Outrage is a full-time job
Becket Adams
Video Embed
The news industry sure spends a lot of time inventing things to be angry about.
Scientific American, for example, published an opinion article this month suggesting NFL player Damar Hamlin’s recent on-field medical emergency is evidence of a larger, more insidious problem within the league. Namely, systemic racism.
DAMAR HAMLIN DISCHARGED FROM BUFFALO HOSPITAL AFTER BEVY OF HEALTH TESTS
“Damar Hamlin’s Collapse Highlights the Violence Black Men Experience in Football,” the headline reads. Its subheading adds, “The ‘terrifyingly ordinary’ nature of football’s violence disproportionately affects black men.”
For reference, 70% of all NFL players are black. Is it racism that black men account for a large number of NFL injuries — or is it merely statistics and the law of averages? Let’s see what the Scientific American opinion article has to say.
“To dismiss the almost certain breaking down of their bodies as just part of the game is a process of objectification and commodification that prioritizes the player over the person in a way that Black feminist scholar Bell Hooks says calls to mind ‘the history of slavery and the plantation economy,’” the opinion article reads.
It adds, “The anti-Blackness of the system is inescapable.”
Scientific American editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth, who worked previously for the Washington Post, shared the article on social media, characterizing it as “important analysis.”
The internet responded to the Scientific American article with variations of “this is incredibly stupid.” To which Helmuth responded, “Annnnnd the replies to any tweet about systemic racism prove the existence of systemic racism.”
It’s enough to make Franz Kafka blush. “Denial of guilt is proof of guilt” is a fun run on the merry-go-round. It’s very scientific, very American.
For what it’s worth, Scientific American in 2020 endorsed then-Democratic nominee Joe Biden for president. In its 175-year history as a publication, the magazine had never, ever endorsed a candidate for president. And why would it? Politics are outside of its purview (beneath it, even). However, in October 2020, Scientific American broke its own 175-year tradition to support Biden over then-President Donald Trump, arguing it felt “compelled to do so.”
“Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November,” the endorsement read, “either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.”
Uh-huh.
For further context, Helmuth was appointed the editor-in-chief of Scientific American a mere six months before it endorsed Biden. In other words, she politicized the once-austere publication almost immediately upon taking over. And now a magazine called Scientific American is publishing articles based on the wild-eyed musings of “black feminist scholars,” arguing NFL injuries are racist.
Men named Michael
Speaking of self-serving perpetual outrage, the New Republic has uncovered an insidious plot by Republican leadership to head congressional committees with white men named “Mike” or “Michael.”
This is a real report published by the same magazine whose pages once featured W. E. B. Du Bois, George Orwell, and Reinhold Niebuhr.
“The House Will Have More Dudes Named ‘Mike’ Chairing Committees Than Women,” reads the New Republic headline. Its subheadings adds, “Under the new Republican majority, the House is set to have six men named ‘Mike’ or ‘Michael’ chairing committees, but only three women.” On social media, the magazine was similarly eager to share the results of its investigative efforts: “Majority Leader Steve Scalise released a list of committee head recommendations that was ratified today. Six men named Mike or Michael will be chairing committees, while only three women will be doing the same.”
First, the wording here suggests the editors had an off week. It sounds as if three women named “Mike” or “Michael” will soon lead congressional committees.
Second, what is this weird media jihad against white men named Mike or Michael?
In December, the Washington Post published an honest-to-God news report revealing Discovery’s annual “Shark Week” program was overrepresented by white men named “Mike.”
“‘Shark Week’ lacks diversity, overrepresents men named Mike, scientists say,” the paper’s headline read. The subheading read, “Researchers say Discovery’s programming overwhelmingly featured White men as experts while emphasizing negative messages about sharks.”
This wasn’t even an opinion article! It was a straight news report!
Far be it from me to dismiss the Washington Post’s and the New Republic’s collective efforts to expose white men named Michael, but surely, the time and resources of these newsrooms can be put to better use. What public interest do these stories serve?
Oopsie, never mind
And speaking of wasted time, certain newsrooms conceded this week they got a major post-2016 news narrative wrong.
“Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters,” reads the headline of the Jan. 9 edition of the Washington Post’s cybersecurity newsletter.
It adds: “Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.”
Produced by the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics, the study “explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections,” the Washington Post reports.
Ah, well, nevertheless. Never mind the many, many news articles the press produced after the election, claiming unequivocally Russian memes sealed the election for then-GOP nominee Donald Trump. It was a whole thing. After Trump won the White House, the public was inundated with news reports (not commentary!) alleging Russian memes swayed the election for Republicans. To date, no one in the press (myself included) has been able to locate a single voter who says he was fully prepared to support Hillary Clinton — until, that is, he saw a meme featuring Jesus Christ arm-wrestling the Serpent of Old.
“How Russia’s Absurdist Facebook Ads Broke the Election,” reads the headline of a Nov. 2017 Vanity Fair news report. Its subheading adds, “The memes were inane, but curiously effective.”
At Wired: “How Russian Trolls Used Meme Warfare to Divide America.”
“The effort by a Russian internet deception factory to manipulate American public opinion during the 2016 election was better planned and executed … than previously understood,” NBC News reported in 2019. Quoting a cybersecurity firm, the report adds the Kremlin operation was “a vast, coordinated campaign that was incredibly successful at pushing out and amplifying its messages.”
In 2019, Politico published a headline titled, “Russia’s manipulation of Twitter was far vaster than believed.”
The funny thing about this particular story? It was authored by journalist Tim Starks.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Starks left Politico in 2020. He joined the Washington Post in 2022, where he now heads the paper’s cybersecurity newsletter. The same cybersecurity newsletter that reported this week, “Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters.”
Oopsie. Never mind!