The Better Letter: Creatures of Desire
More on misinformation.
The moniker homo sapiens (Latin: “wise man”) is wildly ironic. As Shakespeare would have it, “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” We are unfailingly and frustratingly human.
The idea that we are truly rational beings is a cruel joke. As the Bible ruthlessly articulates and everyday life relentlessly confirms, we are creatures of desire more than reason.
What’s more, our errors, flaws, shortcomings, weaknesses, foibles, … and evil … are largely opaque to us. They leave no cognitive trace. That’s why the Bible equates sin with deceit so consistently.
What could go wrong?
When Thomas Jefferson claimed that “we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it,” he was speaking aspirationally more than descriptively. Tolstoy got it right: “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
As the late comedian George Carlin put it, “You are given a ticket to the freak show. When you’re born in America, you are given a front-row seat, and some of us get to sit there with notebooks. And I’m a notebook kinda guy.”
I’m not the creative engine that Carlin was. Duh. And I’m no comedian (obviously). But I am “a notebook kinda guy.” This week I’m going to open up my notebook and share a bit more of my thoughts on misinformation, the subject of last week’s TBL.
Remember, there are three basic kinds of false information. Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intent to cause harm. Malinformation is based on fact, but used with insufficient context so as to mislead, harm, or manipulate. Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.
If you like The Better Letter, please subscribe, share it, and forward it widely. It’s free, there are no ads, and I never sell or give away email addresses.
Thank you for reading.
Creatures of Desire
Hannah Arendt both observed and prophesied: “In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true....”
Spoiler alert: It isn’t just the masses.
As Hume found three-and-a-half centuries ago, “The greater part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and dogmatical in their opinions; and while they see objects only on one side, and have no idea of any counter-poising argument, they throw themselves precipitately into the principles, to which they are inclined; nor have they any indulgence for those who entertain opposite sentiments.”
Trigger warning: It’s all of humankind.
You, too.
Especially you.
And me, too.
We are seeing roughly 1,500 Americans die of Covid-19 every day now, and the vast majority of those deaths could have been prevented by vaccination. Yet many refuse to get vaccinated, usually based upon false information. It shouldn’t be a difficult call, but many think otherwise.
That is the context for a remarkable example of media false information. It’s real “fake news” in the wild.
An Oklahoma television station reported last week that rural hospitals throughout the state were in danger of becoming overwhelmed by victims overdosing on ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug promoted by anti-vaccine advocates as a treatment for Covid-19.*
The story ran under this headline: “Patients overdosing on ivermectin backing up rural Oklahoma hospitals, ambulances.” The heart of the story is a series of quotes from an Oklahoma doctor, Jason McElyea, none of which say directly that ivermectin overdoses were straining hospitals. “The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated,” McElyea told KFOR.
The story went viral and was seized upon by the mainstream media. It was quickly picked up by national news outlets, such as Rolling Stone (its story since heavily “updated” twice, including the removal of a ridiculous accompanying photo of people in winter coats waiting in line), the Daily Mail, The Guardian (since “amended”), the Daily Kos, Newsweek, Occupy Democrats (“so many Trumpers are overdosing“), Insider (since “updated”), and New York’s Daily News.
Numerous high-profile media figures, including MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, tweeted (it’s still up, as of this writing, and deceptively supplemented) about ivermectin overdoses straining Oklahoma hospitals with the inference that the right-wing embrace of a phony Covid medication was dangerous not only for the people who consumed it but for the stability of the entire medical system.
It’s hard to believe nobody thought the story smelled fishy. Its central claim is substantially false but was apparently too good to check. It confirmed every media prior and offered an amazing gift to anti-vaxxers and other idiots. They will have memes for days. It supports the widespread view that media can’t be trusted (except “your” media, perhaps your Facebook feed) and that the “other side” is out to control you with misinformation.
It isn’t hard to see this entire escapade as a comedy of errors that cascaded into catastrophe – classic misinformation. But, I think that’s too generous.
Multiple major media outlets ran a story that was dead wrong and could have easily been checked with 10 minutes of effort by calling the hospitals or Oklahoma poison control. Quite obviously, nobody checked the story. And, to this point, nobody has retracted or disavowed it. A few lame “updates” don’t nearly cut it. Meanwhile, the story went viral, got clicks, and pleased target audiences, who manifestly wanted it to be true.
That kind of malpractice can turn misinformation into disinformation.
Perhaps worst of all, the MSM will keep making these sorts of errors because no one will hold them accountable. No public editor comments. No concerned and apologetic editorials. No disinformation labels on Twitter.
It’s hardly a one-off, either. It’s almost as if accuracy doesn’t matter if the “right” people – deemed deserving of our hate and ridicule – are the targets. Most of what passes for news today is tribal, partisan fan service, sometimes even for the media itself.
The list of real, honest-to-God fake news is broad-based and a long one – you might have thought it was only a Fox News sin – and includes reports of Russians hacking a Vermont energy grid, tales of Michael Cohen in Prague, the pee tape, the Covington high school fiasco, Russian oligarchs co-signing a Deutsche Bank loan application for Donald Trump, Bountygate, the “mass hysterectomies” story, and more.
How many times did Adam Schiff do MSNBC hits to tell us he’d seen the evidence that would finally do Donald Trump in? “Fifty times? More. One hundred times? More. Two hundred times? More. Five hundred times? Probably.”
It was all lies. As Tom Wolfe wrote, “A lie may fool someone else, but it tells you the truth: you’re weak.”
The key problem is presumptive priors, deemed proven, self-evident, morally necessary, or part of the meta-narrative, and thus not worthy of further discussion or examination. We necessarily begin with our own version of events, and even though the truth is a singularity, that is far truer in theory than in fact. In real life, the truth comes in multitudes. “Alternative facts” are sometimes the only facts we have. And we’re rarely anxious to find out what we’re missing.
In matters of taste (and tribal identity), finding what you’re looking for is the primary goal. In matters of truth, it’s the main threat, yet desire overrides reason incessantly. It’s as if crazy is deemed okay, and perhaps necessary, to oppose crazy.
What could go wrong?
The purported “well-intentioned crazy” has enabled and unintentionally supported the utterly insane and truly dangerous.
The idea of a civil war or that the United States could break up seems less far-fetched by the day.
We shouldn’t be surprised that some significant number of people who watched all this happen would be distrustful of the mainstream media and other elites when it comes to vaccines. It is consistent with their desires, after all. But it is still remarkable how many self-proclaimed conservatives seem willing, even anxious, to sacrifice themselves and their families in order to “own the libs.”
It is also remarkable how willing the mainstream media is to ignore reality in order to pander to the desires of their target markets. As the Bible ruthlessly articulates and everyday life relentlessly confirms, we are creatures of desire more than reason.
_______________
* Ivermectin is a very effective antiparasitic drug in both humans and animals (those who insist on hyperbolically calling it horse medicine are being less than honest) that initially looked like it might also be a promising treatment of Covid based upon an early study. After further research, it looked less promising, and investigators found that the early study was fraudulent. By that point, however, it had gotten popular among a certain set as a suppressed coronavirus cure that They Don’t Want You to Know About.
Mail Call
The Substack platform won’t let me go on long enough to include reader responses this week — and there were a lot of them. So look for a forthcoming special TBL issuance before the next regular Friday morning missive including only the mail, perhaps shortly.
Totally Worth It
My 9.11 stories are here. I think it’s one of the best things I’ve ever done.
Feel free to contact me via rpseawright [at] gmail [dot] com or on Twitter (@rpseawright) and let me know what you like, what you don’t like, what you’d like to see changed, and what you’d add. Don’t forget to subscribe and share.
Of course, the easiest way to share TBL is simply to forward it to a few dozen of your closest friends.
This is the best thing I saw or read this week. The most interesting (with a side of science-denial by the left). The most powerful. The most important. The most insightful. The funniest (it’s also spot-on). The saddest. The coolest. The most incredible. The smartest. The tech-iest. The most predictable. The most mind-blowing (assuming it replicates). The most ridiculous (in a very tough field). More cancel culture. A silver lining, perhaps. Tribalism.
Benediction
This week’s benediction is “Carry Me,” by NEEDTOBREATHE, and featuring Jon Foreman of the San Diego band, Switchfoot.
I found a place where the past was forgiven | Where my mistakes met a grace I couldn't earn | And so I piled up my excuses and defenses in the night | Then I lit a match, stepped back and watched them burn
From the river's mouth | To the mountain peak | Through the great divide where the waters meet | I need you to carry me | Carry me
Carry me, I'm on my way | But I'm in too deep | I need you to carry me
Thanks for reading.
Issue 78 (September 10, 2021)
By "The Better Letter," I thought you meant a “better” example. Perhaps, you’re equivocating – viz., that you’re better at it than others.
For example, in laudably contemning mis-, mal-, dis- information, you argue from / appeal to authority (e.g., the Bible, three times) and splenetically reify disinformation. Hyperbolized, no less.
You ask, "How many times did Adam Schiff do MSNBC hits to tell us he'd seen the evidence that would finally do Donald Trump in? Fifty times? More. One hundred times? More. Two hundred times? More. Five hundred times? Probably."
I submit that Rep. Schiff, as a trained attorney (Stanford undergrad; Harvard law; former Assistant United States Attorney; eleven term Congressman) would never use those words. Doubtless he said, with professional conviction, that "there is ample evidence to support a finding of collusion" and/or "of obstruction." But “finally do Donald Trump in”?
Please cite your source(s). Or appropriately revise / redact. Thank you.
Well done, Bob - yet I wonder a bit at the lack of discussion about the reasons why our current media is ruled by purveyors of such misinformation. Why does all media do this?
IMHO, it is because they are fighting for our attention - after all, they believe themselves to be authority figures with important information that they hope will influence our purchasing decisions! If it bleeds, titillates, fascinates, frightens, or repulses, it captures our attention which is all that really matters to media, since that is how they stay in business. After all, the media is a strictly commercial enterprise with a laser focus on profitability.
That is the reason why, as you state, the MSM will keep making these sorts of errors, because "no one will hold them accountable." Emphasis on "no one" and "them" - because someone must take action. Someone other than me, that is.
Yet in a market system, isn't each individual accountable for their own choices? Doesn't the "invisible hand" save us by allowing the chips to fall where they may? This is, I think, where the capitalist markets theory breaks down. There is no "I" in team, and what our species has done is, and has always been, a team effort.
Our species has risen in its ability to shape our world and our survival mostly due to our ability as a team to learn from our mistakes. We developed language to improve our accountability for clear communication with others. We developed religion to improve our accountability for acting morally within our tribal norms. We developed capitalism to improve our accountability for economic relationships. We developed the scientific method to improve our accountability for understanding the natural processes that affect us - including those that cause illness.
We developed government to improve our accountability for behaving in ways that were deemed right and legal by those with power. And then we developed democratic government to improve the accountability of those who govern us.
Yet despite all of these, we have never yet developed a truly effective means for each of us to be fully individually accountable for our own actions. We scream for freedom from the oppressions placed on us by others, but fail to free ourselves from the illusion that our individual fate is not inextricably and completely linked to the fate of our species.
This is not a right/left, conservative/liberal, red/blue question. It is far, far deeper than that. To whom are we individually accountable, if not to one another? And what is the mechanism that will be sufficient to improve our accountability to one another before we annihilate ourselves on the altar of individual freedom?