This biolabs conspiracy is a textbook encapsulation of the rot in the rightwing media ecosystem today. A loony theory pops up on the fringes of the rightwing dark web, it gradually propagates itself to the daylight as more mainstream rightwing outlets latch on to it, and throughout its improbable journey no one along the line attempts t…
This biolabs conspiracy is a textbook encapsulation of the rot in the rightwing media ecosystem today. A loony theory pops up on the fringes of the rightwing dark web, it gradually propagates itself to the daylight as more mainstream rightwing outlets latch on to it, and throughout its improbable journey no one along the line attempts to fact check, vet, or debunk it, everyone just rolls with it because it speaks to something that, deep down, they just know has to be true. It's how so much daft rubbish ends up on Tucker Carlson; there are no guardrails in rightwing media. It's all a rotten, stupid propaganda factory meant to stoke those who are predisposed to believe the worst about those with whom they disagree.
"...and throughout its improbable journey no one along the line attempts to fact check, vet, or debunk it, everyone just rolls with it because it speaks to something that, deep down, they just know has to be true."
The problem isn't that nobody attempts: I know people who do, and once had a very low-level job involving that myself. Nor is there as much deep-down confidence as you suppose. The problem in any contrarian media is that it's hard to have honest contrarianism. An honest contrarian would have to refrain from being contrary just 'cuz, and accept he'll be proven wrong a lot: the latter is hard for everyone, the former requires restraining the contrarian impulse itself.
What's more likely is that those skeptical of the latest contrarian hot take either lack the courage of their convictions, or the necessary support for the courage of convictions to mean something. If someone low down on the pecking order insists a wrong thing is wrong, someone higher up might concede that, but say it's already being discussed so we can't pass up discussing it, it's wrong for interesting reasons, just a long shot that deserves to be aired... Well-warranted skepticism can expect to get the pressure of more buts than a commuter train seat. This is especially true of dubious information originating as testimony from a "persecuted class", especially from someone "persecuted" for holding a belief many "Real Americans" hold — even when many *other* "Real Americans" don't hold it.
Take COVID response, for example. Despite increasingly prominent antivax sentiment on the right, statistics show many "Real Americans" got vaccinated. Many also didn't kick up a fuss about masking. Many were fine with precautions, but were shamed for being fine, or simply weren't regarded as as newsworthy as those with the contrarian hot takes.
This biolabs conspiracy is a textbook encapsulation of the rot in the rightwing media ecosystem today. A loony theory pops up on the fringes of the rightwing dark web, it gradually propagates itself to the daylight as more mainstream rightwing outlets latch on to it, and throughout its improbable journey no one along the line attempts to fact check, vet, or debunk it, everyone just rolls with it because it speaks to something that, deep down, they just know has to be true. It's how so much daft rubbish ends up on Tucker Carlson; there are no guardrails in rightwing media. It's all a rotten, stupid propaganda factory meant to stoke those who are predisposed to believe the worst about those with whom they disagree.
"...and throughout its improbable journey no one along the line attempts to fact check, vet, or debunk it, everyone just rolls with it because it speaks to something that, deep down, they just know has to be true."
The problem isn't that nobody attempts: I know people who do, and once had a very low-level job involving that myself. Nor is there as much deep-down confidence as you suppose. The problem in any contrarian media is that it's hard to have honest contrarianism. An honest contrarian would have to refrain from being contrary just 'cuz, and accept he'll be proven wrong a lot: the latter is hard for everyone, the former requires restraining the contrarian impulse itself.
What's more likely is that those skeptical of the latest contrarian hot take either lack the courage of their convictions, or the necessary support for the courage of convictions to mean something. If someone low down on the pecking order insists a wrong thing is wrong, someone higher up might concede that, but say it's already being discussed so we can't pass up discussing it, it's wrong for interesting reasons, just a long shot that deserves to be aired... Well-warranted skepticism can expect to get the pressure of more buts than a commuter train seat. This is especially true of dubious information originating as testimony from a "persecuted class", especially from someone "persecuted" for holding a belief many "Real Americans" hold — even when many *other* "Real Americans" don't hold it.
Take COVID response, for example. Despite increasingly prominent antivax sentiment on the right, statistics show many "Real Americans" got vaccinated. Many also didn't kick up a fuss about masking. Many were fine with precautions, but were shamed for being fine, or simply weren't regarded as as newsworthy as those with the contrarian hot takes.