This applies to *all* pundits regardless of topic or profession, actually. An interesting (I hope) anecdote follows. 1/ https://www.mcgill.ca/science/outreach/archived-science-talks/webcasts/trottier-symposium/2010 …https://twitter.com/JHowardBrainMD/status/1425786396153978882 …
-
-
The reason is that it's all about the drama, the "debate' (argument, really). It's not about getting closer to the truth (or even just accurate conclusions). It's about the conflict. That doesn't mean that you have to be an obnoxious a-hole, just concrete and immovable. 5/
Show this thread -
Not being a media professional in that area, I didn't know how accurate this was, but the assertion rang true. 6/
Show this thread -
Of course, incentives of wanting to be invited back aside, there's also the human tendency, once one stakes out a position and becomes publicly known for it, to defend that position to the death and be very, very reluctant to change in the face of disconfirming evidence. 8/
Show this thread -
In the era of
#COVID19, I think back to that roundtable discussion 11 years ago and see it as prescient. So many of these COVID contrarians do exactly what was described. I'm not saying they do it intentionally (although no doubt some do). 9/Show this thread -
Rather, they find themselves invited on these shows because of their contrarian positions, with more invitations the better known they become. As they become better known, it gets harder and harder for them to admit that they might have been wrong. 10/
Show this thread -
What if news actually rewarded more nuanced takes? What if it wasn't about the conflict or the "interesting" or "radical" contrarian take on
#COVID19? Where would we be now? 11/11Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.