6 ms·

For those in the comments that haven't read the article, I highly recommend you check it out. While the comments are talking about the survival of news media an

For those in the comments that haven't read the article, I highly recommend you check it out. While the comments are talking about the survival of news media and "tone-deaf" titles, the bulk of the article is about the Overton window[1] shifting to the point where rigerous journalism questioning outrages of the time is becoming untenable, weakening the news overall. It's a very good read. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window?wprov=sfla1

pm90 6y ago
I would advise care when reading it. It’s not immediately clear but it uses very hand picked facts to paint a very different picture of what’s actually going on. I call these kinds of articles disinformation-lite; not outright lies but selectively picking events to portray a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t really hold true. I’ll cite a specific example to make this case. See this paragraph: > Cotton did not call for “military force against protesters in American cities.” He spoke of a “show of force,” to rectify a situation a significant portion of the country saw as spiraling out of control. It’s an important distinction. Cotton was presenting one side of the most important question on the most important issue of a critically important day in American history. What Cotton actually said: > One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. (Emphasis mine) It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests, which are painted as overwhelmingly violent in the beginning of the article. The author of the current article is simply using selective words to further his argument. The other arguments are similar in nature. So while it appears to be a good read, it actually is not.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Do you have any examples of high-quality qualitative reporting? I can somewhat see your point but it seems endemic and hardly specific to this post, to Matt Taibbi, or journalism/punditry in any given time and place.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- md224 6y ago
  I’m a bit confused, since the section you emphasized appears to prove Taibbi’s point: Cotton called for force against “lawbreakers”, not “protestors”. You can argue that the troops would in practice end up attacking both groups, but that’s a separate question from “did Cotton suggest deploying troops to attack protestors?” If Cotton explicitly stated that all protestors were in violation of the law, then I stand corrected, but otherwise I’m not convinced this is as cut and dry as you make it seem. I want to take this opportunity to make an important point: I could easily have accused you of disinformation for promoting what appears to me to be an illegitimate “spin” on Cotton’s column. But I didn’t because I know you’re just trying to call it like you see it. What I want you to understand is that this is what everyone is doing, Matt Taibbi included. We’re all trying to interpret things as best as we can. Sometimes those interpretations don’t line up, but that doesn’t mean everyone who disagrees with you is purposefully spreading disinformation. (Maybe some are, but I believe most people are trying to be accurate.)
  - pm90 6y ago
    I think your confusion is warranted. Context is important. I wanted to cite more from Cottons op ed but was afraid it would be too much words. This is the beginning of his essay: > This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s. > New York City suffered the worst of the riots Monday night, as Mayor Bill de Blasio stood by while Midtown Manhattan descended into lawlessness. Bands of looters roved the streets, smashing and emptying hundreds of businesses. Some even drove exotic cars; the riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements. It’s immediately clear that it’s not a nuanced argument he seeks to make, in his view protestors and rioters are one and the same. If his desire was to use the military on only the rioters he could have mentioned that distinction. However, that would reduce the thrust of the argument: why deploy overwhelming military forces when the rioters are a minority? If they’re a minority can they not be controlled with existing law enforcement ? Instead of weakening the case he chooses to ignore the distinction, which is deliberate and insincere. Cottons op ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
    - 6y ago
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  That's quite clearly not what he said unless you believe protestors to be lawbreakers. He took significant pains to separate out protestors from those who were rioting and looting and includes a defense of protesting as a right in the article.
  - pm90 6y ago
    He did not take significant pains to separate them, that is the whole point. Please cite sections of his essay that support your hypothesis.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      He couches all of his points in a painful separation/distinction. It's one of the main points of his op ed. Is your brand of rhetoric here the reason why everyone feels like they have to belabor their points by "refreshing" a distinction every two paragraphs lest you forget? It's a weird amnesia, and I want to you consider the possibility that you want him to equate rioting with peaceful protesting because without that, you don't have much of a point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your thought process is to read something like the quote someone brought in the sibling comment of mine. And you go "ah, a-ha ok so he did make a distinction". And then a few paragraphs later you switch 100% back into "but he probably didn't mean it right here! gotcha. ;D" How else am I to interpret any of your comments in this thread?
      - pm90 6y ago
        It’s fine to be wrong. I missed that paragraph in his essay. But there is a reason why that paragraph was missed, and Ive tried to portray the reason why that might be in my other comments. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to address the reasons why his op ed was deemed to be so revolting. A lot of the comments seem to confess a kind of willful blindness to the awfulness involved in that essay and I’m trying to make a good faith argument to explain why that perspective is justified.
- 0xcde4c3db 6y ago
  Something that Cotton also said recently on Twitter: "No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters." Literally, "no quarter" means that combatants are to be killed rather than taken prisoner. Figuratively, it means to give one's full effort to achieve an overwhelming victory. Especially with the inclusion of anarchists, it's hard to reconcile that with the idea that he really wants to cast this as a matter of law enforcement. His is, to put it bluntly, a fascist sentiment. I know some people feel like the f-word is overused, but it's pretty well accepted that one of the elements that separates a genuinely fascist movement from mere authoritarianism is the normalization of extrajudicial violence against political opponents. Not to put too fine a point on it: historically, anarchists were often specifically targeted for such fascist violence. I can't tell you that Tom Cotton is a fascist in his heart, but he is very definitely speaking their language.
  - 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
    I can agree that anarchist can be a belief system or lifestyle that can be practiced without breaking the law. Anarchism as a belief, anarchist as a noun. Insurrection, rioting and looting are actions that are breaking the law. How long should this behavior be tolerated? Perhaps it's just a phase the people need to go through in order to release pent up energy. The concern is, though, that each time a city is burned and looted and people are beaten and killed and the rest of the country sees no consequence to the rioters, looters and insurrectionists, it lowers the barrier to partaking. By reporting only the mayhem, the press becomes the gateway drug to anarchy.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    "No quarter" also means [0]: >no pity or mercy —used to say that an enemy, opponent, etc., is treated in a very harsh way It's plausible that he meant this in the way you describe, but I think it's more likely he was using fancy language to emphasise that the city and police shouldn't tolerate things like the CHAZ or rioting and looting. Essentially, he's trying to criticize the local governments for tolerating these things and not putting a stop to it. (Easy way to try to score political points.) [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter
- Mirioron 6y ago
  >It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests Is it? Because to me he very clearly and explicitly talks about people that are breaking the law - rioters and looters. The opinion piece by Cotton literally says this: >Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. >But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. How can you read these lines and say that it is very clear to anyone that he meant deploying troops against peaceful protesters?
  - pm90 6y ago
    How can you ignore the fact that the vast majority of protestors have been peaceful and that using the military to subdue the rioters means that they will crack down mostly on the protestors?
- thisiszilff 6y ago
  Here is a link to the op-ed for anyone following along who wants to read it: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1375 https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1375. It is true that it does start of by talking about violence, rioters, and harm that's come to the police. But after that he explicitly says that these should not be confused by the protesters: > Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn't be confused with bands of miscreants. The majority of the op-ed is a fairly straightforward argument for deploying federal resources to help police, how that might be done, and why it needs to be done. This is the most controversial paragraph it would appear (following the above paragraph). > One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what's necessary to uphold the rule of law. The op-ed doesn't seem particularly controversial to me. Whether or not a given city takes the action outlines in it -- yes, sure, that might be controversial. But this seems like the basic argument that is made by people in support of sending in troops to supplant police. I struggle to see why the views of a good chunk of the population should not have a public platform to be presented & discussed.
- yesexactly89 6y ago
  Using selective words to further his argument is Taibbi’s shtick as that’s “old journalism “. He’s railing against, ultimately, the evolution of information distribution. He’s calling the media industry recent exclusion of one journalist the end times? Go start a YouTube channel. Someone THAT good shouldn’t need a day job. A hundred years ago most people were self employed. This weird bubble of human history where we all got talked into working for “financially viable” tribes is deflating. Taibbi is ultimately sticking with what he knows, being all alarmist the world is changing and not buying into what he thinks is important anymore. He doesn’t have the same monopoly on visibility.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    It's been a lot more than one journalist.
coffeefirst 6y ago
That's true, and I usually like Taibbi, but I think he's misreading the issue. The real overton window has moved a little bit, but a lot of this is really about Twitter. Many institutions, including universities and publishers, act like Twitter outrage represents their real readers and communities. This isn't true. Twitter is a thick bubble that gives the loudest voice to the angriest, most passionate outrage-mongers. Sometimes they use it for good causes, other times they're way outside the mainstream. They also firmly believe, in a way that's constantly contradicted by polling, surveys, and talking to people in real life, that they're not only right but the majority. I can't say for sure that it's getting worse, but it feels like.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  The problem is that an angry Twitter mob can get people fired from all kinds of institutions/companies. While Twitter and universities might not be the mainstream thought, they can still ruin your life.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> the bulk of the article is about the Overton window[1] shifting to the point where rigerous journalism questioning outrages of the time is becoming untenable, That’s not an Overton Window shift, even if it was happening (which it is not); an Overton Window shift would change what the outrages are; making questioning popular outrages less tenable would be a narrowing of the window rather than a shift. But there is widespread and viable news media coverage questioning the outrages of the day, more than any time previously I would venture. It's just that the media is more focussed on catering to various isolated demographic and ideological markets (some more for advertising sales reasons, some more for political propaganda reasons, but the net effect is the same), and so in any particular outlet there is probably less tolerance for stories questioning the outrages of that outlets target audience. But, while the Overton Window may have shifted and/or narrowed/widened over time, this isn't a sign of it so much as the increasingly narrow audience focus of much of the media.

pm90 6y ago

I would advise care when reading it. It’s not immediately clear but it uses very hand picked facts to paint a very different picture of what’s actually going on. I call these kinds of articles disinformation-lite; not outright lies but selectively picking events to portray a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t really hold true. I’ll cite a specific example to make this case. See this paragraph: > Cotton did not call for “military force against protesters in American cities.” He spoke of a “show of force,” to rectify a situation a significant portion of the country saw as spiraling out of control. It’s an important distinction. Cotton was presenting one side of the most important question on the most important issue of a critically important day in American history. What Cotton actually said: > One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. (Emphasis mine) It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests, which are painted as overwhelmingly violent in the beginning of the article. The author of the current article is simply using selective words to further his argument. The other arguments are similar in nature. So while it appears to be a good read, it actually is not.

monadic2 6y ago
Do you have any examples of high-quality qualitative reporting? I can somewhat see your point but it seems endemic and hardly specific to this post, to Matt Taibbi, or journalism/punditry in any given time and place.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
md224 6y ago
I’m a bit confused, since the section you emphasized appears to prove Taibbi’s point: Cotton called for force against “lawbreakers”, not “protestors”. You can argue that the troops would in practice end up attacking both groups, but that’s a separate question from “did Cotton suggest deploying troops to attack protestors?” If Cotton explicitly stated that all protestors were in violation of the law, then I stand corrected, but otherwise I’m not convinced this is as cut and dry as you make it seem. I want to take this opportunity to make an important point: I could easily have accused you of disinformation for promoting what appears to me to be an illegitimate “spin” on Cotton’s column. But I didn’t because I know you’re just trying to call it like you see it. What I want you to understand is that this is what everyone is doing, Matt Taibbi included. We’re all trying to interpret things as best as we can. Sometimes those interpretations don’t line up, but that doesn’t mean everyone who disagrees with you is purposefully spreading disinformation. (Maybe some are, but I believe most people are trying to be accurate.)
- pm90 6y ago
  I think your confusion is warranted. Context is important. I wanted to cite more from Cottons op ed but was afraid it would be too much words. This is the beginning of his essay: > This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s. > New York City suffered the worst of the riots Monday night, as Mayor Bill de Blasio stood by while Midtown Manhattan descended into lawlessness. Bands of looters roved the streets, smashing and emptying hundreds of businesses. Some even drove exotic cars; the riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements. It’s immediately clear that it’s not a nuanced argument he seeks to make, in his view protestors and rioters are one and the same. If his desire was to use the military on only the rioters he could have mentioned that distinction. However, that would reduce the thrust of the argument: why deploy overwhelming military forces when the rioters are a minority? If they’re a minority can they not be controlled with existing law enforcement ? Instead of weakening the case he chooses to ignore the distinction, which is deliberate and insincere. Cottons op ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
  - 6y ago
vorpalhex 6y ago
That's quite clearly not what he said unless you believe protestors to be lawbreakers. He took significant pains to separate out protestors from those who were rioting and looting and includes a defense of protesting as a right in the article.
- pm90 6y ago
  He did not take significant pains to separate them, that is the whole point. Please cite sections of his essay that support your hypothesis.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    He couches all of his points in a painful separation/distinction. It's one of the main points of his op ed. Is your brand of rhetoric here the reason why everyone feels like they have to belabor their points by "refreshing" a distinction every two paragraphs lest you forget? It's a weird amnesia, and I want to you consider the possibility that you want him to equate rioting with peaceful protesting because without that, you don't have much of a point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your thought process is to read something like the quote someone brought in the sibling comment of mine. And you go "ah, a-ha ok so he did make a distinction". And then a few paragraphs later you switch 100% back into "but he probably didn't mean it right here! gotcha. ;D" How else am I to interpret any of your comments in this thread?
    - pm90 6y ago
      It’s fine to be wrong. I missed that paragraph in his essay. But there is a reason why that paragraph was missed, and Ive tried to portray the reason why that might be in my other comments. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to address the reasons why his op ed was deemed to be so revolting. A lot of the comments seem to confess a kind of willful blindness to the awfulness involved in that essay and I’m trying to make a good faith argument to explain why that perspective is justified.
0xcde4c3db 6y ago
Something that Cotton also said recently on Twitter: "No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters." Literally, "no quarter" means that combatants are to be killed rather than taken prisoner. Figuratively, it means to give one's full effort to achieve an overwhelming victory. Especially with the inclusion of anarchists, it's hard to reconcile that with the idea that he really wants to cast this as a matter of law enforcement. His is, to put it bluntly, a fascist sentiment. I know some people feel like the f-word is overused, but it's pretty well accepted that one of the elements that separates a genuinely fascist movement from mere authoritarianism is the normalization of extrajudicial violence against political opponents. Not to put too fine a point on it: historically, anarchists were often specifically targeted for such fascist violence. I can't tell you that Tom Cotton is a fascist in his heart, but he is very definitely speaking their language.
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
  I can agree that anarchist can be a belief system or lifestyle that can be practiced without breaking the law. Anarchism as a belief, anarchist as a noun. Insurrection, rioting and looting are actions that are breaking the law. How long should this behavior be tolerated? Perhaps it's just a phase the people need to go through in order to release pent up energy. The concern is, though, that each time a city is burned and looted and people are beaten and killed and the rest of the country sees no consequence to the rioters, looters and insurrectionists, it lowers the barrier to partaking. By reporting only the mayhem, the press becomes the gateway drug to anarchy.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  "No quarter" also means [0]: >no pity or mercy —used to say that an enemy, opponent, etc., is treated in a very harsh way It's plausible that he meant this in the way you describe, but I think it's more likely he was using fancy language to emphasise that the city and police shouldn't tolerate things like the CHAZ or rioting and looting. Essentially, he's trying to criticize the local governments for tolerating these things and not putting a stop to it. (Easy way to try to score political points.) [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter
Mirioron 6y ago
>It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests Is it? Because to me he very clearly and explicitly talks about people that are breaking the law - rioters and looters. The opinion piece by Cotton literally says this: >Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. >But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. How can you read these lines and say that it is very clear to anyone that he meant deploying troops against peaceful protesters?
- pm90 6y ago
  How can you ignore the fact that the vast majority of protestors have been peaceful and that using the military to subdue the rioters means that they will crack down mostly on the protestors?
thisiszilff 6y ago
Here is a link to the op-ed for anyone following along who wants to read it: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1375 https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1375. It is true that it does start of by talking about violence, rioters, and harm that's come to the police. But after that he explicitly says that these should not be confused by the protesters: > Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn't be confused with bands of miscreants. The majority of the op-ed is a fairly straightforward argument for deploying federal resources to help police, how that might be done, and why it needs to be done. This is the most controversial paragraph it would appear (following the above paragraph). > One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what's necessary to uphold the rule of law. The op-ed doesn't seem particularly controversial to me. Whether or not a given city takes the action outlines in it -- yes, sure, that might be controversial. But this seems like the basic argument that is made by people in support of sending in troops to supplant police. I struggle to see why the views of a good chunk of the population should not have a public platform to be presented & discussed.
yesexactly89 6y ago
Using selective words to further his argument is Taibbi’s shtick as that’s “old journalism “. He’s railing against, ultimately, the evolution of information distribution. He’s calling the media industry recent exclusion of one journalist the end times? Go start a YouTube channel. Someone THAT good shouldn’t need a day job. A hundred years ago most people were self employed. This weird bubble of human history where we all got talked into working for “financially viable” tribes is deflating. Taibbi is ultimately sticking with what he knows, being all alarmist the world is changing and not buying into what he thinks is important anymore. He doesn’t have the same monopoly on visibility.
- thu2111 6y ago
  It's been a lot more than one journalist.

coffeefirst 6y ago

That's true, and I usually like Taibbi, but I think he's misreading the issue. The real overton window has moved a little bit, but a lot of this is really about Twitter. Many institutions, including universities and publishers, act like Twitter outrage represents their real readers and communities. This isn't true. Twitter is a thick bubble that gives the loudest voice to the angriest, most passionate outrage-mongers. Sometimes they use it for good causes, other times they're way outside the mainstream. They also firmly believe, in a way that's constantly contradicted by polling, surveys, and talking to people in real life, that they're not only right but the majority. I can't say for sure that it's getting worse, but it feels like.

Mirioron 6y ago
The problem is that an angry Twitter mob can get people fired from all kinds of institutions/companies. While Twitter and universities might not be the mainstream thought, they can still ruin your life.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> the bulk of the article is about the Overton window[1] shifting to the point where rigerous journalism questioning outrages of the time is becoming untenable, That’s not an Overton Window shift, even if it was happening (which it is not); an Overton Window shift would change what the outrages are; making questioning popular outrages less tenable would be a narrowing of the window rather than a shift. But there is widespread and viable news media coverage questioning the outrages of the day, more than any time previously I would venture. It's just that the media is more focussed on catering to various isolated demographic and ideological markets (some more for advertising sales reasons, some more for political propaganda reasons, but the net effect is the same), and so in any particular outlet there is probably less tolerance for stories questioning the outrages of that outlets target audience. But, while the Overton Window may have shifted and/or narrowed/widened over time, this isn't a sign of it so much as the increasingly narrow audience focus of much of the media.