Coffee & COVID: On Spotting Propaganda

Jeff Childers, attorney and author of the daily newsletter Coffee & COVID, comments on a story in The New York Times that reports on the booming economy while poo-pooing that Trump’s tariffs have anything to do with it. Whether or not you agree with Childers take on the effects of the tariffs, he makes a valid point about how The Times and other news outlets shape their stories to steer you to the opinion they want you to have.

When reading this type of ‘news’ critically, balance is the first thing you should look for. Here’s the formula: the articles report a scrap of actual news (e.g., the economy is booming), and then round up several “experts” to tell readers what to think about the news.

If the “expert” portion of the story is unbalanced, then you are reading propaganda, not news. Corporate media uses experts to publish its own opinions —its bias— while hiding in the bushes behind the carefully curated people who all magically agree with its perspective. By publishing a totally lopsided group of voices, the reporter hopes to fool the reader into assuming expert “consensus” exists— without ever having to explicitly make that dubious argument.

Assuming you are masochistic enough to consume corporate media’s articles, when reading this type of piece, always first ask: “do all the quoted sources agree with each other, and varying expert opinions are conspicuously absent?” If so, you can safely ignore all the quotes and focus just on the factual reporting of what actually happened.

Believe it or not, this kind of reporting is what is most responsible for killing legacy media and driving people to social media for news. On social media, folks actually find the diversity of voices and opinions that is lacking in contemporary corporate media. Even allowing for all the noise of misinformation, outright lies, silliness, and unintelligent commentary, Twitter’s “town square” beats whatever the Times is serving up.

At least the bias is obvious on Twitter/X, which is all anybody asked for anyway.

It would be trivially easy for big news publishers like the Times to give readers right-click access to quoted experts’ biographies, previous comments, publication history, and political donation records. But they don’t. Think about that. And think about the claim that publications like the Times allegedly exist to “inform” us.

I’m old enough to remember “the good old days” when the news would offer more than one set of expert opinions. Now they refer to people who disagree with the experts they’re pushing as “deniers”, “discredited”, “debunked” and so on. Recently a lawyer friend told me he could almost always find an expert who would support the position the lawyer was taking in his case. Seems that’s exactly what our “news” media does too.

The Fallacy of Mind Reading + The Ladder of Misinference

In his book Loserthink: How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America, Scott Adams (creator of the Dilbert cartoon series) says: “We humans think we are good judges of what others are thinking. We are not. In fact, we’re dreadful at it. But people being people, we generally believe we are good at it while also believing other people are not.” (I highly recommend Adams’ book.)

Today’s edition of Coffee & COVID newsletter provides a typical example of mind reading.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal defecated a hurt-feelings story headlined, “Alarm Spreads Among U.S. Allies Over Trump’s Demand for Greenland”

In short, the Journal’s ‘news’ article reported that Trump is being mean to European élites, again, and it is making them feel unsafe, again. “Europeans are afraid of Trump,” said Pascal Boniface, director of the Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, a think tank in Paris. The Journal’s inelegantly implied theme, or thrust, was that European leaders’ fear of Trump explains why they didn’t criticize the recent arrest of Venezuelan narco-terrorist Maduro.

This is journalistic misdirection, and I’ll tell you why. The Journal was imputing a motive (fear of Trump) on all European leaders, without admitting that it was editorializing, [NOTE: emphasis added] to diminish the significance of the leaders’ apparent agreement with the move and thereby prevent it from legitimizing Trump’s actions. They only went along because they were afraid, was the Journal’s implied argument, which was dressed up as ‘news.’

Mind reading is one of the most common cognitive errors I see in critical thinking and news reporting.

On a related topic Alex Edmans points out two other common errors in his excellent book May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics, and Studies Exploit Our Biases – And What We Can Do about It. As he says in the Introduction: 

We’ll take a deep dive into two psychological biases – confirmation bias and black-and-white thinking – that are the two biggest culprits in causing us to misinterpret information.

Edmans, professor of Finance at London Business School, introduces his Ladder of Misinference. This paragraph in the Introduction summarizes this ladder.

We accept a statement as fact, even if it’s not accurate – the information behind it may be unreliable and may even be misquoted in the first place. We accept a fact as data, even if it’s not representative but a hand-picked example – an exception that doesn’t prove the rule. We accept data as evidence, even if it’s not conclusive and many other interpretations exist. We accept evidence as proof, even if it’s not universal and doesn’t apply in other settings.

May Contain Lies takes a different approach than many of the books I’ve read on critical thinking. Those other books talk about common fallacies and cognitive biases. Edmans plows new ground by offering a new way of looking at statements and claims. Highly recommended!

Loserthink and May Contain Lies are two of my favorite books on critical thinking and being objective. They will help prevent us from falling into thinking traps.

Robert J. Bidinotto's Post: FROM EMOTIONS, TO NARRATIVES, TO IDEOLOGIES -- and my Response

Below I’m sharing a post by Robert J. Bidinotto. Robert has been influential in Objectivist (the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy) circles since the 1980s. Before turning to writing a series of thrillers he served as editor-in-chief of The Atlas Society’s monthly magazine of politics and culture, The New Individualist. Robert and I met in college in the early 1970s when he introduced me to the work of Ayn Rand. Robert’s post starts below followed by my response. 

ROBERT’S POST: FROM EMOTIONS, TO NARRATIVES, TO IDEOLOGIES.

In intellectual circles, it is common to believe that ideology is a decisive social force on its own -- that abstract philosophical systems underlie societies and cultures; and that to change a society, you need only promulgate a different philosophy/ideology.

Of course, intellectuals *want* to believe in the decisive "power of ideas," because as promulgators of ideas, this belief confirms their lofty view of their own social importance and power. And certainly the connection of ideologies to societies, movements, and governments is obvious and undeniable -- which is why I used to accept this conventional view, too.

But a lifetime of promoting philosophical ideas has caused me to reconsider my views about the role of philosophy/ideology in human life and society. Introspection, observation of people close to me, and sobering realizations about how marginal and fleeting the impacts of philosophical persuasion, by myself and by many other skilled communicators, have been -- all of that has led me to conclude that personal and cultural change is much more complicated than simply spreading the "right" philosophical ideas.

Summarized simply, I believe...

...that the vast majority of people, including intellectuals, are actually driven not by ideas, but by emotions, often fairly crude ones, rooted in values, often only implicit;

...that over time, these values-laden emotions, if widely shared, are transformed into Narratives -- into inspiring popular myths, legends, and stories -- which provide explanations and justifications for those feelings;

...that only later do the more intellectual believers in these emotionally appealing, values-laden stories, myths, and Narratives try to buttress them with more sophisticated, abstract theoretical rationalizations -- i.e., with explanatory philosophies, ideologies, theologies, etc. The intellectuals do this to flesh out and support the core themes and underlying motives of their Narratives, granting them the social weight and gravitas of an "intellectual" image and justification.

You see that pattern historically with every creed that has attracted significant followings and becomes a mass movement. They start with a set of core emotions, driven by values broadly shared across a large social group; then follows the development of a popular mythology that dramatizes and evokes the group's shared emotions and values; and finally comes a complex theoretical rationalization for the mythological Narrative (and its values-driven emotions), crafted by the social group's intellectuals. In this last stage, the abstract system can take on a life of its own: it is taught and promoted in "movement" schools and texts, to which believers cling tightly, because it offers reassuring intellectual support and explanations for their underlying feelings and Narratives.

But the foundational appeal of philosophical, ideological, or theological systems does not lie in their theoretical abstractions themselves; pure abstractions carry no emotional appeal or motivational power. Instead, the believers' commitments are fundamentally to their core Narrative -- to the explanatory mythology or story -- and to the emotions and values it embodies and evokes. All that the theoretical abstractions offer are rationalizations and reassurance that the story is valid.

This explains why you can so often argue with someone using reason, logic, and overwhelming facts, until you are blue in the face, and get nowhere. Or why a person's "intellectual" commitments can seem so shallow and fleeting. Or why politicians and dictators rely so heavily on storytelling about their target constituencies' collective "identity," in the form of a high-stakes drama about villains (their political adversaries), victims (their constituents), and heroic rescuers (themselves). Or why a person's (or society's) "conversion" requires not just a new ideological argument, but instead begins with an emotional upheaval rooted in profound personal dissatisfaction with the status quo -- and which then leads to a confrontation with some appealing new Narrative that promises the dissatisfied individual a fresh identity: a meaningful new life role and purpose. The philosophical argument then comes along as a reassuring explanation for the wisdom of the conversion; but it alone is not the motivator of the conversion.

Let me emphasize that an abstract philosophy *can* serve legitimate and important purposes. It does not have to offer merely a sophistic rationalization for a bogus Narrative. If the Narrative is grounded in reality, then philosophy can provide a valid *rationale* for it. A rationale differs from a rationalization, because the former is true (based on reality), while the latter is false. And a valid rationale can flesh out our understanding, teasing out many important and helpful implications of the Narrative.

But, to sum up, I now believe that personal persuasion and cultural change require us to effectively present a compelling alternative Narrative to those people open to its emotional appeal. Not everyone is -- not by a long shot. People who are emotionally committed to a Narrative that defines them, their identity, and their life purpose -- but which is hostile to one's own values -- aren't going to change, no matter how skilled and logical your presentation of facts and arguments. Abstract arguments will never penetrate the emotional/values barriers surrounding a contrary Narrative. Even a compelling counter-Narrative will not prove persuasive unless the target of your communication is already deeply dissatisfied with his own, and thus searching for (or at least open to) a fresh worldview.

One corollary point, and it's important. I believe people with good values, and correspondingly good emotions, will be attracted to good Narratives -- and perhaps later, to good philosophies. The fact that they, too, are "Narrative-driven" is *not* necessarily a bad thing: it doesn't mean they are *irrationally* driven. If a kid is raised without any explicit philosophy, or even a bad one, yet becomes enamored of heroes in TV shows, movies, and comic books (oops, "graphic novels"), and then, inspired, goes on to do great things - - is that irrational?

To my Objectivist friends, I would point out that I've just described the childhood-to-adulthood trajectory of your heroine, Ayn Rand, if you know anything about her autobiography. After all, *she* didn't start out with a conceptual philosophical understanding of the world; she started out, in the hellish environment of post-revolutionary Soviet Russia, simply as a brilliant child who became captivated by heroic literature and movies. That *emotional* orientation, driven by some core values she didn't understand at the time, were sufficient to propel her on a remarkable journey to becoming, as an adult, a storyteller and philosopher whose worldview was opposite everything around her.

And those values-driven emotions first took form as a romantic Narrative of heroic individualism. That Narrative was a core part of her character by the time she reached her early teens. Rand didn't even encounter Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, and other thinkers who influenced her philosophical thinking until college -- by which time *her character and sense of life was already formed*. Her systematic philosophy did not fully take form until she was middle-aged, during the writing of ATLAS SHRUGGED; and I would argue that she managed to become a heroic individualist long before figuring it all out.

Again, Rand's life and character were shaped indelibly and enduringly by a Narrative -- not by abstract philosophy or ideology. If that is true of her, then how can it not be true of others? Do we need formal, systematic philosophy in order to be rational, honest, independent, just, and productive? Were there no such people on Planet Earth before Rand incorporated those virtues formally into her Objectivist system?

I commend to you her book THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, especially its opening chapters, where -- in words different from mine here, but I believe very similar in meaning -- she explains the enormous power of stories, of Narratives, in shaping the human soul and our world.

--------------------------------------------

MY RESPONSE

I agree with Bidinotto's position on this. I’d add a couple corollary points that don’t contradict his. (At least I don’t think they do!)

1.  We are influenced by dozens of subconscious cognitive biases such as confirmation bias. We think we’re being objective without realizing how much of what we believe is influenced by these biases.

2.  Once we form our favored narratives, we tend to get our news from sources that reflect these narratives and discount someone who cites sources considered untrustworthy. This becomes a self-supporting cycle in which people consume news only from their trusted sources and don’t expose themselves to other sources. For instance, I’ve seen arguments between a liberal who cites CNN while the conservative who relies on Fox. 

3.  We also have different languages. Arnold Kling’s book The Three Languages of Politics explains how liberals see things in terms of the oppressed versus the oppressors. Conservatives see the world as a conflict of civilization (law and order) versus barbarism. And libertarians think everything boils down to freedom versus coercion.

4.  While we have our rational side we still are influenced by our evolutionary tribal roots. As a result, we often see the world in terms of “us versus them.” (The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff identifies three “untruths” that many of our current youth have accepted: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people.)

When discussing issues with people who I know don’t share my framework I’ve tried to come up with an approach that plants a seed of doubt. I’ve collected information from sources I think the person I’m talking to is more likely to accept to get them to open their mind a crack. It takes some work but it can be done!

Confirmation Bias, Cherry-Picking, and Echo Chambers by Ed Latimore

This post by Ed Latimore offers a good description of common errors people make when forming their opinions and how to combat them.

Gell-Mann Amnesia: What is it?

I recently learned about a term created by Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, Jaws and Andromeda Strain. He identified something he labeled the Gell-Mann Amnesia. (Crichton named it after a friend, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann who discovered and named the quark.)

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.”

I have seen amnesia in action with people I know. As an example, I know a married couple who are devout Catholics. They distrust the reporting of The Boston Globe because they believe the Globe harbors an anti-Catholic bias. Yet they believe everything else the Globe says! I guess the Globe is biased only on one subject. Right?

I think there is another version of Gell-Mann Amnesia. Here is an example. During the Trump administration the media harped endlessly on his alleged collusion with Russia. When the Mueller report showed that there were no such ties, the people I know who bought into the Russia-gate story conveniently forgot how they were misled for years then move on to the next story. Their faith in their trusted news sources remains intact.

Tucker Carlson: Should We Care That He Is Off The Air?

A friend posted his reaction on Facebook to Fox pulling Tucker Carlson’s show off the air by saying that he will shed no tears over Carlson’s departure. Why? Because Carlson didn’t advocate individualism, free markets or limited government but instead represents “right-wing tribalism” and a push for big government conservativism. Several other people expressed their agreement for my friend’s position.

My opinion of Carlson isn’t quite as negative. I won’t shed tears for Tucker either but for a different reason. He probably will land on a platform where his audience will be even larger (like Joe Rogan who has an audience at least three times larger than Carlson’s) and will make much more money. (However, will he have as much influence?) 

What bothers me is how Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) openly called for taking Tucker off the air and, for whatever reason, Fox complied. (I’ve heard various theories what lead to his sudden silencing. My guess is that it was a combination of factors.) 

I find it interesting too that Schumer or AOC aren’t demanding Fox to remove Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham or Jesse Watters. As I said, I don’t feel bad for Carlson; I’m more concerned about the concerted effort to silence people who question the dominant narratives.

Despite his flaws, Tucker played an important role in challenging and questioning many of the narratives pushed by the Left and their media cheerleaders. He revealed how DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) undermines meritocracy in the fields of airline piloting, medicine and corporate America, the incestuous relationship between pharma, government and media in pushing the vaccines and lockdowns while silencing and de-platforming prominent, respected doctors who disagreed, and the shady collusion between the various Federal agencies and Twitter (plus other social media platforms) to suppress mostly conservative voices. (Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, who Elon Musk recruited to produce the “Twitter files,” call this relationship the Censorship Industrial Complex. Shellenberger and Taibbi have been guests on Tucker’s show. Both are self-described liberals.) None of the other mainstream media outlets said a peep about the Twitter files.

Thanks to previously unreleased videos of the January 6th protest/riot to which House Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave Carlson access, you see a different version of what happened than what we were shown by other media. One of these videos show that Jacob Chansley [“QAnon Shaman”] was accompanied by Capitol police almost as if they were giving him a tour. This ultimately led to Chansley’s release from prison. Chansley’s lawyer didn’t have access to this video before Carlson’s show.

Yes, Carlson questioned whether our involvement in the Ukraine war serves our interests and is worth threatening World War III, shared claims of corruption in the Ukraine government and expressed concern about the lack of accounting for how our funds and military hardware are being used. Even if we endorse supporting the Ukraine militarily, these concerns shouldn’t be minimized or ignored.

I'm not saying Carlson is an individualist or a libertarian. I'd say he is a conservative populist. He regularly has liberal guests such as Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson and Michael Shellenberger. I know from watching Carlson he believes we have a uni-party government consisting of an elite that imposes laws and regulations that affect us but not them. I also know he has taken pot shots at libertarians and free market economics. So be it.

According to Megyn Kelly, Carlson wasn't fired. His show was taken off the air while Carlson is still under contract which was renewed in 2021 and expires in 2024. There is speculation that this was done to muzzle Carlson so that he won't be able to influence the 2024 election.

In evaluating Tucker Carlson, we should weigh his positives and negatives. Others have covered the negatives, so I won’t repeat them here. I’d narrow Carlson’s positives to two themes. One, his concern over the breakdown of civilization. Two, his concern over the constant and increasing attacks on free speech. (Free speech and civilization are interconnected.)

Whatever his flaws, you can tell Tucker was effective in asking uncomfortable and unpopular questions when you see the paroxysms of glee his departure has spawned on the left … and even on the right.

 

Scott Adams on Censorship and Voting

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert and host of daily video blog Coffee With Scott Adams on YouTube and Locals) posted this tweet with a provocative thesis.

Censorship determines the narrative. The narrative determines public opinion. Public opinion determines the vote. The vote determines who runs the country.

We have replaced voting with battles over who gets censored.

In response I posted this:

Behind the censorship is the postmodern idea that those who have the most power can decide and determine what is true.

Although I agree with Adams, I think he doesn’t go back far enough to the source of the censorship. The censorship Adams talks about doesn’t spring out of nothing like the Big Bang. We need to identify the beliefs that people use to justify imposing censorship that prevents certain ideas from being expressed or facts from being uncovered.

I believe postmodernism plays a role in many issues. I summarize postmodernism as the belief that there is no objective truth. Therefore, “truth” is determined by those who have the most power over the tools of communication such as social media, news media and over our language which includes the meanings of words and what is considered acceptable uses of these words. (There are some who claim that even silence can be oppressive because if you don’t vocally repudiate something that means you secretly support the “offensive” idea.)

Therefore, I now use the term “partial news” when referring to the news media. (I know, it's not as catchy as Trump's "fake news." I’m also thinking of using “skewed news.”) Here the word “partial” has two meanings. The first meaning refers only part of the story being told so that leads us to the conclusion they want us to reach. The second meaning refers to our news outlets as being partial rather than being impartial (i.e., objective). Postmodernism lies behind this because postmodernists believe there is no objective truth. When the truth and facts no longer serve as a yardstick, your political agenda takes over. News stories can then be crafted to steer us to a predetermined conclusion rather than presenting other sides of the story.