Read every word. As excellent as ever. Congratulations on your nomination and best wishes. I wish you gave lectures at the NAC in the afternoons. It would be great.
"That’s the sort of thing over-caffeinated undergrads write at 3 AM." Great description. I enjoyed reading the Daniel Dennett excerpt, lots to chew on there. Especially in the scientific fields, a healthy awareness of uncertainty should be, but is not always, a given. The famous quote from George Box comes to mind: "all models are wrong, but some are useful." There is always a level at which our understanding of the world fails, the wisdom is in knowing where that line is!
Coming late to this. Let me just say my fingers are crossed on the book award. The accolades to date are fully deserved and I will wholeheartedly toast your achievement whatever the ultimate result.
Excellent work. The adoption of technologies that speed up communications (and expectations) invariably leads to mistakes which can never be fully reversed. The false attribution of the hospital explosion and terrible human consequences has already lead to a swift hardening of public sentiment throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world. This in turn has undermined efforts to head off a full scale war and made the prospect of wider ties between major regional powers such as Saudi Arabia with Israel under the “Abraham Accords” or otherwise almost impossible for an indeterminant period of time.
The Times was hardly alone in accepting the instant claim by Hamas of Israeli responsibility without corroboration or, for that matter, investigation. The harsh reaction to the false claim would likely have happened even if the Times and other news outlets had waited for hard information. Nonetheless, these early reports likely enhanced the global divide over the tragedy in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
Another factor in the Times headline and reporting may be the sharp cutbacks among the editorial functions at the Times and other news outlets. There are fewer editors, proofreaders, fact checkers and senior staff who might have applied more journalistic judgment to the headlines and stories about the hospital blast. When our most important news organizations dumb themselves down to maintain speed -- and profits -- really bad things can happen.
In a perfect world, we readers would not take anything we see as the gospel truth, even if we have found a particular media outlet or commentator to be reliable over time. We would have the tendency to ask “What if they are wrong?” And if we accept or agree with the contention or description that questioning would extend to “What if I am wrong” since it is usually much easier to accept something which conforms to our existing belief.
Moreover, we would have the ability to allow somebody to be wrong or to alter their initial statement without that person having to fear “cancel culture” or a sharp drop in our trust of them. That we are not easily able to do these things, tends to result in doubling down by many when they ought to be re-considering or the resort to pablum statements of principle. When I was drafting talking points as a civil servant early in my career, it became clear to me in many instances that the ‘approved’ couse of action was to provide what I came to call “weasel words”.
Then we appear to allow for differing reactions and trust levels depending on the media format. Legacy media such as the NYTimes or the Globe and Mail still get more trust from us as we assume that the production of a daily edition requires greater care than putting up a comment on Twitter. TV and radio get less trust as they are constantly broadcasting. Still, they tend to get cut more slack than Twitter as they have large organizations behind them with published standards.
As a result, notable personalities seem to have a different personality depending on the platform they are on. These days it feels as if Andrew Coyne, for example, presents a more thoughtful and reasoned face to the world in his columns but then bends mightily to the level of discussion on Twitter. Finding himself attacked regularly and competing for attention with other media outlets whose sole presence is on the Internet, causes him to become more acerbic, single-minded and inclined to clickbait stances from which he cannot now return.
Wonderful piece, loved it. Congratulations on your nomination, hope you win! I agree with everything you write here, but on the "cancel culture" subject I wonder if proportionality of punishment is the only issue at hand. Yes, we all agree that certain things are beyond the pale and should be condemned and deserve consequences, sometimes very harsh consequences. But your framework might seem to imply that the "offensive" statement is always intrinsically offensive to some degree or another, rather than just offensive to some people. Not most people. And who gets to say what is "beyond the pale?" Your examples are great, but there are people who passionately and earnestly believe that (for example) "misgendering" anybody in any tone is "hate speech," and is as truly beyond the pale as "Jews will not replace us." Which makes it very difficult for people trying to advocate earnestly and as respectfully as possible for women's rights and children's safety, which some of us genuinely believe are in danger. If a person can get fired or lose a career opportunity for making what 98% of people on planet earth would agree is a truly heinous white supremacist assertion, then why not for referring to Lia Thomas as a biological male? From the people's perspective who believe misgendering is hate speech, there is simply no difference. I guess I wonder--who gets to say? How do we define the moral consensus?
Hi Elizabeth, I agree. My comments are limited only to those very obvious statements ("I love Hitler!") about which almost everyone can agree. I would argue that as a statement grows more distant from that sort of consensus, that distance should be taken into account when it comes to proportionality. For example, if someone says something I find appalling, but most people don't, it would clearly be unreasonable of me to expect that person to suffer the same degree of social sanction as if everyone agreed with my view. And we should be prepared to say to someone who does expect that, or demand it, that we respect their view, and will give serious consideration to their explanation of why they are so offended, but we will not be pressured into doing something that is, in our judgment, grossly disproportionate, or simply wrong. And if they object, well, tough. That's life in a pluralistic democracy.
I like to lived in today’s NEWS -Times : Information from multiple sources are easily available. None of the sources (like in scientific literature) are giving clear answers. Interpretation is up to us; after scanning a few different reports. Previously we tended to blindly rely on reports coming from voices we had “declared” reliable, a word that comes up all the time when people speak on tv.
Read every word. As excellent as ever. Congratulations on your nomination and best wishes. I wish you gave lectures at the NAC in the afternoons. It would be great.
A very perceptive piece. Thank you.
But it should be one of those warnings like “Never play cards with a man called Doc, etc.”
“Never, never bet your dog!”
You don't know my dog. Some days...
"That’s the sort of thing over-caffeinated undergrads write at 3 AM." Great description. I enjoyed reading the Daniel Dennett excerpt, lots to chew on there. Especially in the scientific fields, a healthy awareness of uncertainty should be, but is not always, a given. The famous quote from George Box comes to mind: "all models are wrong, but some are useful." There is always a level at which our understanding of the world fails, the wisdom is in knowing where that line is!
Coming late to this. Let me just say my fingers are crossed on the book award. The accolades to date are fully deserved and I will wholeheartedly toast your achievement whatever the ultimate result.
I wish you split each topic into a separate post, so each could be shared independently. All worth reading and sharing though!
Excellent work. The adoption of technologies that speed up communications (and expectations) invariably leads to mistakes which can never be fully reversed. The false attribution of the hospital explosion and terrible human consequences has already lead to a swift hardening of public sentiment throughout the Middle East and the Islamic world. This in turn has undermined efforts to head off a full scale war and made the prospect of wider ties between major regional powers such as Saudi Arabia with Israel under the “Abraham Accords” or otherwise almost impossible for an indeterminant period of time.
The Times was hardly alone in accepting the instant claim by Hamas of Israeli responsibility without corroboration or, for that matter, investigation. The harsh reaction to the false claim would likely have happened even if the Times and other news outlets had waited for hard information. Nonetheless, these early reports likely enhanced the global divide over the tragedy in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
Another factor in the Times headline and reporting may be the sharp cutbacks among the editorial functions at the Times and other news outlets. There are fewer editors, proofreaders, fact checkers and senior staff who might have applied more journalistic judgment to the headlines and stories about the hospital blast. When our most important news organizations dumb themselves down to maintain speed -- and profits -- really bad things can happen.
In a perfect world, we readers would not take anything we see as the gospel truth, even if we have found a particular media outlet or commentator to be reliable over time. We would have the tendency to ask “What if they are wrong?” And if we accept or agree with the contention or description that questioning would extend to “What if I am wrong” since it is usually much easier to accept something which conforms to our existing belief.
Moreover, we would have the ability to allow somebody to be wrong or to alter their initial statement without that person having to fear “cancel culture” or a sharp drop in our trust of them. That we are not easily able to do these things, tends to result in doubling down by many when they ought to be re-considering or the resort to pablum statements of principle. When I was drafting talking points as a civil servant early in my career, it became clear to me in many instances that the ‘approved’ couse of action was to provide what I came to call “weasel words”.
Then we appear to allow for differing reactions and trust levels depending on the media format. Legacy media such as the NYTimes or the Globe and Mail still get more trust from us as we assume that the production of a daily edition requires greater care than putting up a comment on Twitter. TV and radio get less trust as they are constantly broadcasting. Still, they tend to get cut more slack than Twitter as they have large organizations behind them with published standards.
As a result, notable personalities seem to have a different personality depending on the platform they are on. These days it feels as if Andrew Coyne, for example, presents a more thoughtful and reasoned face to the world in his columns but then bends mightily to the level of discussion on Twitter. Finding himself attacked regularly and competing for attention with other media outlets whose sole presence is on the Internet, causes him to become more acerbic, single-minded and inclined to clickbait stances from which he cannot now return.
Wonderful piece, loved it. Congratulations on your nomination, hope you win! I agree with everything you write here, but on the "cancel culture" subject I wonder if proportionality of punishment is the only issue at hand. Yes, we all agree that certain things are beyond the pale and should be condemned and deserve consequences, sometimes very harsh consequences. But your framework might seem to imply that the "offensive" statement is always intrinsically offensive to some degree or another, rather than just offensive to some people. Not most people. And who gets to say what is "beyond the pale?" Your examples are great, but there are people who passionately and earnestly believe that (for example) "misgendering" anybody in any tone is "hate speech," and is as truly beyond the pale as "Jews will not replace us." Which makes it very difficult for people trying to advocate earnestly and as respectfully as possible for women's rights and children's safety, which some of us genuinely believe are in danger. If a person can get fired or lose a career opportunity for making what 98% of people on planet earth would agree is a truly heinous white supremacist assertion, then why not for referring to Lia Thomas as a biological male? From the people's perspective who believe misgendering is hate speech, there is simply no difference. I guess I wonder--who gets to say? How do we define the moral consensus?
Hi Elizabeth, I agree. My comments are limited only to those very obvious statements ("I love Hitler!") about which almost everyone can agree. I would argue that as a statement grows more distant from that sort of consensus, that distance should be taken into account when it comes to proportionality. For example, if someone says something I find appalling, but most people don't, it would clearly be unreasonable of me to expect that person to suffer the same degree of social sanction as if everyone agreed with my view. And we should be prepared to say to someone who does expect that, or demand it, that we respect their view, and will give serious consideration to their explanation of why they are so offended, but we will not be pressured into doing something that is, in our judgment, grossly disproportionate, or simply wrong. And if they object, well, tough. That's life in a pluralistic democracy.
Thanks for the clarification, makes sense!
I like to lived in today’s NEWS -Times : Information from multiple sources are easily available. None of the sources (like in scientific literature) are giving clear answers. Interpretation is up to us; after scanning a few different reports. Previously we tended to blindly rely on reports coming from voices we had “declared” reliable, a word that comes up all the time when people speak on tv.