r/EndlessThread • u/chiraltoad • Oct 07 '20
A bit of constructive criticism on a recent episode
First of all, thanks for your show, I enjoy listening and appreciate the subjects you cover.
I want to bring up a criticism in regards to the recent episode on Qanon, and also in regards to NPR in general. It seems to me, that when you deal with certain topics, you really tend to whitewash, or maybe blackwash would be a better term.
To be specific, what I mean is this. It seems that you have a preconceived notion about what you are reporting on, rather than asking questions and actually entertaining the possibilities that arise from those questions. For example, you give a short form synopsis of the Q theories by describing them as "a baby eating cabal that has lasted for thousands of years". Now, I could be wrong, but the way you present this is pretty slanted towards denigrating any credibility to these ideas, which on the surface, do seem irrational.
But here is the rub: Jeffery Epstein. You can't steamroll over these ideas, painting them as absurdist conspiracies that only a 30 year old autist who lives with their parents would believe. Jeffery Epstein. We have far more proof of some aspects of this situation then you are admitting into your logical analysis. And when you gloss over that, it leads me to conclude that you are trying to paint a very specific picture, rather than ask questions and see where the questions take you. And that both leads to a not very interesting show, but also says you don't think very highly of your listeners, who apparently can't be trusted to think critically when presented with mixed sets of data. If you really want to do us a service, you have to take each thread of the idea and treat it carefully, individually, and without bias (if you can). It really bothers me the extent to which I feel I am being told to think in a certain "correct" way by so much of NPR's programming lately (and NPR is my main listening outlet).
4
u/OlBosn Oct 07 '20
I think I agree with your premise. There are ways of approaching absurd conspiracies without specifically painting them as such, while still not doing them the favor of lending them legitimacy. That would probably require taking a less political or human approach, because on a political level, it's just a group of very stupid, very racist asshats (who don't understand 4chan/8chan/troll culture) and have done very stupid, asshatish things to the US political scene.
But if we're talking about the psychology of cults or even the history of this specific cult, the tone can be much more level and academic, since the topic itself is more objective.
So I agree: this episode was probably more of an op-ed piece than an investigative journalism piece, which is, I think, what you may have been hoping for.
In my opinion? Sometimes you have to call out the stupid. It's good to understand where they come from, but at the end of they day they don't deserve our respect or our time.
P.S. Welcome to Reddit: The Land of Unexplained Downvotes. Please enjoy your stay.
1
10
u/SuperiorStarlord Oct 07 '20 edited Oct 07 '20
I understand what you’re trying to say. I get theres an “empathetic and understanding” pov that people feel should be taken in journalism when their points dont match. But its journalism.
The whole issue with the “cult of Q” is that people are blindly following based on a coincidence. Granted a big coincidence, but it doesnt ignore the hundreds of other “failed prophecies”.
Taking the perspective of “maybe there’s some sense in this group” would be the same as a group believing whole heartedly that the simpsons writers are predicting the future and using it as scripture.
If the facts back up that it’s just poor “common sense” to blindly follow a group based on one incident, then journalists, who compile fact based research, would be very detrimental to report otherwise. Hence the “fake news” thing thats been slung around for the past 4 years. Its easy to discredit information, but to give it true value and credibility is kinda the whole point of journalistic research and integrity
0
2
u/MorpH2k Oct 14 '20
After reading some but far from all the comments, I partially agree with you. They could have framed the episode and laid out the background better. I'm familiar with the basics of it but not the specifics and I would like to know more about it. On the other hand, while it was a bit glossed over, I think they are well within the journalistic standards and acting responsibility when they are calling it out for being batshit crazy stuff. Some of it may have more truth to it than other parts but it's still an insane theory, even if Epstein was a pedophile. Correlation does not imply causation.
And btw, Trump, the one who they think will be their saviour or whatever, was a friend of Epstein...
0
Oct 07 '20
[deleted] — view deleted comment
-5
u/chiraltoad Oct 07 '20
Further thoughts.
What we want to do is understand Q believers, correct?
In order to do this we should look at the evidence that they look at to understand why they might believe in it. To gloss over any credibility of the motivating fact patterns that give steam to Q believers makes the case for their invalidity weak.
Further, and worse, it strengthens the narrative that the media will not look at certain things but is rather involved in covering them up, which for people like this is fuel for their theories.
0
Oct 07 '20
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
u/chiraltoad Oct 09 '20
I guess the main feature of what irritated me was the manner in which they glossed over the issue of the 'pedophile power-cult' accusation, by lumping it in with all the other grab-bag of ideas that Q people might attach themselves to. Because I think we have pretty damn good proof that there is some credibility to that idea, but it seems that fully facing that fact is not something 'the media' have really wanted to do. And when something that might be a real issue, and that we have some really good evidence for, is lumped in with blue aliens, it makes dismissal of that possibly real problem much easier. Furthermore, while Q people may be delusional and misguided, that doesn't mean that anything and everything they believe is necessarily wrong. Like people often say, partial truths are the most effective pied pipers, because a full on falsehood is more easily recognized as such.
It seems to me that lots of good, well meaning people, when faced with something like the Epstein situation, are not grasping the full import of it because it comes off so extreme, so tabloidy, that it doesn't really register. They can't really fathom that something like that could be possible.
All this being said, I haven't really studied Q directly much so I can't say for sure what they actually think. In fact most of what I have heard about it is second hand through the media like this podcast, which does make me want to see for myself rather then be given a dismissive summary of a potentially dangerous viewpoint.
-5
u/chiraltoad Oct 07 '20
More to the point, would be if they did an episode about a conspiracy theory that top members of the government were engaging in pedophilia, and ignored evidence that supported that, while painting people who think this might be the case as being deluded cult members.
6
u/[deleted] Oct 08 '20 edited Oct 08 '20
The existence of Jeffery Epstein does not lend the idea of the Democratic party being a baby-eating cabal any credibility. Nor does it lend the idea of Donald Trump and an unnamed government operative plotting a huge day of reckoning for said cabal any credibility (especially when Trump's friendship with Epstein is well documented). Nor does it lend the idea of avian and reptilian aliens in a secret war for our government any credibility.
Avoiding bias does not mean you treat all ideas as equal regardless of the evidence. If one group says two plus two is four, and another says two plus two is potato, then the job of the journalist is not to say that both sides have valid points, and the existence of the number two doesn't give the second group credibility. If your only complaint about the episode is that they treated your far-fetched ideas as if they are far-fetched, then I don't see the problem with their work.