The word “debunked” has gained such popularity among journalists and pundits over the past several years because it helps them achieve one of their primary goals, which is to project the unearned impression of moral and political superiority. If you’re in a position to declare to the public that a Bad Idea has hereby been “debunked,” that must make you a Serious Person with access to Serious Knowledge, or otherwise in possession of some status marker associated with authority and expertise. This appropriation of status is fake — a scam — but that’s irrelevant to whether the status can be
Moral and political superiority is a heavy burden. Those who carry this need a space that is free from criticism and harm. They also need footrubs from the pleebs so that they can continue the work.
I have now got to the point with the US commercial media that I arrived at in the mid-'00s regarding the US Defense Dept: if the Pentagon says something, assume the opposite because they are lying.
I am now seriously wondering whether the election really was stolen . . . not because I have any evidence that it was, but simply because the media are so emphatic and vociferous in denying that it was.
In re: your headline, that’s exactly the approach I’ve used these last 5 years. You can discern the outline of the prevailing narrative of our masters by reading what Snopes, Politifact, et. al. have to say about the news of the day. They are pretty reliably standing the truth on it’s head day in and day out.
I've always seen "debunked" as short-hand for "X is untrue. I don't need to prove it all over again. Joe Smith has already done the work to prove it. You must take my word for it. No, I don't have to show you Joe's work. Wow, you live under a rock if you haven't heard of Joe's work. Everyone else already knows X is untrue. You're a special kind of confused and misinformed. No point talking to you."
For election fraud issues I recommend reviewing Matt Braynards work with the Boter Integrity Project. He concentrated on ballot issues only, nothing to do with computers. He matched voter info with Change of address and recorded death data bases. His group also did phone surveys in some cases calling “unlikely” voters (hadn’t voted in a while) who in fact voted this time. Many said they had not voted so clearly someone voted in their name. He did sampling and then projected the possible total impact and whether it could have affected the election. Very important to say that he doesn’t know which candidate benefited from the apparently illegal ballot. His findings covered votes by people who had moved, dead people, votes from commercial addresses, large number of votes from the same address. Large votes from the same P.O. Box, votes by unlikely voters. Etc. These are the issues the states are trying to address.
Based on your own assessment of the track record of elite "debunkings", not sure why you would be a "skeptic" of election fraud claims, at least more so than you would of any other claim.
Can anybody recall an example of the NYT or WaPo asserting in a front-page story or headline that a statement made or theory supported by an elected Democrat is “false”? I don’t mean an argument or analysis: just flatly described as “false”, with no supporting material.
There is plenty of evidence that media corporations deliberately used fake news and censorship to keep the truth hidden enough to tilt the election. It may not have been illegal but its a problem that needs to be corrected somehow. A free press is necessary to keep voters informed so they can vote intelligently, but the free press has been disappeared like free speech in Hong Kong. The "right" should focus more on that instead of outright voter fraud which is unlikely to be proven.
Completely agree but for one point: “ the lab leak theory was never “debunked” at the time journalists were confidently proclaiming it debunked; in fact, its plausibility was increasing.”
Nope. Its plausibility is exactly where it was months ago as the evidence available for and against has not changed one jot. There is a great temptation to take something that was un-debunked as more plausible than it was before claims that it was debunked. This is false. We are back to where we were before pundits ran their mouths about issues they knew nothing about. And that place is that we do not know how COVID originated. There are many many logical possibilities, but there are vast wholes. The most likely story is that it is a natural development as we have many instances of such e.g. Sars, Ebola etc. The lab leak only gained traction because it has proven hard IN ONE YEAR to give a convincing story of how it could have naturally arisen and infected humans. But one year is not a long time. Indeed it is a very very very short time. It took 15 years to het decent accounts for Sars, 20 for Ebola. So the raly wuestion right now is not if the lab leak story is true, but why we all of a sudden care. And it seems to me that there is every reason to think that this is tied to the bi-partisan efforts to ring fence China. It is part and parcel of the rest of the anti-China “news” we are constantly being fed. Dont get sucked in.
The punching down on Canon by lower tier journos, and even some MSM, I don't know how they're not embarrassed. Their parents likely paid $$$ for prep schools and their mission to fulfill their noblesse obliges has been turned into one of abuse instead of advocacy!
t was painfully obvious that these mostly working class women had backgrounds with abuse, and this finally got vindicated in academia, not by reporters. Entire relationship and implicit bargain is beond broken.
Moral and political superiority is a heavy burden. Those who carry this need a space that is free from criticism and harm. They also need footrubs from the pleebs so that they can continue the work.
I have now got to the point with the US commercial media that I arrived at in the mid-'00s regarding the US Defense Dept: if the Pentagon says something, assume the opposite because they are lying.
I am now seriously wondering whether the election really was stolen . . . not because I have any evidence that it was, but simply because the media are so emphatic and vociferous in denying that it was.
In re: your headline, that’s exactly the approach I’ve used these last 5 years. You can discern the outline of the prevailing narrative of our masters by reading what Snopes, Politifact, et. al. have to say about the news of the day. They are pretty reliably standing the truth on it’s head day in and day out.
I've always seen "debunked" as short-hand for "X is untrue. I don't need to prove it all over again. Joe Smith has already done the work to prove it. You must take my word for it. No, I don't have to show you Joe's work. Wow, you live under a rock if you haven't heard of Joe's work. Everyone else already knows X is untrue. You're a special kind of confused and misinformed. No point talking to you."
For election fraud issues I recommend reviewing Matt Braynards work with the Boter Integrity Project. He concentrated on ballot issues only, nothing to do with computers. He matched voter info with Change of address and recorded death data bases. His group also did phone surveys in some cases calling “unlikely” voters (hadn’t voted in a while) who in fact voted this time. Many said they had not voted so clearly someone voted in their name. He did sampling and then projected the possible total impact and whether it could have affected the election. Very important to say that he doesn’t know which candidate benefited from the apparently illegal ballot. His findings covered votes by people who had moved, dead people, votes from commercial addresses, large number of votes from the same address. Large votes from the same P.O. Box, votes by unlikely voters. Etc. These are the issues the states are trying to address.
Based on your own assessment of the track record of elite "debunkings", not sure why you would be a "skeptic" of election fraud claims, at least more so than you would of any other claim.
You should do a podcast called Unbunked with Michael Tracey in which you un-debunk things.
Debunkification- a media alert signaling the need for an evidence free consensus.
Can anybody recall an example of the NYT or WaPo asserting in a front-page story or headline that a statement made or theory supported by an elected Democrat is “false”? I don’t mean an argument or analysis: just flatly described as “false”, with no supporting material.
There is plenty of evidence that media corporations deliberately used fake news and censorship to keep the truth hidden enough to tilt the election. It may not have been illegal but its a problem that needs to be corrected somehow. A free press is necessary to keep voters informed so they can vote intelligently, but the free press has been disappeared like free speech in Hong Kong. The "right" should focus more on that instead of outright voter fraud which is unlikely to be proven.
Completely agree but for one point: “ the lab leak theory was never “debunked” at the time journalists were confidently proclaiming it debunked; in fact, its plausibility was increasing.”
Nope. Its plausibility is exactly where it was months ago as the evidence available for and against has not changed one jot. There is a great temptation to take something that was un-debunked as more plausible than it was before claims that it was debunked. This is false. We are back to where we were before pundits ran their mouths about issues they knew nothing about. And that place is that we do not know how COVID originated. There are many many logical possibilities, but there are vast wholes. The most likely story is that it is a natural development as we have many instances of such e.g. Sars, Ebola etc. The lab leak only gained traction because it has proven hard IN ONE YEAR to give a convincing story of how it could have naturally arisen and infected humans. But one year is not a long time. Indeed it is a very very very short time. It took 15 years to het decent accounts for Sars, 20 for Ebola. So the raly wuestion right now is not if the lab leak story is true, but why we all of a sudden care. And it seems to me that there is every reason to think that this is tied to the bi-partisan efforts to ring fence China. It is part and parcel of the rest of the anti-China “news” we are constantly being fed. Dont get sucked in.
The punching down on Canon by lower tier journos, and even some MSM, I don't know how they're not embarrassed. Their parents likely paid $$$ for prep schools and their mission to fulfill their noblesse obliges has been turned into one of abuse instead of advocacy!
t was painfully obvious that these mostly working class women had backgrounds with abuse, and this finally got vindicated in academia, not by reporters. Entire relationship and implicit bargain is beond broken.
How do I edit a post?