Stepping back from the emotions flying back and forth here, it seems that all involved now conclude that the documentary was deeply flawed and that Radley Balko's critique of it--which is what matters, not his criticism of those who amplified it--is correct. Beyond that, all parties need to chill. Radley needs to gracefully accept the success of his case and the Fifth Column et al. need to acknowledge that, however one interprets their initial reaction, they now agree with him. If they don't, they need clarify that.
Anyone who has ever tried to get publicity for anyone knows what "amplified" means. Publicity!
The missing context here is that they say that they received numerous e-mails from listeners who had watched the documentary, some of whom were at least a bit convinced. I can confirm it was widely discussed in the fan community before they mentioned it in the podcast. It's hardly amplification to discuss what their listeners are already talking about!
Huh? Yes it is. If you're going from "some percent of our fans have seen this documentary" to "most of our fans have heard of this documentary and its broad points", you're spreading awareness of the documentary (and in a complimentary way, it sounds like) to at least a large chunk of your fanbase.
Unless the claim is that literally all their listeners were already familiar with it, which is a considerably stronger claim than can supported by "numerous e-mails from listeners"
it wasn't complementary. It was "this seems biased and manipulative but does have interesting and rarely seen archival footage, especially surrounding the insanity surrounding abandonment of the 3rd precinct. If you watch it, watch it for that, and take the other stuff with a grain of salt" which is a completely valid, accurate take.
"Spreading awareness" is when celebs put out PSAs for AIDs awareness and tell you to tell your friends and family.
A news/media criticism podcast talking about a documentary (that is already racking up millions of views and percolating the internet. and will continue to do so regardless of the podcast's coverage to their very niche audience) is not "spreading awareness." It's "doing news/media criticism."
By this logic Michael Moynihan has done more amplifying of vice news than vice news themselves have done in the last 5 years. All of it derogatory. But still. I sure wouldn’t be paying that much “attention” to vice news if the guys at the fifth weren’t shitting on it a bunch.
I heard the Fifth column guys. They did not endorse the documentary and Kmele didn’t change his mind about the verdict. The Fifth Column guys don’t have to do anything. I watched the doc, thought it was flawed but interesting. Some of the evidence kept out by the judge should have come in in my opinion. It was more interesting to me how craven the mayor was.
One side is resorting to ad hominem attacks and airing public grievance. The other is sticking to factual accounts and attempting to correct the record on factually inaccurate information disseminated by supposedly credible journalists. Your account of the situation has it completely backwards. But, there is a strong pull of group think that can really distort the reality, as is demonstrated by that fact the 5th column has a much larger and loyal audience to act as reply guys. This might affirm your perceptions, but it does nothing factually support your case. The fifth column guys lost complete credibility when it comes to this and if you read with an open mind it is plain to see. However, this pretty much landed exactly how it was expected and although it may have shrunk their audience ever so slightly among critical listeners, it also only cemented the their more ardent supporters.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that we have in microcosm an example of the beginning of the libertarian-to-alt-Right slippery slope. Not that I think Michael and Matt (whom I've only met in passing) are anywhere near 'alt-Right'.
But the temptation to be 'counter-Woke' is very great, and can make certain stances more plausible than they should be.. That's why, like Shikha, I salute McWhorter (and Loury) for backing off (full disclosure--John's a friend and colleague).
This is unfair. Many of us who listen to the Fifth live in blue cities in blue states. I see left-wing authoritarian populism up close on a daily basis, while right wing authoritarian populism is a faraway problem. I used to trust the New York Times, the New Yorker, TED Talks, Scientific American, the CDC, and mainstream institutions in general. Even when I disagreed with them, I trusted that the people in charge of these institutions followed basic truth-seeking norms and would sometimes reach different conclusions from me in good faith. The last four years have shattered my trust, as mainstream institutions abandon truth-seeking norms when they are politically inconvenient. I feel unmoored.
So why do I listen to the Fifth? They are an anchor. I often disagree with one or more of them, but what they provide is this: heuristics to search for the truth in unreliable and even bad-faith sources, and an inoculation against right-wing authoritarian populism, which falsely claims to have a solution to the problems I described. They are not a gateway to the alt-right, but the opposite. This publication has its virtues, which is why I am a subscriber. But The Unpopulist is preaching to the choir. The Fifth is preaching to the tempted.
(As for the difference in John & Glenn's reaction versus the Fifth: John and Glenn credulously promoted the documentary, warranting a mea culpa, while the Fifth did not.)
Thanks, Ameya. That's an interesting perspective. I think one reason you are losing faith in NYT etc is that they are constantly castigated as biased and untrustworthy by heterodox types. I think "legacy media" is biased (like all normal humans) but it is not fundamentally untrustworthy. It gets more right than wrong. Moreover, even though it is flawed, it is open to correction and improvement. That's not the case with rightwing channels as they currently stand. They don't care about getting it right and they shouldn't be promoted as filling some core informational hole left by legacy media. As for Fifth doing a mea culpa, I disagree. As I note in my piece, they accepted all the fallacious material claims of the documentary -- MRT, the narrative about Floyd, the minimizing of Chauvin's behavior, the partiality of the jury -- and do need to correct that. More importantly, they ought to ask Weiss and Hughes to retract their piece. But they have chosen to make a mountain out of a mole hill about something trivial we said. If the NYT had published as error-filled a story at The Free Press, I have no doubt there would have been several TFC episodes dissecting that and demanding a retraction. Instead Foster asked me for an apology. If nothing else, it does bespeak of some very misplaced priorities.
The sentence suggests that anyone who has lost faith in prestige media outlets has simply been conditioned to think that way by their Heterodox overlords, rather than coming to their own conclusions based on their own observations and judgement. It's dehumanizing to claim that people who disagree with you have no agency and are acting out of some sort of false consciousness installed by their ideological leaders.
She didn't say anything about being "conditioned to think that way." She said she thinks "one reason" for his loss of trust in these sources is due to how they're "constantly castigated as biased and untrustworthy." To deny this is to deny that heterodox types in any way influence the thinking of someone who believes "right-wing authoritarian populism" is a more remote problem than "left-wing authoritarian populism" is. That's just not very likely, is it?
I understand that you took the TFC stuff personally, and that's legitimate ground for complaint. Nonetheless, this stuff is trivial compared with the very framing of the 1619 Project and the entire so-called "Racial Reckoning" in places like the NY Times. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! You need to take a step back.
Wow. While I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment of “the media” (other than that I am a much more critical consumer of it), regarding the fellas: as a Fifth listener who leans left and disagrees with them fairly often, you perfectly described them on my behalf as well. Any “alt-right gateway” warnings about them instantly ruins your credibility. You’ve said it perfectly.
I appreciate you being a subscriber, I really do. But, as I see it, it's this reply that is unfair, not the comment above it.
You say "Even when I disagreed with [The NYT, etc.], I trusted that the people in charge of these institutions followed basic truth-seeking norms and would sometimes reach different conclusions from me in good faith. The last four years have shattered my trust, as mainstream institutions abandon truth-seeking norms when they are politically inconvenient. I feel unmoored."
So, the last four years have "shattered your trust" in institutions like The NYT. Can you tell me, just ballpark, how many pieces they've run or actions they've taken that has led you to such a decisive stance about their untrustworthiness? I should think, to get to a place where you conclude they're *this* far gone, that their rot would be systematic and easily documentable. So I'd be curious to hear how you've landed at a place where a publication that drops tens of thousands of words per week is so intellectually compromised that your trust in their journalistic operation is shattered.
At this point in my media diet, I read no fewer than 20 pieces from the NYT/WaPo set per week, and there are certainly points of criticism I have each and every week—but on the whole, I've found their output to be quite good and reliable. Maybe we just disagree there. But I'd be curious to hear more.
Anything remotely related to race, gender, or trump* gets an insane treatment. And of course those are the issues they want to talk about all the time. I’m sure the crossword puzzle is still good but that’s a pretty big chunk of the paper.
The most obvious example though has to be COVID. It’s clear all of these entities went crazy once COVID hawkishness got coded as “the thing all us good liberals are supposed to believe” and then facts had to be made to fit the narrative. That stole about two years of peoples lives. I still can’t believe it happened.
*not just directly Trump, but literally taking the opposite of whatever he said last and deciding it must be true. Trump thinks schools should be open, we are going to close those fucking schools!
I think you nailed it. I am not sure how the fifth column guys can weasel away from their own words, but I have feeling they will. It is frustrating how far and wide the talking points of this documentary have spread. I hear people who have never watched film now spouting these same points with credulity and I wonder where they heard them from. Some of them for sure absorbed it from the fifth column podcast.
They could have done what Loury/McWhorter did, just a respectful, honest discussion of Radley's work, which would have enlightened their listeners. Instead, they have chosen to gin up outrage on this. Just so sad.
Yeah, they don’t have to think what you think or feel what you feel. The worst thing for me anyway, if that you went public with a private message Dalmia. That is a disgusting thing that only a certain not to be taken seriously cohort of people do. I
I agree. They did explain the points of the documentary very clearly. Glad we can both see that.
"… and that he was doing something that was by the book, according to other cops, according to a cop that is in jail who is not him says it was by the book. And that it's in the manual. You have to suggest, like, well, I don't know, it's kind of a hard thing to put a guy in jail for 22-odd years for what he was taught to do, if that isn't fair."
"And he uses the acronym. So clearly they all know what this acronym is. Clearly they've been trained in this. It's not something you just make up. Or you would just say, throw the dude in the ground and just restrain him, put your knee on his neck. I mean, no, they're using the actual technical term for this to restrain him."
"You have to suggest, like, well, I don't know, it's kind of a hard thing to put a guy in jail for 22-odd years for what he was taught to do, if that isn't fair."
I don't see that way. Honestly I had dig through what he said to find the criticism he put towards the fifth guy and in hindsight what he said was generous given what was actually said by these guys. Their response was way over top and now they're kind of getting hung up by their own words. They could just take an honest assessment what they said and admit they kind of got played propaganda move on.
Balko’s work was thoroughly damning. “The Fall of Minneapolis” is clearly a hack job, full of shameless lies, and I appreciate the work you’ve both done to drive that point forward.
Yellow journalism! Right, and we're the ones doing the smearing!
You are commenting on a post that (a) extensively quoted the TFC hosts' own words during their podcast segment, (b) directly engaged the claims Welch made in his post, (c) attempted to go beyond mere cherry-picking of moments, which can be self-serving and distortive, and characterized the entirety of the discussion, and (d) compared their reactions to Balko's piece with others within TFC's broader discourse orbit (Loury, etc.). That's a model approach of how to respond to a dispute.
Feel free to grapple with any actual point that the piece made. Or, just, you know, keep tossing around words like "yellow journalism."
Was my last response better? What is the proper response length? Should I indent? AMA formatted? Or are we a bit more free form at the unpopulist? Inquiring minds! I did think that perhaps listening to the source for a hit might give context that is obviously missing from the written word. Which I think everyone can agree is a thing since in human communication more than just sentence structure is important and what lay below word choice and sentence structure is things like tonality, intent, humor, sarcasm, pithiness etc etc. but I also didn’t think I needed to write a thesis paper on how listening to something might perhaps give someone a different perspective on authorial intent.
But if you’d like that I have time after work. I do tend to try and not concoct super long replies when I don’t think they are necessary. I’m not much of a gymnast but I can be once I get stretched out.
So. Like 13 paragraphs of rambling? No. I already read that in the original piece. I’ll keep it short when it needs to be but I do appreciate the notes and will take them into consideration.
you were right, I apologize, this is my mea culpa. I shouldn't have commented so much.
Because now it's really annoying that my phone keeps buzzing in my pocket every 5 minutes when I get another like on all my comments. Damned if my opinions weren't so popular I wouldn't have this serious issue!
I'm not the one that needs to settle down here :) Relax, kick your feet up berny, laugh at the show!
I think you are either willfully ignorant of what you’re talking about, or are being deliberately disingenuous about this. I follow you both. I love you both. But the fact that you take the least charitable interpretation of what they were saying is so disappointing. I have been a faithful listener of their podcast, and I honestly have been annoyed with them a bit for the last 6-8 months. However their followers know what you refuse to even entertain. They were so mad at you both because you were so wrong about what they meant/felt. Why was this such a big deal? It is because they so vehemently deny what you are painting them as. I have huge an annoyance with them for the last few months, but we speak their language. We are fans of them so we understand a lot of nuances that you don’t understand. I feel like you quoting their podcast in the written word is someone going in front of the court and talking out Lenny Bruce’s jokes. My only worry is that you did that knowing that you did that. And it really makes me sad.
And just for context, I’m a big fat lefty. A David Pakman-esque lefty. I think the fifth column dumbs itself down when going on the Megyn Kelly podcast. I hate almost every appearance they have on that show. Because they almost never challenge her (Walsh has). I wish they would have someone like David on their show.
And I also love Coleman. He is one of my favorite dudes. I think he is absolutely fair-minded and ALWAYS acts in good faith. People who disagree with him think he’s acting in bad faith. He’s not. Love that guy, and you would understand that if you paid any attention to him at all. Granted, I got duped by some of the “heterodox“ people. And I hate it. But you weed the James Linsays, Brett Weinsteins, and Jordan Petersons out. Even though I feel Coleman might be wrong on something, I believe him to be one of the most honest/good faith humans on the Earth. I’m having a hard time believing that you are acting in good faith, though. And again, it makes me bummed out.
(whispering: I am also not a great writer, so I might not have gotten my point across well enough. The TLDR is that I think that while you might believe you are correct, you don’t know them the way that their fans know them. we know what they were trying to say. It did not try me to that video. I’ve never watched it. I also wish they would have shit on it a little more than they did, but that’s not what they do. And What makes me the saddest is that you are wrong, saying that they are backtracking and lying. It’s horrible to me. And you are just wrong. A truth that is glaring to people who are familiar with them. )
I think you are 100% right that we do not understand them like their fans. But I think that’s why perhaps we can be useful in correcting some blind spots. The trouble is that their self understanding is formed by referencing thinkers within their orbit. So they see their differences from Loury on this and think "we didn’t go as far as him so we’re good and so why aren't we seen as standing apart." But if you pull back the lens and compare them within a wider universe of punditry then they and Loury appear more similar than dissimilar and you can see how they are all influencing each other and exacerbating each other's mutual blind spots, in this case accepting some pretty problematic evidence in this film that other people, who don't share their biases (but may have some of their own), didn't fall for.
The same could be said of Ibram X. Kendi, the 1619 project, and (by similar inference) the editors of The New York Times. (Add a few "woke" school boards to the mix, and it's almost enough to make one sympathize with Ron DeSantis.)
Indeed, if we similarly pull back the lens, you appear more similar than dissimilar to the aforementioned -- which might help explain your underlying antipathy toward people like Loury, McWhorter, and Hughes.
I actually communicated to the filmmakers of the Floyd flick last year and what quickly became clear to me is that their movie was in the mold of a Michael Moore doc. Now, I like Moore because he’s an entertaining activist. But I don’t go and watch his movies thinking I got the whole story. The Floyd film selectively quotes people over and over and allows Chauvin himself to lie about his training. MPD officers were taught to use a hobble device and put people being restrained on their side. That’s if, by the way, they are in need of restraint. Floyd never violently resisted and few cops around this country would even argue MRT was appropriate in this circumstance — and there’s no excuse for doing it as inaccurately as he did with a man who had some underlying health problems. Why did these filmmakers think it exonerated Chauvin for Floyd to tell them he couldn’t breathe before the restraint was used? One that was widely known and hardly an exclusive to this film — did anyone watch the trial? — and two that is even more reason not to use an emergency restraint against him.
I like the fifth column and everyone involved, but I think there’s a tendency over there at times to draw a line in the middle in a dispute and say “well they both make good points.” That’s not a bad tendency overall.
But it is a bad tendency when you have such a misleading propagandistic film out there that covers zero new ground to anyone who is familiar with the case. FWIW I don’t think Fifth Column guys are endorsing the film but their close friendship with Bari and Coleman (who have decided to lock arms with the far right in Israel but that’s another story) is probably leading them to equivocate a bit.
I don’t mind people mentioning the film but the appropriate follow up to mentioning the film is to say “it gets virtually everything wrong.”
Thanks! That's exactly what we (and I think I can speak for Radley here too) were getting at. One needs very, very strong evidence from solid sources to question the verdict in such a high profile case where the defendant is a police officer to boot, with all the resources at his disposal that ordinary defendants don't have. I really doubt that anyone would have relied on this jaundiced documentary if it didn't strongly fit their priors. It was a classic case of confirmation bias (which we are all vulnerable to). But Loury admitted it and was troubled by his own credulousness. The honest thing for the Fifth to do would have been to do an episode on Radley's series and discuss all the things on which they now stand corrected. THeir listeners had been given a faulty analysis based on their level of understanding then. But now that more information has come to light, set the record straight and move on. That's really all that was needed here.
The other thing that became clear from reading Radley's original series is that, from all of his experience as a reporter on related issues, he has a lot of specialized knowledge (how does evidence work in courts of law, cause vs manner of death, what were the elements of the murder charge Chauvin was convicted of, etc.) that one needs to have in order to interpret the evidence correctly. Bias + lack of specialized knowledge is a dangerous combination.
Funny you should say taht because as I was listening to the TFC podcast in light of Radley's work what was going through my mind was that they had just the right amount of knowledge to be dangerous because they weren't making stupid points on the show. They sounded reasonable from a lay point of view. Yet they were connecting the dots all wrong and their bias made them overlook some basic red flags -- like why did the defense not say that Chauvin used MRT, a technique he was allegedly taught. Or why did it not cross examine the police witnesses saying they didn't teach the technique that Chauvin was using? One could say hind sight is perfect but, I dunno, they suspended too much disbelief because the documentary just confirmed all their priors about how it was just not possible for Chauvin to get a fair trial.
Radley Balko is to be commended for his detective work and superb journalism -- as are Glenn Loury and John McWhorter for their acknowledgement of same. Derek Chauvin was rightly convicted of murder, and that's the end of the story.
Nonetheless, I object to the way that this kerfluffle has been exploited as a "gotcha" (here and elsewhere) -- i.e., as an attack on the entire edifice of (self-described) "heterodoxy" and "anti-wokeness."
I watched the sacking of Oakland Chinatown with my own eyes, from my very window, during the Summer of Floyd. Many mom-and-pops were driven out of business, and the neighborhood remains graffiti-bombed and boarded up. Over a dozen Asian grandmas were mugged near my doorstep in the months thereafter. ("Root causes"? I've been destitute and homeless, but I've never been tempted to mug an elderly Chinese.)
In every single instance (captured on video), the perpetrator could be described with a capital "B." (When a cop shoots a Black man, that's the headline; when a perpetrator is Black, the "respectable" press won't even deign to show a mug shot.) A saintly George Floyd has displaced the (now-detested) Thomas Jefferson in the American pantheon, and a nation of immigrants (including "Latinxes" and "AAPIs," as known in the Berkeley dialect) is deemed "complicit" in an "original sin" that (while stemming from an overseas trade already based for centuries in Africa) is now dated indelibly to 1619.
And we're told that all this must be construed as a "racial reckoning." Reckoning, schmeckoning!
If the likes of Coleman Hughes and Bari Weiss -- and initially, McWhorter and Loury -- (understandably) occasionally get a little carried away, their detractors have done plenty more of the same.
I reckon that before you folks make too much of this "gotcha" moment, perhaps you need to be reminded that Barack Obama was elected for (in effect) preaching the gospel that ALL lives matter. (And now you're claiming "Oh, but that was only aspirational"? Who do you think you're fooling?)
In other words, you have some reckoning of your own to do. And you'd better start doing it fast, or you'll leave the field to the likes of Donald Trump.
The point isn't the gotcha and I think Radley made a mistake by allowing even a suggestion of "gotcha" into his articles and follow-up.
The point is having standards. Hughes in particular, but Glenn and John as well promote themselves as critiquing the failure to hold to standards in the part of people they disagree with ideologically. But this was an obvious (of far from unique) example then failing to hold that standard to (1) people they agree with ideologically and (2) more importantly, to themselves.
Thank you for (however hesitantly) acknowledging Balko's "mistake" in allowing "even a suggestion" of a "gotcha" in his articles and follow-up. Ironically, I'm willing to cut Balko some extra slack as a libertarian (on cultural issues), and especially considering that I'm no fan of cops. That's my own ideological bias at work.
Nonetheless, the "failure to hold to standards" that you criticize pales (and is almost trivial) in comparison to the far broader and more blatant failure (and ideological bias) in coverage of the BLM phenomenon and the so-called "racial reckoning" by "progressives," and pervasive in the mainstream press. The misdeeds of a couple of amateur propagandists are indeed trivial compared with the relentless barrage coming from places like NPR, the New Yorker, and (largely, except for McWhorter) the New York Times. And on that basis alone, I can forgive the "heterodox" types for getting a bit carried away.
"First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's."
PS: Incidentally -- speaking of bias -- why is Balko consistently referenced here on a first-name basis (as "Radley"), while every other journalist is called out by their last name? Talk about blatant!
Not sure what's going on. I'll try to repost here:
I'm not at all hesitant to criticize Radley for personalizing the focus. I think it's a mistake.
FWIW, I don't agree with that you see as some vast imbalance in the impact of biases from various sources. I see a general problem of identity-defensive/identity-aggressive cognition and I don't think the impact is disproportionate across some ideological taxonomy. Precisely, then, applying your biblical reference, seems to me, should but uniform. I think that a failure to hold standards is always problematic. I think that there's' a systemic problem within the ecosystem of heterodox podcasts just as there are within the legacy media. I think the important problem is the whole structure of cognitive biases such as motivated reasoning. Of course, by the very nature of those biases, people will naturally see the malignant impact of bias being greater from those they disagree with than those they identify with.
As for a bias in using first or last names, I'd say it's pretty random how it varies. Or if not random, I think it's pretty hard to tease out the causal mechanism behind some differential. Clearly, you think it reflects some obvious bias. So would that mean someone is being condescending, sycophantic, something else if they use Radley's first name? How do you know what sort of bias it reflects?
I absolutely intended the Biblical quote to apply to all concerned -- but first and foremost, to those to whom my comments are addressed. After all, they've already made it clear that it applies to those they criticize; indeed, that's their main point -- legitimate in its own right. :-)
Judging by the presentation, Radley Balko appears to be on a first-name basis with both you and the author; everybody else is "out there." Make of that what you will; in any event, it just doesn't seem very professional.
George Floyd was a useless POS! He single-handedly elevated a dangerous physical altercation while intoxicated and attempting to complete an additional crime. The undertrained police officer exercised poor judgment and was rightfully prosecuted. What's the rub? One POS dead, one bad cop in jail. Instead we got a year of property destruction, stolen property, ruined business districts, destroyed economies, and racial divide all because of one loaded useless POS named Floyd!
What I am saying is that he was largely responsible for creating an environment that placed his personal safety and the officers at great risk! I am not saying he 'got what he had coming', what I am saying is that he is a POS who created a tragic situation and it ruined a lot of lives. Does that excuse the poor judgment of the Officer involved? - No. But Floyd is neither a Saint, nor a Hero, nor a Martyr. He is just some irresponsible drug addict POS!
Okay, so you wouldn't say he deserved what happened to him, but it sounds like you're saying he was largely responsible for what happened to him and also the ensuing events that it sparked. Is that not a fair interpretation of your words?
Do you think Chauvin should have been held criminally responsible for Floyd's death? Do you think Floyd's character should factor into that decision?
Bernt - why do my words need more 'interpretation'? In life a myriad of decisions and actions merge to create an event. In this tragedy and I do believe this event to be a great tragedy, Floyd made a number of very poor decisions which brought him to a place where his personal safety was placed in serious risk. Were Floyd's actions the sole cause of his death? No. There was also the poor decision of Officer Chauvin to kneeled on Floyd's neck for an extended period of time. These choices and actions ultimately culminated in Floyd's death and Officer Chauvin's prison sentence. And then followed the next great tragedy - as the BLM 'protests' burnt down business districts and devastated entire cities the country took a profound leap backwards. This country has never been more racist in my lifetime than after the BLM Movement and it saddens me.
In order to reach a conclusion regarding whether Officer Chauvin is 'Guilty' of the crimes he was charged with I would have to review all of the evidence that was presented at trial and to review all of the documents, reports, etc.. I wish I had the time to sit down and review that material but unfortunately I do not. I respect the findings of the Court that found him criminally liable.
I think that Floyd's 'character' would have some relevance in a courtroom however as I stated before I have not reviewed all of the evidence. As far as the court of public opinion is concerned his character is in fact part of the narrative and relevant to the way that the public makes sense of what occurred. I think that for many people in America Floyd is a common criminal, an undesirable drug addict who died in an altercation with police (Not really noteworthy had it not been filmed). The policeman in question did not act in accordance with the requirements of his office and he was criminally prosecuted for his actions. In the minds of most Americans this equates to two men making bad decisions and suffering consequences. The BLM Movement however tried to press a false narrative of racism, institutional racism which greatly undermined the integrity of our most basic community institutions. All of this utilizing a premise that Floyd is a 'Hero' or a 'Martyr' and that racial discrimination is inherent and flourishes in the criminal justice system, a premise that cannot be supported by the empirical data.
At the end of the day - a bad man ran into a bad cop, one dead, one in jail. This is a story as old as time. Somehow it got twisted and distorted into the 'Great Racial Crime' of our generation. Why? Who benefits? Our communities, our relationships with our countrymen have all been profoundly damaged. Again I ask 'Why'?
Not here to try an misinterpret your words. Your initial comment leaves a lot of room for subtext. Thanks for clarifying. Glad to hear that you accept the courts decision on Derek Chauvin and you don't believe Floyd got what he deserved.
I am not here argue on whether or not Floyd is a "POS". I don't agree with calling him that because I think it is a loaded statement that in mind dehumanizes the man. But I also don't know what you mean by it exactly and I am not here to try and turn Floyd into saint or something he's not.
However, I do want to highlight the asymmetry in your assessment of the two individuals. You're willing to call Floyd a "POS irresponsible drug addict" but your assessment of Chauvin is that he's a "bad cop" who was "under trained" and "exercised poor judgment". The latter assessment to my ears makes this individual sound much more redeemable and human than the other.
And I think your right to say that this is not an uncommon opinion among a lot of people in this country. I think people view it as one guy being just a common low life criminal drug addict and the other is someone with hard job who maybe became too jaded and acted inappropriately. It just highlights how willing we are lend sympathy in one direction. People come from all walks of life in this country and I think we should be willing empathize with people from different walks of life before just assuming their just a "POS". And yes that goes for cops too. But it easy to fall into moral black and white thinking and I can get off my high horse now.
My deeper issue with what your saying here is that you think this event was not representative of larger issues in this country and the ensuing events were huge step backwards. Now I can actually agree with some of you sentiment. I too thought that the racial discourse following this event was at points regressive and I didn't support the burning of city buildings and wasn't really a fan of the abolish and defund movement. I remember reading a story about them brining a emotional support alpacas, or some shit like that, to Portland for the protestors to pet and my thought was what a bunch of snowflakes.
So I do get what you're coming from, but you should also recognize that there was a reason this event activated the country like it did. Police reforms were/are truly needed. Although George Floyd was one of the more egregious example, it wasn't just a one off and it is likely Chauvin wouldn't have been held accountable if not for the footage and outrage that followed. And it is not just in custody deaths that it shines a spotlight on, but also broader issues with our criminal justice system. If you have ever known someone who found themselves on wrong side of the law and is poor you probably know what nightmare it is. The vast majority people who get wrapped in that system are not irredeemable pieces of shit.
But much of the focus got placed on the riots and the sillier ideas. A lot of that came from right leaning media outlets trying to discredit the whole reform effort. And it was effective. I even fell for it a bit. The Fall of Minneapolis propaganda is kind of the accumulation of this effort. It is an effort to rollback actual reform efforts that have been positive and will likely reduce deaths during arrests, as well as discredit broader efforts towards criminal justice reforms.
These are complicated issues and there is a lot debate here, but I think it is huge mistake to just gloss over this event and paint everything in its wake as being a net negative for race relation and criminal justice reform in this country.
I characterize Chauvin as I do because he was at least to my understanding was not an addict, no criminal record, family man, public servant, employed person, the basic characteristics of someone trying to live a reasonably responsible life. Floyd was none of these things. He was unemployed, drug-addict, criminal, dead beat Dad... etc.. So, he is an undesirable. I think all human beings are loved in the eyes of God. But Floyd was acting like a POS.
Further, the empirical data does not support any systemic racism or racial violence directed towards African Americans in the criminal justice system. Any type of multi-varied analysis makes this clear. Can the Criminal Justice system improve - SURE. Things can always get better. First and foremost we need more police officers who are better trained in 'De-Escalation' and 'restraint techniques'. But what really needs to happen is a cultural shift within black communities. The musical anthems glorifying criminal behavior, poor treatment of women, drug use and violence have devoured generations of young men who adopt this as a world view. We have approximately 7% (African American Males between ages 15-35) of the population committing roughly 50% of all violent crime in America. That is not going to be fixed by any changes to the criminal justice system.
Is it easy to get chewed up in the criminal justice system? Yes. It chews everyone up and if you do not have financial resources or business connections to generate a new life when you are released it can be brutal. But it is brutal for EVERYONE who is poor. Not just one particular minority group. But each individual has the freedom, independence and agency to decide not to commit crime and therefore never wind up in this situation. I don't accept the premise that any group of people in America are victims and incapable of making decisions to direct their own life. The single biggest indicators of criminal behavior is low IQ and single-parent households. Society really can't do much about IQ but we can encourage people to form families and raise their children. That is what makes the problem so challenging - it is politically unpopular to even say the facts out loud. How can we address the problems if we are not willing to be honest about the problem.
The Race Relations here in America are AWFUL. The NY Times reported a couple of months ago that the result of all of the 'Inclusion Training' that was conducted by virtually every business in the wake of the BLM Movement only resulted in a sense of alienation by people, increased tension, decreased sense of solidarity or cohesion, increased complaints addressing ambiguous language. This identity politic narrative is fundamentally racist and is the single greatest fracture to race relations in 60 years.
I think this event is a tragedy and it has profoundly damaged race relations and the cohesion in this country that I am not sure how we recover from.
I'm not at all hesitant to criticize Radley for personalizing the focus. I think it's a mistake.
FWIW, I don't agree with that you see as some vast imbalance in the impact of biases from various sources. I see a general problem of identity-defensive/identity-aggressive cognition and I don't think the impact is disproportionate across some ideological taxonomy. Precisely, then, applying your biblical reference, seems to me, should but uniform. I think that a failure to hold standards is always problematic. I think that there's' a systemic problem within the ecosystem of heterodox podcasts just as there are within the legacy media. I think the important problem is the whole structure of cognitive biases such as motivated reasoning. Of course, by the very nature of those biases, people will naturally see the malignant impact of bias being greater from those they disagree with than those they identify with.
As for a bias in using first or last names, I'd say it's pretty random how it varies. Or if not random, I think it's pretty hard to tease out the causal mechanism behind some differential. Clearly, you think it reflects some obvious bias. So would that mean someone is being condescending, sycophantic, something else if they use Radley's first name? How do you know what sort of bias it reflects?
Thanks for this, but I want to address two scholars mentioned: Loury and McWhorter. I have read most of McWhorter's remarkable and sometimes controversial linguistic works but not his social criticism books (and should, I guess). There are clues in his writing as to how he became a conservative. Loury I heard speak and he said he is from the South Side of Chicago, yet he cited statistics on changes for the worse in social pathology in big northern cities - due to government social programs - without ever mentioning the loss of jobs in the 50s with concomitant lack of opportunity to follow the jobs due to residential segregation. I am happy to see that both scholars pulled back from endorsing The Fifth Column.
I've liked the times I've listened to the Fifth Column, it's been a while, and I like Welch, but it's good to see even the people I respect get called out when they're wrong.
Stepping back from the emotions flying back and forth here, it seems that all involved now conclude that the documentary was deeply flawed and that Radley Balko's critique of it--which is what matters, not his criticism of those who amplified it--is correct. Beyond that, all parties need to chill. Radley needs to gracefully accept the success of his case and the Fifth Column et al. need to acknowledge that, however one interprets their initial reaction, they now agree with him. If they don't, they need clarify that.
Anyone who has ever tried to get publicity for anyone knows what "amplified" means. Publicity!
Don't disagree, Virginia. It's a stupid thing to have to spend several days of your life responding to.
Cus no one amplified anything. Unless you have very little respect for individuals.
The missing context here is that they say that they received numerous e-mails from listeners who had watched the documentary, some of whom were at least a bit convinced. I can confirm it was widely discussed in the fan community before they mentioned it in the podcast. It's hardly amplification to discuss what their listeners are already talking about!
It's called audience capture
Huh? Yes it is. If you're going from "some percent of our fans have seen this documentary" to "most of our fans have heard of this documentary and its broad points", you're spreading awareness of the documentary (and in a complimentary way, it sounds like) to at least a large chunk of your fanbase.
Unless the claim is that literally all their listeners were already familiar with it, which is a considerably stronger claim than can supported by "numerous e-mails from listeners"
it wasn't complementary. It was "this seems biased and manipulative but does have interesting and rarely seen archival footage, especially surrounding the insanity surrounding abandonment of the 3rd precinct. If you watch it, watch it for that, and take the other stuff with a grain of salt" which is a completely valid, accurate take.
"Spreading awareness" is when celebs put out PSAs for AIDs awareness and tell you to tell your friends and family.
A news/media criticism podcast talking about a documentary (that is already racking up millions of views and percolating the internet. and will continue to do so regardless of the podcast's coverage to their very niche audience) is not "spreading awareness." It's "doing news/media criticism."
By this logic Michael Moynihan has done more amplifying of vice news than vice news themselves have done in the last 5 years. All of it derogatory. But still. I sure wouldn’t be paying that much “attention” to vice news if the guys at the fifth weren’t shitting on it a bunch.
It sure didn’t get me excited to consume it.
Awareness=\= agreement.
And “amplification,” like “platforming” is not a thing.
I heard the Fifth column guys. They did not endorse the documentary and Kmele didn’t change his mind about the verdict. The Fifth Column guys don’t have to do anything. I watched the doc, thought it was flawed but interesting. Some of the evidence kept out by the judge should have come in in my opinion. It was more interesting to me how craven the mayor was.
Oh shit. It’s Mom! Quick everyone stop fighting and if she asks about the broken vase the dog did it!!
How is this journalism!? Lol
Drowning your credibility by expressing a personal grievance so publicly. Grow up!
One side is resorting to ad hominem attacks and airing public grievance. The other is sticking to factual accounts and attempting to correct the record on factually inaccurate information disseminated by supposedly credible journalists. Your account of the situation has it completely backwards. But, there is a strong pull of group think that can really distort the reality, as is demonstrated by that fact the 5th column has a much larger and loyal audience to act as reply guys. This might affirm your perceptions, but it does nothing factually support your case. The fifth column guys lost complete credibility when it comes to this and if you read with an open mind it is plain to see. However, this pretty much landed exactly how it was expected and although it may have shrunk their audience ever so slightly among critical listeners, it also only cemented the their more ardent supporters.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that we have in microcosm an example of the beginning of the libertarian-to-alt-Right slippery slope. Not that I think Michael and Matt (whom I've only met in passing) are anywhere near 'alt-Right'.
But the temptation to be 'counter-Woke' is very great, and can make certain stances more plausible than they should be.. That's why, like Shikha, I salute McWhorter (and Loury) for backing off (full disclosure--John's a friend and colleague).
This is unfair. Many of us who listen to the Fifth live in blue cities in blue states. I see left-wing authoritarian populism up close on a daily basis, while right wing authoritarian populism is a faraway problem. I used to trust the New York Times, the New Yorker, TED Talks, Scientific American, the CDC, and mainstream institutions in general. Even when I disagreed with them, I trusted that the people in charge of these institutions followed basic truth-seeking norms and would sometimes reach different conclusions from me in good faith. The last four years have shattered my trust, as mainstream institutions abandon truth-seeking norms when they are politically inconvenient. I feel unmoored.
So why do I listen to the Fifth? They are an anchor. I often disagree with one or more of them, but what they provide is this: heuristics to search for the truth in unreliable and even bad-faith sources, and an inoculation against right-wing authoritarian populism, which falsely claims to have a solution to the problems I described. They are not a gateway to the alt-right, but the opposite. This publication has its virtues, which is why I am a subscriber. But The Unpopulist is preaching to the choir. The Fifth is preaching to the tempted.
(As for the difference in John & Glenn's reaction versus the Fifth: John and Glenn credulously promoted the documentary, warranting a mea culpa, while the Fifth did not.)
Thanks, Ameya. That's an interesting perspective. I think one reason you are losing faith in NYT etc is that they are constantly castigated as biased and untrustworthy by heterodox types. I think "legacy media" is biased (like all normal humans) but it is not fundamentally untrustworthy. It gets more right than wrong. Moreover, even though it is flawed, it is open to correction and improvement. That's not the case with rightwing channels as they currently stand. They don't care about getting it right and they shouldn't be promoted as filling some core informational hole left by legacy media. As for Fifth doing a mea culpa, I disagree. As I note in my piece, they accepted all the fallacious material claims of the documentary -- MRT, the narrative about Floyd, the minimizing of Chauvin's behavior, the partiality of the jury -- and do need to correct that. More importantly, they ought to ask Weiss and Hughes to retract their piece. But they have chosen to make a mountain out of a mole hill about something trivial we said. If the NYT had published as error-filled a story at The Free Press, I have no doubt there would have been several TFC episodes dissecting that and demanding a retraction. Instead Foster asked me for an apology. If nothing else, it does bespeak of some very misplaced priorities.
> I think one reason you are losing faith in NYT etc is that they are constantly castigated as biased and untrustworthy by heterodox types.
I would be offended, but I think you simply do not understand how insulting and dehumanizing this is.
I would honestly want to understand how this is "dehumanizing" so that I can do better. Please elaborate.
The sentence suggests that anyone who has lost faith in prestige media outlets has simply been conditioned to think that way by their Heterodox overlords, rather than coming to their own conclusions based on their own observations and judgement. It's dehumanizing to claim that people who disagree with you have no agency and are acting out of some sort of false consciousness installed by their ideological leaders.
She didn't say anything about being "conditioned to think that way." She said she thinks "one reason" for his loss of trust in these sources is due to how they're "constantly castigated as biased and untrustworthy." To deny this is to deny that heterodox types in any way influence the thinking of someone who believes "right-wing authoritarian populism" is a more remote problem than "left-wing authoritarian populism" is. That's just not very likely, is it?
I understand that you took the TFC stuff personally, and that's legitimate ground for complaint. Nonetheless, this stuff is trivial compared with the very framing of the 1619 Project and the entire so-called "Racial Reckoning" in places like the NY Times. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! You need to take a step back.
Wow. While I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment of “the media” (other than that I am a much more critical consumer of it), regarding the fellas: as a Fifth listener who leans left and disagrees with them fairly often, you perfectly described them on my behalf as well. Any “alt-right gateway” warnings about them instantly ruins your credibility. You’ve said it perfectly.
I appreciate you being a subscriber, I really do. But, as I see it, it's this reply that is unfair, not the comment above it.
You say "Even when I disagreed with [The NYT, etc.], I trusted that the people in charge of these institutions followed basic truth-seeking norms and would sometimes reach different conclusions from me in good faith. The last four years have shattered my trust, as mainstream institutions abandon truth-seeking norms when they are politically inconvenient. I feel unmoored."
So, the last four years have "shattered your trust" in institutions like The NYT. Can you tell me, just ballpark, how many pieces they've run or actions they've taken that has led you to such a decisive stance about their untrustworthiness? I should think, to get to a place where you conclude they're *this* far gone, that their rot would be systematic and easily documentable. So I'd be curious to hear how you've landed at a place where a publication that drops tens of thousands of words per week is so intellectually compromised that your trust in their journalistic operation is shattered.
At this point in my media diet, I read no fewer than 20 pieces from the NYT/WaPo set per week, and there are certainly points of criticism I have each and every week—but on the whole, I've found their output to be quite good and reliable. Maybe we just disagree there. But I'd be curious to hear more.
Anything remotely related to race, gender, or trump* gets an insane treatment. And of course those are the issues they want to talk about all the time. I’m sure the crossword puzzle is still good but that’s a pretty big chunk of the paper.
The most obvious example though has to be COVID. It’s clear all of these entities went crazy once COVID hawkishness got coded as “the thing all us good liberals are supposed to believe” and then facts had to be made to fit the narrative. That stole about two years of peoples lives. I still can’t believe it happened.
*not just directly Trump, but literally taking the opposite of whatever he said last and deciding it must be true. Trump thinks schools should be open, we are going to close those fucking schools!
Glenn backed off, to his credit. I think John was defensive and effectively doubled down, to his discredit.
I think you nailed it. I am not sure how the fifth column guys can weasel away from their own words, but I have feeling they will. It is frustrating how far and wide the talking points of this documentary have spread. I hear people who have never watched film now spouting these same points with credulity and I wonder where they heard them from. Some of them for sure absorbed it from the fifth column podcast.
They could have done what Loury/McWhorter did, just a respectful, honest discussion of Radley's work, which would have enlightened their listeners. Instead, they have chosen to gin up outrage on this. Just so sad.
I don’t see it that way. It’s a very strange interpretation.
Yeah, they don’t have to think what you think or feel what you feel. The worst thing for me anyway, if that you went public with a private message Dalmia. That is a disgusting thing that only a certain not to be taken seriously cohort of people do. I
Petty. Gross.
She went public with a message asking her to make a public apology. The whole point of the message to her was to get her to make a public statement.
They haven’t. They explained it very clearly.
I agree. They did explain the points of the documentary very clearly. Glad we can both see that.
"… and that he was doing something that was by the book, according to other cops, according to a cop that is in jail who is not him says it was by the book. And that it's in the manual. You have to suggest, like, well, I don't know, it's kind of a hard thing to put a guy in jail for 22-odd years for what he was taught to do, if that isn't fair."
"And he uses the acronym. So clearly they all know what this acronym is. Clearly they've been trained in this. It's not something you just make up. Or you would just say, throw the dude in the ground and just restrain him, put your knee on his neck. I mean, no, they're using the actual technical term for this to restrain him."
"You have to suggest, like, well, I don't know, it's kind of a hard thing to put a guy in jail for 22-odd years for what he was taught to do, if that isn't fair."
Frequent listener of the fifth?
Every episode
Me too. So we agree that Balko made an absolute mountain out if Molehill here.
I don't see that way. Honestly I had dig through what he said to find the criticism he put towards the fifth guy and in hindsight what he said was generous given what was actually said by these guys. Their response was way over top and now they're kind of getting hung up by their own words. They could just take an honest assessment what they said and admit they kind of got played propaganda move on.
Except the most recent
Balko’s work was thoroughly damning. “The Fall of Minneapolis” is clearly a hack job, full of shameless lies, and I appreciate the work you’ve both done to drive that point forward.
Embarrassing yellow journalism. Shame on you guys.
Yellow journalism! Right, and we're the ones doing the smearing!
You are commenting on a post that (a) extensively quoted the TFC hosts' own words during their podcast segment, (b) directly engaged the claims Welch made in his post, (c) attempted to go beyond mere cherry-picking of moments, which can be self-serving and distortive, and characterized the entirety of the discussion, and (d) compared their reactions to Balko's piece with others within TFC's broader discourse orbit (Loury, etc.). That's a model approach of how to respond to a dispute.
Feel free to grapple with any actual point that the piece made. Or, just, you know, keep tossing around words like "yellow journalism."
Yawn.
Didn’t see a link to this anywhere, so here, helpful context for your readers: https://open.substack.com/pub/wethefifth/p/firehose-84-did-we-really-mostly?r=38tmk&utm_medium=ios
The piece is linked and quoted extensively as this is what I was responding to!
Well, the more the merrier.
Good. Very worth a listen and not just reading pulled quotes.
Please stop spamming with one- or two-line replies that don't contribute anything to the discussion.
Was my last response better? What is the proper response length? Should I indent? AMA formatted? Or are we a bit more free form at the unpopulist? Inquiring minds! I did think that perhaps listening to the source for a hit might give context that is obviously missing from the written word. Which I think everyone can agree is a thing since in human communication more than just sentence structure is important and what lay below word choice and sentence structure is things like tonality, intent, humor, sarcasm, pithiness etc etc. but I also didn’t think I needed to write a thesis paper on how listening to something might perhaps give someone a different perspective on authorial intent.
But if you’d like that I have time after work. I do tend to try and not concoct super long replies when I don’t think they are necessary. I’m not much of a gymnast but I can be once I get stretched out.
So. Like 13 paragraphs of rambling? No. I already read that in the original piece. I’ll keep it short when it needs to be but I do appreciate the notes and will take them into consideration.
Can you settle down a bit?
There were no fewer than 7 instances of you replying, in this post alone, with one-word "No, you're simply wrong" style replies.
This isn't a free-for-all. Please respect the rules of our comment section.
I disagree with your assessment of my replies. But I also agree that I was saying that people here were wrong.
Is the article not just a very long self congratulatory “no, you’re wrong. And I’m not touching you.”
I’m simply mirroring the tone. Though I would have stopped responding about 10 minute ago if you weren’t amplifying my responses!!
you were right, I apologize, this is my mea culpa. I shouldn't have commented so much.
Because now it's really annoying that my phone keeps buzzing in my pocket every 5 minutes when I get another like on all my comments. Damned if my opinions weren't so popular I wouldn't have this serious issue!
I'm not the one that needs to settle down here :) Relax, kick your feet up berny, laugh at the show!
I think you are either willfully ignorant of what you’re talking about, or are being deliberately disingenuous about this. I follow you both. I love you both. But the fact that you take the least charitable interpretation of what they were saying is so disappointing. I have been a faithful listener of their podcast, and I honestly have been annoyed with them a bit for the last 6-8 months. However their followers know what you refuse to even entertain. They were so mad at you both because you were so wrong about what they meant/felt. Why was this such a big deal? It is because they so vehemently deny what you are painting them as. I have huge an annoyance with them for the last few months, but we speak their language. We are fans of them so we understand a lot of nuances that you don’t understand. I feel like you quoting their podcast in the written word is someone going in front of the court and talking out Lenny Bruce’s jokes. My only worry is that you did that knowing that you did that. And it really makes me sad.
And just for context, I’m a big fat lefty. A David Pakman-esque lefty. I think the fifth column dumbs itself down when going on the Megyn Kelly podcast. I hate almost every appearance they have on that show. Because they almost never challenge her (Walsh has). I wish they would have someone like David on their show.
And I also love Coleman. He is one of my favorite dudes. I think he is absolutely fair-minded and ALWAYS acts in good faith. People who disagree with him think he’s acting in bad faith. He’s not. Love that guy, and you would understand that if you paid any attention to him at all. Granted, I got duped by some of the “heterodox“ people. And I hate it. But you weed the James Linsays, Brett Weinsteins, and Jordan Petersons out. Even though I feel Coleman might be wrong on something, I believe him to be one of the most honest/good faith humans on the Earth. I’m having a hard time believing that you are acting in good faith, though. And again, it makes me bummed out.
(whispering: I am also not a great writer, so I might not have gotten my point across well enough. The TLDR is that I think that while you might believe you are correct, you don’t know them the way that their fans know them. we know what they were trying to say. It did not try me to that video. I’ve never watched it. I also wish they would have shit on it a little more than they did, but that’s not what they do. And What makes me the saddest is that you are wrong, saying that they are backtracking and lying. It’s horrible to me. And you are just wrong. A truth that is glaring to people who are familiar with them. )
I think you are 100% right that we do not understand them like their fans. But I think that’s why perhaps we can be useful in correcting some blind spots. The trouble is that their self understanding is formed by referencing thinkers within their orbit. So they see their differences from Loury on this and think "we didn’t go as far as him so we’re good and so why aren't we seen as standing apart." But if you pull back the lens and compare them within a wider universe of punditry then they and Loury appear more similar than dissimilar and you can see how they are all influencing each other and exacerbating each other's mutual blind spots, in this case accepting some pretty problematic evidence in this film that other people, who don't share their biases (but may have some of their own), didn't fall for.
“didn't fall for” his patronizing.
The same could be said of Ibram X. Kendi, the 1619 project, and (by similar inference) the editors of The New York Times. (Add a few "woke" school boards to the mix, and it's almost enough to make one sympathize with Ron DeSantis.)
Indeed, if we similarly pull back the lens, you appear more similar than dissimilar to the aforementioned -- which might help explain your underlying antipathy toward people like Loury, McWhorter, and Hughes.
I actually communicated to the filmmakers of the Floyd flick last year and what quickly became clear to me is that their movie was in the mold of a Michael Moore doc. Now, I like Moore because he’s an entertaining activist. But I don’t go and watch his movies thinking I got the whole story. The Floyd film selectively quotes people over and over and allows Chauvin himself to lie about his training. MPD officers were taught to use a hobble device and put people being restrained on their side. That’s if, by the way, they are in need of restraint. Floyd never violently resisted and few cops around this country would even argue MRT was appropriate in this circumstance — and there’s no excuse for doing it as inaccurately as he did with a man who had some underlying health problems. Why did these filmmakers think it exonerated Chauvin for Floyd to tell them he couldn’t breathe before the restraint was used? One that was widely known and hardly an exclusive to this film — did anyone watch the trial? — and two that is even more reason not to use an emergency restraint against him.
I like the fifth column and everyone involved, but I think there’s a tendency over there at times to draw a line in the middle in a dispute and say “well they both make good points.” That’s not a bad tendency overall.
But it is a bad tendency when you have such a misleading propagandistic film out there that covers zero new ground to anyone who is familiar with the case. FWIW I don’t think Fifth Column guys are endorsing the film but their close friendship with Bari and Coleman (who have decided to lock arms with the far right in Israel but that’s another story) is probably leading them to equivocate a bit.
I don’t mind people mentioning the film but the appropriate follow up to mentioning the film is to say “it gets virtually everything wrong.”
Thanks! That's exactly what we (and I think I can speak for Radley here too) were getting at. One needs very, very strong evidence from solid sources to question the verdict in such a high profile case where the defendant is a police officer to boot, with all the resources at his disposal that ordinary defendants don't have. I really doubt that anyone would have relied on this jaundiced documentary if it didn't strongly fit their priors. It was a classic case of confirmation bias (which we are all vulnerable to). But Loury admitted it and was troubled by his own credulousness. The honest thing for the Fifth to do would have been to do an episode on Radley's series and discuss all the things on which they now stand corrected. THeir listeners had been given a faulty analysis based on their level of understanding then. But now that more information has come to light, set the record straight and move on. That's really all that was needed here.
The other thing that became clear from reading Radley's original series is that, from all of his experience as a reporter on related issues, he has a lot of specialized knowledge (how does evidence work in courts of law, cause vs manner of death, what were the elements of the murder charge Chauvin was convicted of, etc.) that one needs to have in order to interpret the evidence correctly. Bias + lack of specialized knowledge is a dangerous combination.
Funny you should say taht because as I was listening to the TFC podcast in light of Radley's work what was going through my mind was that they had just the right amount of knowledge to be dangerous because they weren't making stupid points on the show. They sounded reasonable from a lay point of view. Yet they were connecting the dots all wrong and their bias made them overlook some basic red flags -- like why did the defense not say that Chauvin used MRT, a technique he was allegedly taught. Or why did it not cross examine the police witnesses saying they didn't teach the technique that Chauvin was using? One could say hind sight is perfect but, I dunno, they suspended too much disbelief because the documentary just confirmed all their priors about how it was just not possible for Chauvin to get a fair trial.
lol.
Radley Balko is to be commended for his detective work and superb journalism -- as are Glenn Loury and John McWhorter for their acknowledgement of same. Derek Chauvin was rightly convicted of murder, and that's the end of the story.
Nonetheless, I object to the way that this kerfluffle has been exploited as a "gotcha" (here and elsewhere) -- i.e., as an attack on the entire edifice of (self-described) "heterodoxy" and "anti-wokeness."
I watched the sacking of Oakland Chinatown with my own eyes, from my very window, during the Summer of Floyd. Many mom-and-pops were driven out of business, and the neighborhood remains graffiti-bombed and boarded up. Over a dozen Asian grandmas were mugged near my doorstep in the months thereafter. ("Root causes"? I've been destitute and homeless, but I've never been tempted to mug an elderly Chinese.)
In every single instance (captured on video), the perpetrator could be described with a capital "B." (When a cop shoots a Black man, that's the headline; when a perpetrator is Black, the "respectable" press won't even deign to show a mug shot.) A saintly George Floyd has displaced the (now-detested) Thomas Jefferson in the American pantheon, and a nation of immigrants (including "Latinxes" and "AAPIs," as known in the Berkeley dialect) is deemed "complicit" in an "original sin" that (while stemming from an overseas trade already based for centuries in Africa) is now dated indelibly to 1619.
And we're told that all this must be construed as a "racial reckoning." Reckoning, schmeckoning!
If the likes of Coleman Hughes and Bari Weiss -- and initially, McWhorter and Loury -- (understandably) occasionally get a little carried away, their detractors have done plenty more of the same.
I reckon that before you folks make too much of this "gotcha" moment, perhaps you need to be reminded that Barack Obama was elected for (in effect) preaching the gospel that ALL lives matter. (And now you're claiming "Oh, but that was only aspirational"? Who do you think you're fooling?)
In other words, you have some reckoning of your own to do. And you'd better start doing it fast, or you'll leave the field to the likes of Donald Trump.
The point isn't the gotcha and I think Radley made a mistake by allowing even a suggestion of "gotcha" into his articles and follow-up.
The point is having standards. Hughes in particular, but Glenn and John as well promote themselves as critiquing the failure to hold to standards in the part of people they disagree with ideologically. But this was an obvious (of far from unique) example then failing to hold that standard to (1) people they agree with ideologically and (2) more importantly, to themselves.
Thank you for (however hesitantly) acknowledging Balko's "mistake" in allowing "even a suggestion" of a "gotcha" in his articles and follow-up. Ironically, I'm willing to cut Balko some extra slack as a libertarian (on cultural issues), and especially considering that I'm no fan of cops. That's my own ideological bias at work.
Nonetheless, the "failure to hold to standards" that you criticize pales (and is almost trivial) in comparison to the far broader and more blatant failure (and ideological bias) in coverage of the BLM phenomenon and the so-called "racial reckoning" by "progressives," and pervasive in the mainstream press. The misdeeds of a couple of amateur propagandists are indeed trivial compared with the relentless barrage coming from places like NPR, the New Yorker, and (largely, except for McWhorter) the New York Times. And on that basis alone, I can forgive the "heterodox" types for getting a bit carried away.
"First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's."
PS: Incidentally -- speaking of bias -- why is Balko consistently referenced here on a first-name basis (as "Radley"), while every other journalist is called out by their last name? Talk about blatant!
Not sure what's going on. I'll try to repost here:
I'm not at all hesitant to criticize Radley for personalizing the focus. I think it's a mistake.
FWIW, I don't agree with that you see as some vast imbalance in the impact of biases from various sources. I see a general problem of identity-defensive/identity-aggressive cognition and I don't think the impact is disproportionate across some ideological taxonomy. Precisely, then, applying your biblical reference, seems to me, should but uniform. I think that a failure to hold standards is always problematic. I think that there's' a systemic problem within the ecosystem of heterodox podcasts just as there are within the legacy media. I think the important problem is the whole structure of cognitive biases such as motivated reasoning. Of course, by the very nature of those biases, people will naturally see the malignant impact of bias being greater from those they disagree with than those they identify with.
As for a bias in using first or last names, I'd say it's pretty random how it varies. Or if not random, I think it's pretty hard to tease out the causal mechanism behind some differential. Clearly, you think it reflects some obvious bias. So would that mean someone is being condescending, sycophantic, something else if they use Radley's first name? How do you know what sort of bias it reflects?
I absolutely intended the Biblical quote to apply to all concerned -- but first and foremost, to those to whom my comments are addressed. After all, they've already made it clear that it applies to those they criticize; indeed, that's their main point -- legitimate in its own right. :-)
Judging by the presentation, Radley Balko appears to be on a first-name basis with both you and the author; everybody else is "out there." Make of that what you will; in any event, it just doesn't seem very professional.
I'm on a first name basis with none of anyone involved. I don't particularly care about "professional" or other formalities.
Hahaha! One person's "formalities" are another person's "standards." LOL! ;-)
Sorry - looks like I misplaced my reply and put it above somehow...
You can delete the misplaced entry, as well as (in the properly-placed one) the line "Not sure what's going on. I'll try to repost here"
In both instances, if you click on the three little dots to the lower-right of your comment, you're able edit it. :-)
Thanks. Didn't know (or at least remember) there's an edit feature.
You're welcome! :-)
George Floyd was a useless POS! He single-handedly elevated a dangerous physical altercation while intoxicated and attempting to complete an additional crime. The undertrained police officer exercised poor judgment and was rightfully prosecuted. What's the rub? One POS dead, one bad cop in jail. Instead we got a year of property destruction, stolen property, ruined business districts, destroyed economies, and racial divide all because of one loaded useless POS named Floyd!
George Floyd’s blood oxygen level was 90% at TOD.
There were no damage to his throat, breathing organs, no veins burst in his eyes, no brain damage indicating lack of oxygen.
I’ll repeat - his blood oxygen was 90%. How does that indicate suffocation?
And since when do we breathe out of our necks?
So is it fair to say that in your mind he got we had coming to him?
To be clear I think this a disgusting take, but at the very least you are honest in that you willing to say the quiet part out loud.
What I am saying is that he was largely responsible for creating an environment that placed his personal safety and the officers at great risk! I am not saying he 'got what he had coming', what I am saying is that he is a POS who created a tragic situation and it ruined a lot of lives. Does that excuse the poor judgment of the Officer involved? - No. But Floyd is neither a Saint, nor a Hero, nor a Martyr. He is just some irresponsible drug addict POS!
Okay, so you wouldn't say he deserved what happened to him, but it sounds like you're saying he was largely responsible for what happened to him and also the ensuing events that it sparked. Is that not a fair interpretation of your words?
Do you think Chauvin should have been held criminally responsible for Floyd's death? Do you think Floyd's character should factor into that decision?
Bernt - why do my words need more 'interpretation'? In life a myriad of decisions and actions merge to create an event. In this tragedy and I do believe this event to be a great tragedy, Floyd made a number of very poor decisions which brought him to a place where his personal safety was placed in serious risk. Were Floyd's actions the sole cause of his death? No. There was also the poor decision of Officer Chauvin to kneeled on Floyd's neck for an extended period of time. These choices and actions ultimately culminated in Floyd's death and Officer Chauvin's prison sentence. And then followed the next great tragedy - as the BLM 'protests' burnt down business districts and devastated entire cities the country took a profound leap backwards. This country has never been more racist in my lifetime than after the BLM Movement and it saddens me.
In order to reach a conclusion regarding whether Officer Chauvin is 'Guilty' of the crimes he was charged with I would have to review all of the evidence that was presented at trial and to review all of the documents, reports, etc.. I wish I had the time to sit down and review that material but unfortunately I do not. I respect the findings of the Court that found him criminally liable.
I think that Floyd's 'character' would have some relevance in a courtroom however as I stated before I have not reviewed all of the evidence. As far as the court of public opinion is concerned his character is in fact part of the narrative and relevant to the way that the public makes sense of what occurred. I think that for many people in America Floyd is a common criminal, an undesirable drug addict who died in an altercation with police (Not really noteworthy had it not been filmed). The policeman in question did not act in accordance with the requirements of his office and he was criminally prosecuted for his actions. In the minds of most Americans this equates to two men making bad decisions and suffering consequences. The BLM Movement however tried to press a false narrative of racism, institutional racism which greatly undermined the integrity of our most basic community institutions. All of this utilizing a premise that Floyd is a 'Hero' or a 'Martyr' and that racial discrimination is inherent and flourishes in the criminal justice system, a premise that cannot be supported by the empirical data.
At the end of the day - a bad man ran into a bad cop, one dead, one in jail. This is a story as old as time. Somehow it got twisted and distorted into the 'Great Racial Crime' of our generation. Why? Who benefits? Our communities, our relationships with our countrymen have all been profoundly damaged. Again I ask 'Why'?
Not here to try an misinterpret your words. Your initial comment leaves a lot of room for subtext. Thanks for clarifying. Glad to hear that you accept the courts decision on Derek Chauvin and you don't believe Floyd got what he deserved.
I am not here argue on whether or not Floyd is a "POS". I don't agree with calling him that because I think it is a loaded statement that in mind dehumanizes the man. But I also don't know what you mean by it exactly and I am not here to try and turn Floyd into saint or something he's not.
However, I do want to highlight the asymmetry in your assessment of the two individuals. You're willing to call Floyd a "POS irresponsible drug addict" but your assessment of Chauvin is that he's a "bad cop" who was "under trained" and "exercised poor judgment". The latter assessment to my ears makes this individual sound much more redeemable and human than the other.
And I think your right to say that this is not an uncommon opinion among a lot of people in this country. I think people view it as one guy being just a common low life criminal drug addict and the other is someone with hard job who maybe became too jaded and acted inappropriately. It just highlights how willing we are lend sympathy in one direction. People come from all walks of life in this country and I think we should be willing empathize with people from different walks of life before just assuming their just a "POS". And yes that goes for cops too. But it easy to fall into moral black and white thinking and I can get off my high horse now.
My deeper issue with what your saying here is that you think this event was not representative of larger issues in this country and the ensuing events were huge step backwards. Now I can actually agree with some of you sentiment. I too thought that the racial discourse following this event was at points regressive and I didn't support the burning of city buildings and wasn't really a fan of the abolish and defund movement. I remember reading a story about them brining a emotional support alpacas, or some shit like that, to Portland for the protestors to pet and my thought was what a bunch of snowflakes.
So I do get what you're coming from, but you should also recognize that there was a reason this event activated the country like it did. Police reforms were/are truly needed. Although George Floyd was one of the more egregious example, it wasn't just a one off and it is likely Chauvin wouldn't have been held accountable if not for the footage and outrage that followed. And it is not just in custody deaths that it shines a spotlight on, but also broader issues with our criminal justice system. If you have ever known someone who found themselves on wrong side of the law and is poor you probably know what nightmare it is. The vast majority people who get wrapped in that system are not irredeemable pieces of shit.
But much of the focus got placed on the riots and the sillier ideas. A lot of that came from right leaning media outlets trying to discredit the whole reform effort. And it was effective. I even fell for it a bit. The Fall of Minneapolis propaganda is kind of the accumulation of this effort. It is an effort to rollback actual reform efforts that have been positive and will likely reduce deaths during arrests, as well as discredit broader efforts towards criminal justice reforms.
These are complicated issues and there is a lot debate here, but I think it is huge mistake to just gloss over this event and paint everything in its wake as being a net negative for race relation and criminal justice reform in this country.
I characterize Chauvin as I do because he was at least to my understanding was not an addict, no criminal record, family man, public servant, employed person, the basic characteristics of someone trying to live a reasonably responsible life. Floyd was none of these things. He was unemployed, drug-addict, criminal, dead beat Dad... etc.. So, he is an undesirable. I think all human beings are loved in the eyes of God. But Floyd was acting like a POS.
Further, the empirical data does not support any systemic racism or racial violence directed towards African Americans in the criminal justice system. Any type of multi-varied analysis makes this clear. Can the Criminal Justice system improve - SURE. Things can always get better. First and foremost we need more police officers who are better trained in 'De-Escalation' and 'restraint techniques'. But what really needs to happen is a cultural shift within black communities. The musical anthems glorifying criminal behavior, poor treatment of women, drug use and violence have devoured generations of young men who adopt this as a world view. We have approximately 7% (African American Males between ages 15-35) of the population committing roughly 50% of all violent crime in America. That is not going to be fixed by any changes to the criminal justice system.
Is it easy to get chewed up in the criminal justice system? Yes. It chews everyone up and if you do not have financial resources or business connections to generate a new life when you are released it can be brutal. But it is brutal for EVERYONE who is poor. Not just one particular minority group. But each individual has the freedom, independence and agency to decide not to commit crime and therefore never wind up in this situation. I don't accept the premise that any group of people in America are victims and incapable of making decisions to direct their own life. The single biggest indicators of criminal behavior is low IQ and single-parent households. Society really can't do much about IQ but we can encourage people to form families and raise their children. That is what makes the problem so challenging - it is politically unpopular to even say the facts out loud. How can we address the problems if we are not willing to be honest about the problem.
The Race Relations here in America are AWFUL. The NY Times reported a couple of months ago that the result of all of the 'Inclusion Training' that was conducted by virtually every business in the wake of the BLM Movement only resulted in a sense of alienation by people, increased tension, decreased sense of solidarity or cohesion, increased complaints addressing ambiguous language. This identity politic narrative is fundamentally racist and is the single greatest fracture to race relations in 60 years.
I think this event is a tragedy and it has profoundly damaged race relations and the cohesion in this country that I am not sure how we recover from.
No. It doesn’t.
I'm not at all hesitant to criticize Radley for personalizing the focus. I think it's a mistake.
FWIW, I don't agree with that you see as some vast imbalance in the impact of biases from various sources. I see a general problem of identity-defensive/identity-aggressive cognition and I don't think the impact is disproportionate across some ideological taxonomy. Precisely, then, applying your biblical reference, seems to me, should but uniform. I think that a failure to hold standards is always problematic. I think that there's' a systemic problem within the ecosystem of heterodox podcasts just as there are within the legacy media. I think the important problem is the whole structure of cognitive biases such as motivated reasoning. Of course, by the very nature of those biases, people will naturally see the malignant impact of bias being greater from those they disagree with than those they identify with.
As for a bias in using first or last names, I'd say it's pretty random how it varies. Or if not random, I think it's pretty hard to tease out the causal mechanism behind some differential. Clearly, you think it reflects some obvious bias. So would that mean someone is being condescending, sycophantic, something else if they use Radley's first name? How do you know what sort of bias it reflects?
Yeah, I didn’t mind the snark so much in the article, but hated him in the “debate.”
Thanks for this, but I want to address two scholars mentioned: Loury and McWhorter. I have read most of McWhorter's remarkable and sometimes controversial linguistic works but not his social criticism books (and should, I guess). There are clues in his writing as to how he became a conservative. Loury I heard speak and he said he is from the South Side of Chicago, yet he cited statistics on changes for the worse in social pathology in big northern cities - due to government social programs - without ever mentioning the loss of jobs in the 50s with concomitant lack of opportunity to follow the jobs due to residential segregation. I am happy to see that both scholars pulled back from endorsing The Fifth Column.
I've liked the times I've listened to the Fifth Column, it's been a while, and I like Welch, but it's good to see even the people I respect get called out when they're wrong.
It finally tells the truth.