Ben Smith’s New Media Venture Ably Demonstrates Why Platforming Authoritarian Propagandists Is A Lose-Lose Scenario

from the what-are-we-even-doing-here? dept

Former Buzzfeed and New York Times reporter Ben Smith is poised to launch a new media company named Semafor on the back of $25 million in donations. To grab some attention for the venture’s looming launch, Semafor recently partnered with the Knight Foundation to launch the company’s first event: The Future of News: Trust and Polarization.

The event featured folks like former Wall Street Journal editor Gerald Seib, Al Jazeera host Femi Oke, Washington Post columnist Taylor Lorenz, and Politico’s John Harris. Absent from the event was any academic or outside expert actually versed in why trust in US news has deteriorated. In their place, Smith announced he’d be doing an exclusive interview with… Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

The decision to platform a bigot and propagandist as part of an event on trust in news didn’t go over particularly well among people actually trying to, you know, restore trust in news. Such as media reform activist Nandini Jammi, who co-founded Sleeping Giants and Check My Ads (both campaigns to limit the power and wealth of COVID-denying, conspiracy-heavy, race-baiting Fox News):

Ben’s response was fairly typical: he had to interview Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson is a very important man who doesn’t provide many interviews. It would be journalistic malpractice, Smith implied, to do anything else:

The idea that this was being done to generate controversy and attention for a media venture, itself an act likely to reduce trust in news (at a conference purportedly about trust in news), was just skipped over. Also not considered: that one might just not give Carlson an even bigger bullhorn, instead giving that mental real estate to any number of media reform activists or academics laboring in obscurity.

After weeks of criticism and promises that Smith would hold Carlson’s feet to the fire, the interview arrived and Smith did… exactly none of that.

You can watch the interview itself here. Carlson, on webcam from his Manhattan or Hamptons closet (probably because his mansion kitchen wouldn’t project the desired man of the people persona) ran roughshod over Smith for a good half an hour, all to Carlson’s amusement.

At no point did Smith demonstrate real control over the interview, letting Carlson ramble on at length about how terrible middle-aged liberal women are, how he’s not actually a racist, how his critics in the press are the actual propagandists… without Smith seriously challenging the claims. Smith himself seems uncomfortable throughout, nervously fiddling with his notes in between lobbing softballs.

At one point, Smith repeats Carlson’s core claim that he’s “effectively just misunderstood.” At other points, attempted gotcha questions don’t land, such as asking if Carlson’s ever been discriminated against at work as a white Protestant. Almost every time Smith has an opportunity to press Carlson on outright lies, he either changes the subject or lets Carlson change the subject for him.

You then have to ask: what was the actual benefit in terms of the event’s premise? Ben’s promise, that he’d hold Carlson accountable with hard questions, never materialized. So the end result was little more than further amplification of Carlson’s falsehoods, the validation of Carlson’s role as a pseudo-journalist, and the perpetuation of the false idea that fascism is a valid platform that’s up for debate.

Before the event, Smith’s noble dedication to journalism was lauded by numerous folks in media, who agreed that you simply have to give a white supremacist authoritarian pretending to be a journalist an even bigger platform — at a trust in news conference. You just don’t have a choice!

Some folks in media suggested that turning down an interview with Carlson would be akin to turning down an interview with Hitler, and you just don’t do that. Others tried to make the point that because Carlson already has a massive nightly platform, there’s really no harm in elevating him further at an event specifically dedicated to solving sagging trust in U.S. journalism.

According to Smith and friends, platforming Carlson was the right call because it created the opportunity to challenge Carlson’s positions, be they agitating deep-rooted racial divisions for ratings, harming public health by amplifying COVID conspiracy theories and vaccine skepticism, or parroting the incoherent ramblings of the country’s surging, conspiratorial, and increasingly violent authoritarian right.

But at no point did an actual, competent challenge to Carlson’s falsehoods find its way to the stage.

Worse, that’s a half hour that could have been given any number of academics and experts with actual solutions to the problem. But actual media scholars well versed in why trust in US media is flailing weren’t just under-represented at the event, they were completely absent. It was a choice to embrace controversy over substance, ironically and inadvertently illustrating why trust in U.S. media is falling apart.

There are numerous reasons for eroded trust in US news. The death of quality local news opened the door wide to propagandists, foreign intelligence, and pink slime. Tone-deaf Luddite classism rules at major outlets like the New York Times. The shift toward an ad-based engagement model financially incentivized an entire industry to prioritize controversy and hysteria over boring substance and expertise.

Like so many others, Carlson has weaponized this dysfunction, feeding a steady diet of increasingly hysterical outrage drivel to partisans for clout. He’s perfected the act of media trolling at scale; making unhinged claims he knows will then be hate retweeted by outraged critics oblivious they’re being exploited as a human amplifier (a favorite pastime of Carlson predecessor Ann Coulter).

Platforming, debunking, or even debating fascist propagandists is a lose-lose scenario. You can’t defeat it with “gotcha” questions, because fascists have zero compulsion about lying, and no incentive to meet you in honest dialogue. Their goal is simple: to platform fascist ideology, to expose that ideology to as broad as audience as possible, and to frame fascism itself as a valid policy that’s up for debate.

The very second you’ve entered into this arrangement you’ve already lost.

Don’t try to debunk. Don’t try to debate. Don’t think you’re helping by dunking on Carlson with a hate retweet. Don’t get caught in a fight over whether an obvious fascist is a fascist. Instead find somebody under-represented who’s actually pushing real solutions and amplify them instead. Don’t feed the trolls.

That’s not to say fascists should be completely ignored and never challenged. But at some point, if democracy, trust in media, and foundational institutions are to be preserved, you have to enter into a savvy calculus about which signals are worth boosting, and which are harmful and exploitative. This was a trust in news event. Host actual experts with a good faith interest in solving the problem.

Somebody ignorant to modern discourse could easily walk away from the interview believing that Carlson, a millionaire frozen food empire heir turned opportunistic propagandist, is actually a brave, truth-telling journalist unfairly forced to hide in his closet by the powers that be. And that the real propagandists are anyone that would dare question Carlson’s noble intentions.

That we’re six-plus years into a massive surge in trumpist propaganda-soaked authoritarianism — and affluent, influential media leaders still don’t understand how any of this works — isn’t a great sign for what comes next. You win the game that fascists are trying to play by not playing it, giving the valuable mental real estate they hope to occupy to voices genuinely interested in real solutions and reform.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: semafor

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Ben Smith’s New Media Venture Ably Demonstrates Why Platforming Authoritarian Propagandists Is A Lose-Lose Scenario”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
20 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Why don't people trust us? Presenting Exhibit A

Ah but you see this was actually a brilliant move on their part.

They wanted to show why people might not trust the news so it makes perfect sense that they would provide a glaring example of one of the main reasons, namely that news has ditched the whole ‘journalism and reporting’ garbage and instead is now happy to platform whatever lunatic or worse they can get in front of a mic, letting them ramble on without challenging any of their positions and acting as though all ideas and positions are equally valid and worthy of consideration.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
WarioBarker (profile) says:

Asking hard questions to the powerful, at least in this kind of context, only really works if you’re assertive and can quickly shut down the interviewee’s bullcrappery. In this case, the end result was akin to a car knocking you down before running over you repeatedly.

I might be reading things incorrectly (wouldn’t be the first time) and/or being a cynic, but all things considered it feels like the point of the interview – if not the entire event – was actually to give F*cker Carlson a platform to spout bullcrappery.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re:

If your post is sufficiently sarcastic enough to stand up on it’s own, you wouldn’t need that silly disclaimer.

It shouldn’t be needed, but there are some individuals that don’t understand sarcasm, and they’re not even autistic.

Your username is perfect, BTW.

It’s Techdirt’s default badge for anyone who doesn’t create a username for whatever reason. Hang around a while, you might learn more.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

LittleCupcakes says:

Needed two tissues…

…to clean the spittle and froth from my eyes. I’m guessing TC is, as they say, living rent-free in Bode’s brainpan. (To be absolutely fair though, Bode sees “fascism” in the hearts of all who disagree with the progressive’s Anschluss with tech and culture.)

But i do sort of see the point here. Ben Smith is a sort of reliably squishy establishment lefty who was simply outgunned by someone with superior wits and savviness. Such a result was entirely predictable. The only question is whether Smith knew and ignored it for the sake of eyeballs or misapprehended his own skill. Neither is a good look.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

The problem in the US, as I pointed out in another article, is there is no nonbiased media in the US.
Every single academic, non-partisan study has made that clear.
We have CSPAN. Yep, that’s it. BBC usually also falls into NP/C but I discard that as it’s not US based.

The two largest broadcasters of cable news? CNN always falls into the leans left, often at the far edge.
and FOXNews always falls into the far end of leans right.

The other two large sources
CNBC:leans left/MSNBC far edge of hyper-partisan left,
OAN, depending on source, the far edge of hyper-partisan right or extreme right.

For broadcast ABC, NBC, and CBS all lean left. NBC the furthest.
Fox Broadcasting alway an on near side of leans right.

There is no neutrality in this country’s media.

Sources:
media bias chart 9.0 (2022)
Sharyl Attkisson’s Media Bias Chart
AllSides Media Bias Chart
UMich Study of Bias in Media

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Which is hilarious because all of those media outlets are corporate, i.e. non-leftist organizations. They represent millionaires and billionaires and the status quo. CNN gets railed by conservatives for being leftist but I don’t know any leftists who actually listen to CNN. If you’re corporate, you’re not really leftist. NPR is about the most left you get for a mainstream media organization and they’re barely left of center.

The Overton Window has been shifted so far right that anyone not calling for a race war seems like a leftist. But the US Left is conservative in Europe.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re:

World view placement of politics isn’t at issue here. The idea is the range within American
Political slant of media,
and only in relation to America.
I provided references easy to verify.

I don’t deny that the vast majority of the country is conservative vs Europe. That’s not relevant here though.

When asking why US media has a failing trust factor, the answer is easy. All national media has at least some political slant.

Whatever your ideas on corporate entities: the basics still remain here. If a progressive starts a company and only hires progreso, you get a progressive media outlet. Eg The Progressive, Mother Jones. MSNBC
If a Christian conservative only hires Christian conservatives you end up with conservative news. Eg Brietbart, Drudge, etc
Hire the “liberal left” you get things like The Nation
Radical right and you get InfoWars.

In reality for all the back and forth, FNC and CNN are slanted news services with prime time partisan commentary.

The country has no neutral source anymore for generic news.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:

World view placement of politics isn’t at issue here.

Oh, but it is. It shows how bat-shit insane some of the US politics are and your argument is a cop out from admitting that. It also normalizes people like Tucker and others like him who are actively trying to dismantle democracy in their effort to stay relevant and in power.

You argument also shows a distinct lack of insight how dangerous it is and where it can lead.

All national media has at least some political slant.

ALL media has a political slant and they always have since the beginning. If that was the real problem, nobody would have trusted media for the last century at least.

The country has no neutral source anymore for generic news.

It never had.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »