Pierce’s rules
… according to Charles Pierce, author of Idiot America. Pierce’s book discusses what he sees as an assault on intellectuals, on credible expertise, and perhaps more generally, on reason (also the title of a book by former Vice President Al Gore). Gore puts it pretty succinctly when he says, “reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions” (p. 1). Pierce suggests that certain intellectuals have always resided outside of the mainstream, on the fringe, with ideas not popularly accepted. However, when these ‘cranks’ as he calls them, become part of the mainstream public debate, merely because they’ve written a book, and some think tank bought a million of them to get it on the NY Times Best Seller list (social proof par excellence), or the ideas have been enshrined on a TV show or through talk radio, then the role of the crank as a voice of intellectual diversity is diminished. And where did the expert go? On public broadcasting, perhaps. Tom Nichols (2017) thinks the coronavirus and the Trump Administration’s updates–which were part reality TV, part knowledgeable public health experts, part proxy campaign rally, all Trump–may convince a lot of Americans of a renewed value of true expertise in the news, rather than a more infotaining, audience-pandering disambiguation expressed in the language of talking points. However, as physicist Neils Bohr, said, ‘Prediction is difficult. Especially of the future.’ And Pierce, pre-coronavirus, has three rules that he says govern how this ‘dumbing down of the public discourse’ happens:
- Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units. Madonna ‘writes’ children’s books. Mitch Albom tells us what five people we’ll meet in heaven. Michael Crichton, MD, deceased novelist, gets on the rubber chicken dinner talk circuit to shoot down global warming science. In fact much of the PR campaign against global warming is based not on science, but on paying scientists to get their talking points out on television. Conservative authors and their books are a good example. Sourcewatch has a different take.
- Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough. Talk radio is predicated on this. We’ve seen how opinion shows deal in shouting matches. Add liberals vs conservatives, and you may have yourself an audience, an audience that believes what is being said and holds those ‘truths’ to be self-evident. Let’s face it, academics or those trained in the sciences, those with advanced degrees, in most cases are too busy doing their research and writing to worry about making TV appearances, and when they do aren’t necessarily very good at it. Be wary of scientists who spend most of their time on TV, doctors who spend most of their time testifying in malpractice cases, etc.
- Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it. There is no question but that the Tea Party movement includes many people sincerely upset about the economic crisis that has befallen the US. However, whether they have a profound understanding of the causes of that crisis is entirely another matter. Glenn Beck’s ‘tree of revolution‘ (see also Jon Stewart’s parody), or Pierce’s example of Alec Rawls’ ‘crescent of betrayal,’ would seem to apply here.
For a different view on expertise–not contrary, really, but discussing both how the public might perceive expertise, and how the public has never been particularly adept at grasping issues of the day–check out James Joyner’s views. And then there’s this, from Walter Lippman, from the 1920s, casting a long shadow of doubt on whether the press is more part of the solution (clearing things up for the public), or the problem:
The newspapers are regarded by democrats as a panacea for their own defects, whereas analysis of the nature of news and of the economic basis of journalism seems to show that the newspapers necessarily and inevitably reflect, and therefore, in greater or lesser measure, intensify, the defective organization of public opinion.
