's it! Thank you for how you've engaged on this topic with so many people and also with me. You are a gentleman and a scholar. And also thank you for your big role in helping me fall in love with sketch comedy!
It was a very frustrating hour and 40 minutes! Love you, Micheal, have seen you live in Brooklyn a bunch of times and I do align strongly with your politics. I used to love Dilbert -- I had several books! -- something like 25-30 years ago, which is fine, I just outgrew it. I knew Scott Adams had become part of the Twitter "Right" but that doesn't often show up on my feed, so I didn't know much specifically about his views--but I eagerly played the YouTube hoping that you might "win" an argument that would somehow make me pleased in some way... this did not happen. You definitely "won" the arguments, but it was so very very disheartening to hear a seemingly intelligent person (Adams) go on and on about what an "expert" he is at "spotting bullshit" as a way to convince you--or "train you", I think was his aim--not to believe the "fake news", science, experts, or to your point in the article anything that didn't agree with his current worldview. Then when you finally had enough and asked him (repeatedly) to talk about the topic at hand (why he thinks all news is fake) you were basically able to sow doubt about all his supposedly ironclad theories but in the end, he just assumed you were woefully under informed about the "truth" (his crazy right wing conspiracy theories) and you were right to assume this was kind of a massive waste of yours (and my) time. And that's what was even more frustrating. I think I learned some truths about "why" Adams and his ilk are stubbornly clinging to conspiracies about the election, Covid, "Fauci" - wow he REALLY hates that guy-- and ignore the overwhelming evidence that Trump (and the right wing media) are actively lying to them all the time ("hyperbole" lolol) but the why they "believe" outright falsehoods and deny scientific evidence and "mainstream media" doesn't really help me think of any way to bridge the massive chasm between the two sources of news that you describe and makes me honestly much less hopeful we will ever get out of this Trump-induced hysteria we've been living under... Not your fault at all, Michael, you did your best, but man that was a disheartening thing to watch :(
Not sure if you've seen this yet, but here is Parker Molloy's take -
https://www.readtpa.com/p/trumps-very-fine-people-remark-snopes
"If the Nazis are praising your statement, maybe you’re doing it wrong?"
If DD or RS will praise Tesla cars tomorrow, is EM in cahoots with the nazis?
Adams, like almost everyone on the modern American right, isn't interested in having serious, good-faith conversations. He exists to use his platform to harass and impugn anyone who disagrees with him, and then to point at well-intentioned guests on his show and make fun of them for being dumb enough to be arguing in good faith.
The multiple realities reality is hard to live in.
Exhausting, too.
Michael, you rock. I am a huge fan, since way back when when you fell in love with that love seat and also bought 240 dollars worth of pudding!
Sorry your discussion was a little frustrating. I totally agree that you didn't really get to address the topic at hand. I was yelling at the screen as Scott kept talking at length about HIS credentials for how HE spots fake news even as you begged him to move on to the main topic. He just insisted that that was the best way to have the conversation, which it wasn't, and he couldn't seem to adjust to your request.
On the subject of the fine people thing, I think this was a missed opportunity for both of you. Scott's idea was to open your eyes to an example of fake news that mainstream news consumers were fooled by. But he didn't do it clearly enough, he didn't get through his points, he didn't have the video or the quotes handy, etc. And for your part, you seemed a bit triggered by such a contentious and partisan topic. You left listening mode and went into debate mode, and therefore you never really got to hear the whole example.
But I still think the "Fine People" thing could have been an eye-opener for you if you had been willing to suspend disbelief for a minute and just listen without nitpicking sub-points. This is my attempt to state the whole story clearly. Even if you disagree with little bits of it, just go with it and read to the end.
1) Trump said, during the same press conference: "There were very fine people on both sides, You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name" and "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."
2) Biden and the entire establishment media deliberately took the quote out of context and edited out Trump's condemnation of these bad groups. They convinced mainstream news viewers that Trump had referred to neo-Nazis and white nationalists as "very fine people."
3) Biden claimed that he decided to run for President specifically *because* Trump had praised these terrible people as "very fine people." Biden said "“That’s when we heard the words from the president of the United States that stunned the world and shocked the conscience of this nation." Biden said Trump “has publicly proclaimed a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and Klansmen and those who would oppose their venom and hate.” And Biden said “And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I’d ever seen in my lifetime.”
Biden is clearly claiming that Trump has done something terrible and Hitleresque here. He IS implying that Trump's "fine people" remark was about the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, not the statue defenders, even though he is legalistically careful to not say the specific phrase "Trump called neo-Nazis fine people."
4) Biden, Democratic politicians, and journalists repeated the false smear against Trump hundreds and hundreds of times. It was the centerpiece of Biden's stump speech. And both Biden and the establishment press never mentioned that Trump had specifically condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists in that same interview. Mainstream news consumers were repeatedly told that Trump had called neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people, when in fact, Trump had specifically condemned these groups in that very interview.
5) Republicans cried foul at the misleading reporting, pointing out the full quote in which Trump condemned the groups that Biden accused Trump of praising.
6) Left-leaning "fact checking" sites claimed for many years that Democrats and journalists were RIGHT to say that Trump had praised neo-Nazis and white supremacists as "very fine people" and that they WERE NOT taking Trump's words out of context
7) This week, right before the Trump/Biden debate, left-leaning "fact checking site" Snopes finally, many years later, admitted that the Biden/Dem/News Media claim that Trump had called neo-Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people" was FALSE! The timing is interesting, coming just a few days ahead of the debate.
8) Everyone who reads Republican-leaning news is aware that the leading Democratic fact checking site now agrees with them on this issue. One of the biggest news stories about what a white supremacist enabler Trump was, was debunked by fact checkers. The central claim of Biden's 2020 campaign, in fact his stated reason for running, was debunked by fact checkers. But no-one who reads Democratic-leaning news is aware of this change to the leading fact-checking site. Why? Because it makes Biden and the mainstream media look bad. So of course the Democratic-leaning media doesn't want to report it. The news isn't trying to inform you so you can make your own judgment. The news is trying to influence your beliefs. By selective reporting as well as misleading reporting.
9) The average news consumer thinks Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people." The average news consumer does not know that Trump actually specifically condemned those groups in the very same minute. The average news consumer does not know that the entire Democratic-leaning establishment media specifically edited out Trump's condemnation of those groups, and never mentioned that part of the quote. The average news consumer does not know that the leading Democratic-leaning fact checking site now agrees with the Republicans that these claims from Biden and the media were false.
You can nitpick and say that Biden didn't technically lie if he was careful to never specifically include the words "neo-Nazis" in Trump's "very fine people quote." You can nitpick and say that other quotes from Trump justify the news media taking this one out of context and hiding Trump's specific condemnation of neo-Nazis and from news consumers.
But the fact remains that news consumers were misinformed. By the news. And that most news consumers will never know that. Because the mainstream news media is not going to retract their previous misleading claims nor apologize for them for it, at least not in any way that will reach most news consumers.
So here's Scott's tweet summing up the news this week:
"Our so-called "Republic" elects its leaders based on how successfully the corporate news keeps the truth from Democrats.
Literally.
For example, the entire news-watching portion of the Republican party recently learned that left-leaning Snopes ruled the Fine People Hoax to be a hoax.
No media outlets that are followed by Democrats mentioned it, and it was by far the biggest story of the week, given the upcoming debate, and the fact Biden ran for office based on promoting the hoax.
And two of the hoax promoters are the debate hosts."
The problem is that Democrats tend to think that partisan Democratic journalists are fully informing their audiences of all relevant facts. If anything, Democrats consider anti-Trump journalists EXTRA credible because of their anti-Trump bona fides. "It means they're smart!" But journalists can't be simultaneously aggressively partisan in their news coverage and rigorously even-handed.
The biggest difference between Dems and Reps is that the Dems aren't fully aware of what gets discussed in the Republican media. Many Dems consider it a point of pride not to "pollute" their minds with Republican news. But Reps can't avoid the Dem news. It's everywhere. Everyone knows what CNN and the NYTimes say. But not everyone knows what Fox News or the New York Post say. Which leaves Democrats exposed to an inaccuracies or omissions at CNN or the NYTimes.
Anyway, I hope you'll take this as food for thought.
Here's the fact-check from Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
Here's an excellent comment from Scott where he explains the fine people thing better than he did in your discussion:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=148598314
Crush, while you are correct that the MSM often didn’t play all of Trump’s speech that included his condemnation of neo-Nazis, that is because it wasn’t newsworthy. EVERYBODY CONDEMNS NEO-NAZIS. What WAS newsworthy was the comment that seemed quite in opposition to that, which made it obvious he was trying to cater to “both sides.” MSM played this one with basic common sense.
The fine people words were actually spoken, they're on record.
It's such a predantic and momentary example of news reporting. Also trivial in the enormous tip full of Trump quotes. Trump has and continues to say far more outrageous things.
If all news is fake, he should have been able to pick up the front page of today's newspaper, any paper, and explain/prove that the news is fake.
His delusions of being special, more special than any other semi literate person, is mystifying.
It's fine to hate Trump, but you shouldn't encourage fake news. Yes he said the words "fine people" but then he immediately said he was talking about people against statue removal, NOT neo-Nazis and white supremacists who should be condemned totally. Based on his full point, there was no news here at all, but it was spun up by the news media as a huge event, the worst thing ever said, and The Reason Joe Biden ran for President.
You would NOT want the media to do this to you. You would say, correctly, that they published fake news and lied about what you said and meant. If they did this to a friend of yours, you would be outraged. If they did this to Barack Obama, you would be outraged. The question isn't whether or not Trump is bad. The question is whether or not people should assume the news is always telling the truth. And this example proves that the answer to that question is no.
I'm not American, so my opinion of Trump is irrelevant.
It wasn't worthy of news, we can agree on that.
People twisting and turning on interpretation isn't news.
He still offered no evidence of all news being fake. That's the point of this essay.
The claim was never that all news is fake. The claim is that some news is fake. Which this story proves.
An anecdote isn't data.
It's not an anecdote, it's a proof point. Reasonable people should be shocked that the entire diverse mainstream news media consisting of newspapers, cable news, broadcast news, etc. all worked in lock step to effectively convince mainstream news consumers that the President of the United States said the exact opposite of what he provably said! Just imagine if this had happened to Joe Biden 4 years ago and cost him the election and it stuck you with another four years of Trump. You would be shocked and outraged. Don't confuse yourself that news lying is okay if it's for the benefit of your team. It means you are being lied to.
Quote: "It's impossible to have a political news with somebody who believes the news is real."
Thank you for this very detailed criticism. I understand your point. I also think there's a certain amount of disingenuousness to the entire conversation because so much of the problem here is Trump himself. On one hand, he's happy to dance around the support that white supremacists have given him. On the other, he's forced to condemn them when they kill somebody. But, as we have seen from him time and again, his attitude towards bigotry is, at worst, tolerant. So when Biden claims to have run because of Charlottesville, he's not just taking a sloppy few days of Trump's response to Charlottesville without context; he's weighing the totality of the man's messages and remarks, his cozying up with the worst elements of our society, and framing it around Charlottesville. Which is fair, in my opinion. As for the media, I think I agree with you that the media - in general - DID allow the impression to persist that he had called Nazis "very fine people." The reason they did this, in my opinion, is that his "condemnation" didn't hold as much weight as his previous remarks about Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants of all stripes, his casual antisemitism, his comments about shithole countries, etc. etc. etc. So his comments about C'ville obviously fell flat precisely because they felt disingenuous. Should the media have done a better job of clarifying that Trump also condemned Nazis? I take your point that they could have and maybe should have. I also think Trump's remarks were ludicrous on their face. Were there people protesting a fucking statue there that had no affiliation with the Unite the Right? I'm sure there were. But not very many, and why didn't they turn the fuck around when they saw hundreds of Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us?" When Trump talks about the fact that one side had a permit and one did not, as a way of blaming the people without the permit for the violence, the fact of the matter is the permit was specifically issued TO THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS. So yes, he DID condemn out of one side of his mouth while giving them cover with the other.
Michael! Thank you for such a quick response! (Sorry my comment was so long; thank you for reading and responding.)
The sentence I'm happiest about in your response is, of course, this: "As for the media, I think I agree with you that the media - in general - DID allow the impression to persist that he had called Nazis "very fine people." (Although I'd prefer you to use the active "falsely reported" instead of the passive "allowed the impression to persist." ;-)) But your openness to the main point is great. The news media can be deliberately misleading. And at least some of the time, you are making a mistake if you rely on it to provide you with an accurate fact base.
Even if I accept your overall premise that Trump tries to dance around the support that white supremacists have given him, it's worth mentioning that a common media tactic against Republicans is constantly making them "disavow" various groups. Which they should do in some cases, and which Trump did do repeatedly. But the purpose of the question is a political tactic to trap the Republican candidate into either insulting people on the right (who prefer the Republican candidate) or not insulting them and then being tarred as endorsing their hateful views. But the mainstream media doesn't do this to Democrats. Joe Biden is never asked by any of your favored news sources if he "disavows" the legacy of Mao, or the collapse of Socialist Venezuela, or the Communist Party USA, or the law-breaking of Antifa, or the fraud committed by the founders of Black Lives Matter. Some of what you saw as Trump insufficiently denouncing various groups is not evidence of him harnessing racism but rather just evidence that, like many Republican candidates, he is regularly subjected to this media tactic.
But the more important point is that even if Democratic-leaning journalists believe that there actually is a pattern of racism with Trump, it doesn't justify attempts to make that seem even more true by deliberately misleading people about specific quotes or incidents. A lot of voters incorrectly believe that Trump called the neo-Nazis and white supremacists very fine people. Because the media falsely reported that as news. Repeatedly. For years.
You're saying that it's okay for them to do that because it's consistent with a theme. Trump has said other offensive things. But some of your other examples are media exaggerations too. For example, Trump's famous comment about Mexico not sending it's best people was not racist. He was specifically talking about illegal immigrants who engage in criminal activity. Which some do. It only seemed racist if you heard a CNN reporter repeatedly "report it" as racist by deliberately pretending that a quote about *some* illegal immigrants was actually a racist slur directed at *all* Mexicans.
But in the news media and in your memory, it was an outrageously racist comment which then justified and reinforced the media's later false claim that he was praising neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Many mainstream journalists admitted they vehemently opposed Trump and considered "stopping him" to be a more important priority than reporting on him fairly, objectively, or accurately. And, unsurprisingly, they helped create an impression in "the news" that happened to align perfectly with Democratic Party attack ads and campaign talking points.
Again, this is a tough example because you are so anti-Trump. You feel like the media got it right in spirit even if they weren't being perfectly accurate or using the best journalistic ethics. But your takeaway shouldn't be about whether or not they were kinda right in general about Trump not denouncing white supremacists hard enough. Your takeaway should be the evidence that the mainstream media is willing and able to deceptively edit quotes to "report" the opposite of the truth of what the President of the United States says. He said he condemned these groups totally, the news said he called them very fine people and that he "publicly proclaimed a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and Klansmen and those who would oppose their venom and hate." (Biden's false claim, never fact checked nor disputed in the mainstream media.) Every mainstream media outlet reported this falsehood, consistently, for years. And they got away with it. In spite of consistent Republican complaints about this falsehood, most mainstream media consumers are STILL unaware that they were lied to about this. Not even the President of the United States and the entire Republican party, with the video evidence in hand, could convince the average mainstream media news consumer that they had been misled about this.
Once you see what they are willing to do and how easy it is for them to get away with it, it helps you to realize that "the news" isn't always a reliable source of the truth.
Absolutely, Michael! 👏 Everyone understood what Trump meant, especially the neo-Nazis.
“I’m sure there were, but not very many” that’s an ironic critique from someone who feels necessary to interject “not ALL, not 100%” anytime you hear a generalization that is directionally true (i.e. men are taller than women)
So Trump's quote "There were many fine people on both sides" is NOT directionally true. What IS true is that there were many people there representing the Unite the Rally, most of whom were not "very fine people." To use your example, it would be like saying, "Most women are taller than most men." There ARE women who are taller than men, but directionally speaking, it is incorrect.
This is such a struggle for me. When I try to have these conversations with friends who think similarly (though much more reasonably and fact-based) to Adams, as soon as I point out any flaws or inconsistencies in their thinking they immediately shut down and change the subject. They *know* they can’t justify their positions/opinions but are unwilling to even consider anything different. It’s exhausting and disheartening. Good on you.
I have had the same experience with left-leaning friends and family. I think most people don’t reason themselves into their politics, but absorb and repeat a collection of shibboleths which sounded good at the time. Advancing an actual argument from such a position requires a lot of hasty retroactive work, and is very stressful. You can't be too hard on them; one carrot is worth ten sticks.
Agreed, it’s that exact lack of reason that frustrates me. The stick most assuredly doesn’t work but I haven’t had much success with the carrot either. Perhaps a soft pretzel instead.
A family member’s husband was one of the Virginia State Troopers killed in the helicopter crash at Charlottesville. It absolutely was not a “hoax”.
You're a brave soul. Lol. I honestly don't have your patience. Scott is a misogynistic, racist, bigotted asshole. I'm pretty sure I'd end up punching him. Lol. Best I keep my distance😉
Well, it was over Zoom so even if I had wanted to (which I didn't), it would have been very difficult to punch him.
Fair point😁 As I said, you have way more patience than I. Lol.
Yes Terrence is a fucking buffoon🤣 I watched another video debunking Terrence about a month ago and wow! Listening to Terrence's ideas about broke my brain🤣 Absolutely no logic to be found anywhere. Terrence had some absolute bonkers ideas with no attachment to objective reality. Critical thinking skills seem to be lacking in way too many in our species, which does not bode well for us😞
Well done Michael, thank you.
I'm only about 30 minutes in but must say you are much more patient than I am and an excellent critical thinker on your feet. At about 10 minutes in, the "reading comprehension" check clarifying that he is "always exaggerating" and "universals are never universals" logically translates to me that he has also exaggerated his ability to detect bullshit and therefore the rest of the portion of the conversation dedicated to him proving that he has some collection of credentials to prove his bullshit detectorist expertise is irrelevant. Followed up by the conversation about how you cant trust research because the "assumption drives the results not the data" while also saying that studies showed that Havana Synd. is not related to a weapon but no comment on who conducted that study and why he trusts the results of that particular study other than the fact that it supported his assumption / assertion.
Thank you for this. You are a national treasure, and there should be a statue of you in the Stuckeyville town square.
Right next to the General Jeffrey Stuckey statue!
dear michael,
thank you for sharing this! it is fascinating!
here are some phrases you wrote that i like a lot:
"...the white supremacist most famous for getting punched in the face, Richard Spencer"
"If the Nazis are praising your statement, maybe you’re doing it wrong?"
and
"I’m only sorry that we never got a chance to discuss the actual topic of discussion: his assertion that all political news is fake."
i'm also sorry about that!
thanks for doing what you're doing!
love
myq