The "1984" Theory of Bari Weiss
If someone keeps advancing despite demonstrable incompetence at public‑reason journalism, perhaps they are doing a different job than advancing public reason—effectively, and deliberately…
Dan Drezner says that Bari Weiss’s claims, and her allies claims, that she had valid editorial objections to the “60 Minutes” El Salvadorian GULAG Trumpist deportations story are horseshit:
Dan Drezner: The Amateurism of Bari Weiss <https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/the-amateurism-of-bari-weiss>: ‘Weiss fails to comprehend the difference between reading about the abuse of prisoners in CECOT and watching video demonstrating the same. This is the kind of story where video packs a much bigger wallop…. The segment would have been stronger with an on-the-record interview with Miller or Homan…. But—and this is a very important but—it’s not obvious to me how Weiss or 60 Minutes producers could have secured such interviews…. Third… damning… is… Weiss[’s], “but what about all the violent criminals Trump did deport?” schtick[. It] puts the lie to her faux-balance horseshit and convenient hypocrisies. The CECOT story is not about any deportations of violent criminals. It is about the Trump administration disregarding proper evidentiary standards and the rule of law…
He notes the possibility that it was a political decision, writing “at worst she’s ham-handedly trying to help appease Trump in the interest of promoting her boss’ business empire”. Because:
Paramount’s [has a] hostile bid [in] to buy Warner Brothers Discovery (WBD)…. [Frida Ghitis:] “Trump sent a message that he was unhappy with ‘60 Minutes’ since the Ellisons bought CBS…. Paramount clearly understood: ‘60 Minutes’ would have to treat him better. It’s reasonable to conclude that this is the reason CBS did not broadcast the story…. Shelving a ‘60 Minutes’ story critical of the administration only moments before it’s about to air, in the middle of a battle for the president’s approval of a merger, is not routine. And the timeline here… is damning…
But then he backs off, a bit. And so Drezner concludes:
At best, Bari Weiss is unserious and unschooled about her job…. In either case, she is not very good at her job…
But I have a different view: Suppose that people do succeed, even though you think they are not good at doing their job. What should your response be? Perhaps the right response is one of Bayesian humility, of stepping back and asking what the job that they are doing really is. Quite probably it is a different job entirely. And perhaps they are doing it well.
What is the job?
In my view, much of our discussion of what is going on with respect to the sphere of public reason these days would be improved if people had 1984 on their bedside table, and committed themselves to read daily from it:
George Orwell [Eric Blair] (1948): Nineteen Eighty-Four <https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021h.html>: ‘It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him. The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats…
What happens if we combine a sensitivity to Nineteen Eighty-Four with Bari Weiss’s actions and the maxim that “the purpose of a system is what it does”?
Then we are led to this conclusion: Stop asking whether Weiss is good at journalism. She is good at the job she’s actually doing: performing submission to power and recruiting others to the ritual. In today’s media oligopoly, that job pays. The big tell is her “I am eager and available to help. I tracked down cell numbers for Homan and Miller and sent those along. Please let me know how I can support you…” As if she does not know that the “60 Minutes” staff has a bigger contacts rolodex database than she does.
Let me explain my thinking: