By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, July 28, 2019
As you may be aware thanks to my merciless flogging of
it, I have a new book out called The Smallest Minority: Independent Thinking
in the Age of Mob Politics. It is about the way in which social media
brings out the worst of the tribalism and idiocy in our contemporary politics
by displacing almost all of the substantive discussion with a lobotomized —
and, ultimately, useless — politics of white hats and black hats, good guys and
bad guys, cowboys and Indians, Us and Them.
I enjoy writing books. I enjoy promoting them less. But
we have had some fun with this one. On the back cover, where you’ll usually
find blurbs praising the author to the moon, we have some more-critical
assessments: “Truly reprehensible,” Paul Krugman, New York Times;
“Shocking and brutal,” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post; “An ogre,” Jack
Shafer, Politico. Because I have been asked: No, those are not made up.
Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post has reviewed
the book, though both newspapers have taken an occasional energetic interest in
my career, but you can read reviews here
and here,
and I will share others as they come; there are excerpts in the July 29 issue
of National Review, in the July 18 edition of the Washington Examiner,
and in today’s New York Post.
And, naturally, I’ve been doing a lot (for me, anyway) of
radio and television interviews.
Television may be a dinosaur in the Internet epoch, but a
dinosaur is a very big thing, and television is a mighty if doddering T. rex.
Its power may be somewhat diminished both by division (the weird thing is that
10,000 television channels today collectively wield less power than three did
before cable) and by multiplication (of competing media sources) but it still
has an enormous cultural footprint. The cultural largeness of television
compared to the written word can be a little bit depressing for a writer. I
have produced a few books and dozens of cover stories (and I suppose thousands
of online columns) for National Review, I write a regular column in the New
York Post, and I have published articles everywhere from the Washington
Post to Playboy (which would prefer to forget that ever happened)
and The Atlantic (which
would very much like to forget that ever happened). But after a two-minute
hit on a cable-news program, I’ll get emails from people I went to kindergarten
with, along with (de gustibus, etc.) the occasional romantic
proposition.
And less friendly forms of communication, too.
On Friday, Joe Scarborough had me on Morning Joe
and gave me a really generous amount of time. (Thanks for that.) It is always a
little surreal to be identified as the controversial one at the table when I am
seated next to the Reverend Al Sharpton. L’esprit de l’escalier: I wish
I had turned to the Reverend Sharpton and asked: “Can you think of
anybody who has said anything controversial but remains entirely welcome in
so-called liberal media circles?” But I didn’t, which is why I am a writer
rather than a television host.
Naturally, Twitter went ape after my appearance, which is
the nature of Twitter, a place where people go to behave like chimps. (I do not
exempt myself from that; social media never brought out the best in me, either,
and my decision to stop using it is right up there with going to bed at 9:30
p.m. on the very short list of good choices I have made about my daily
routine.) The usual banality and dishonesty were intensified this time around
with the help of NARAL, which sent out a tweet claiming that I’d gone on Morning
Joe and said some outrageous things about abortion and capital punishment,
two subjects which did not in fact come up at all. (Here
is the video. For those of you interested in my views on those subjects, see
the account of them I wrote for the Washington Post.) NARAL is of course
not known for its honesty — it is a shill for the abortion industry that cannot
even bear to keep the word “abortion” in its name — and neither are the
rage-monkeys on Twitter.
NARAL’s lie had, as of this writing, been retweeted and
liked about 5,000 times. Theater critic Adam Feldman of Time Out New York,
whom I do not know and who probably does not share my politics, took the time
to point out to NARAL that this lie is a lie. That was retweeted three
times and liked nine times — and, of course, ignored by NARAL, which has
declined to retract its libel or correct itself.
The ensuing performance-art/group-therapy Caffeine-Free Diet Maoist outrage circus
has practically been lifted from the pages of my book. The lies are there, as
is the stupidity: There have been calls to boycott CNN over my appearance (Morning
Joe is on MSNBC) and sensitive middle-aged men have raged that they will
burn their Dawson’s Creek DVDs in protest. (I use my middle initial in
my byline partly as a courtesy to Kevin Meade Williamson, the gifted
screenwriter behind Dawson’s Creek and much else, who must surely wish
that I were named Bob. Occasionally, someone sends me a script or a treatment
meant for him, and I always encourage those would-be Hollywood moguls to visit
me at my office in Los Angeles as soon as possible to discuss the project. I
don’t think the Scottish socialist and poetry publisher Kevin Williamson gets
quite as much collateral damage.) Two reporters for Yahoo! — and it is difficult
to believe that this story took two reporters — wrote the obligatory piece of
lazy journalism, headlined: “Conservative commentator Kevin Williamson is in
the hot seat again after an appearance on Morning Joe.” Which is to say:
Two working journalists published a news article about a bunch of anonymous
nobodies on Twitter sent into an emotional meltdown by an event that — in case
you’ve missed this part—did not happen. The fact that there were two
names on that byline — Gisselle Bances and Arjuna Ramgopal — means that Paul
Krugman finally has some competition for the title of laziest man in
journalism.
(Just how lazy is Professor Paul Krugman,
recipient of the Nobel prize in economics? Here
is how he handled the problem of having written a column about Larry Kudlow
when his editors wanted a column about me. The clumsiness and unmistakable
laziness of it is hilarious and astounding. None of my undergraduate students
would have dared to turn in such a thing to me.)
As my book argues, people do not go to social media
hoping to learn things about the world. They go to social media hoping that
attention will be paid to them. That’s what social media is: a sad, sprawling
bazaar in which attention is exchanged and bartered. There is no profit in it
for anybody other than Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey and, to a considerably
lesser financial extent, people like me. Social media is not about information.
People go there hunting a feeling of significance, which they try to achieve by
associating themselves in trivial ways with public events or public figures. A
failed actor retweeted the NARAL fabrication, and then corrected himself and
apologized for spreading disinformation, and then decided to uncorrect himself
and declare that he’d been right all along. No one responded to any of it. (I
suppose you could say that this is me paying him attention, but paying
attention is my job. Twitter is about emotional investment; I am more like an
oncologist, who doesn’t blame cancer for being cancer.) And no personal connection
is too distant: As the rage-monkeys on Twitter howled, a man who says he used
to work with me scolded Morning Joe for having me on the show, insisting
that he himself would not have invited me. But, of course, no one asked him,
and no one ever will. His tweet just sat there, without response, an item of no
interest to anyone.
And that is what this performative outrage is really
about.
No comments:
Post a Comment