By David French
Monday, June 03, 2019
Over the weekend, the Daily Beast — apparently
with Facebook’s help — exposed the identity of the man who allegedly uploaded
the now-famous “drunk Nancy Pelosi” viral video. It turns out that it wasn’t a
Russian troll who posted the video but rather a “day laborer” from the Bronx.
The man denies responsibility for posting the video.
But the Daily Beast didn’t just describe him in
general terms. It didn’t just provide his name. No sir, the reporter combed
through his personal history, exposed his criminal record, and even evaluated
whether his personal Instagram posts were “misogynistic.” The report wasn’t a
news story; it was a 2,000-word piece of opposition research — all directed at
a relatively powerless American citizen who’d made a single deceptive video
about arguably the most powerful woman in the world.
I do not in any way endorse creating or sharing fake
videos. I love good parody, and I love good satire, but this video was neither.
It was an attempt to deceive, and powerful people shared it, apparently
believing it was genuine. At the same time, however, I strongly disagree with
the Daily Beast’s decision not just to identify the man who made the
video but to expose otherwise irrelevant and embarrassing details about his
personal life.
In a normal, healthy culture, there would be nothing at
all wrong with writing a story about the origins of a viral, doctored video —
including explaining how the video got on the web and perhaps even identifying
its creator and the person most responsible for disseminating it, even if they
wished to remain anonymous. But we do not live in normal, healthy culture, and every
journalist knows this.
Here is what they know. They know that exposing a private
citizen to Internet scorn can and often does destroy his professional life and
alter his personal life, perhaps permanently. They know that each prominent
person or publication with a large Twitter following wields a social weapon and
that attacking someone on a partisan basis functions like a virtual version of
the whistle that launched assaults in World War I. The online shock troops
swarm out of their holes and hovels, and the results are often catastrophic to
the target.
In fact, this is largely now what it means to “fight”
online. The instigator knows what will happen, but he looks at his published
story (or his mocking, angry tweets) and says, “Show me where I called for any
of this. Show me where I asked for anyone to be destroyed.” It’s disingenuous.
It’s deceptive. They know full well what they do.
We have now reached the point where — if you become the
target of online attacks — the death threats are virtually presumed. The
efforts to undermine your career are nearly automatic. And it doesn’t matter
who you are or what side you’re on. The mob can come for anyone. Again, this is
so well-known and so commonly discussed that it’s easy to look at stories like
the Daily Beast’s, especially given the gratuitous inclusion of
embarrassing personal details, and believe they’re intended to facilitate
exactly this consequence.
Moreover, no one understands what it’s like to endure
this unique slice of hell until they experience it. You simply can’t say,
“Well, this forklift operator knew the rules. He broke the rules. Now he pays,”
and pretend that you’re enacting any kind of proportionate justice for the
offense.
My default presumption is to protect anonymous speech —
even as a journalist — absent compelling reasons to the contrary. To do
otherwise is to feed the cycle of rage and personal destruction. To do
otherwise invites personal catastrophe. It can even — in certain circumstances
— invite violence. We live in a punitive age, dominated by a spirit of vicious
intolerance.
We can choose to participate in this culture or resist
this culture. The Daily Beast chose to participate. It chose to launch
another online mob, this time against a target far more vulnerable than the
prominent public officials and prominent public voices who (sometimes) have the
resources and social capital to mitigate the resulting harm.
The real problem with the drunk-Pelosi video isn’t that a
man in the Bronx posted it, but rather that powerful people spread it. I am far
more concerned with Rudy Giuliani’s conduct than with the online activities of
a “day laborer” from the Bronx. I’m also more concerned about the response of
other powerful people and entities to this man than I am by this man’s conduct.
If the Daily Beast report is accurate, then it
appears that Facebook helped doxx its own user. If true, this is
unconscionable. The Daily Beast cast its story as the tale of how “even
a hastily produced, low-budget fraud can fool millions if it lands just right.”
That’s no doubt true, but we can learn that truth without destroying a man’s
life.
But the real story here is darker. It’s the story of how
powerful media will combine with big tech to expose a vulnerable man to public
ridicule in an era of vicious intolerance. The punishment does not fit the
crime, but it does fit our times. The culture of rage and clicks triumphs
again.
No comments:
Post a Comment