Fascinated by this interview. I wonder if like anyone else, Martin thinks himself subject to confirmation bias given his prediction of unfolding chaos and the death of the industrial age. If you're known for a certain worldview, how strong the temptation might be to see events conforming to that worldview.
if the public is revolting, (a fat pitch of a double meaning!) they seem to have very little so far to show for it.
Could we maybe hear from this alleged oracle of authoritarianism on the incredibly obvious authoritarianism of the Trump White House? A place with no regard for Habeas Corpus, which has launched extortionate lawsuits against Disney and others, and where senior officials demanded the resignation of a news anchor because he was mean about Stephen Miller? As it is, we get to hear about how he has the “skeleton key” to all discourse, and is always right, without this quite major example of a blind spot being interrogated.
Another thing which really happened was Ben Rhodes being flummoxed that media sources with no foreign bureaus were asking him what they should tell their audience to think about the Iran nuclear deal when that audience had not really been primed to think about Iran in any way. [Trusted government official] may be a member of the IC and may not but the IC has more power to shape people's opinions about foreign policy than domestic politics
Most of what Martin Gurri says in this interview is banal, myopic, and flat wrong, not least:
"Disinformation, like propaganda, assumes that the public will be exposed through media to some opinion, and be persuaded of its validity. There’s zero evidence that this ever happens."
This story appeared in the New York Times Magazine so may be too elite by definition but in the Romanian election Georgescu had very little grass-roots support before a network of Russian bots on TikTok showed up to support him. He was then able to advance to the general election which was annulled with a mere 24% of the vote. A whole society will not fall for disinformation but there can be a certain proportion of people who are a) existentially afraid b) with poor critical thinking skills that sway what society is able to do.
(Former extremely useless member of a disinformation committee who eventually got impatient with the whole frame of disinformation because really media literacy training is what is wanted and needed)
Martin Gurri's blind spot revealed itself when discussing the languaging of "disinformation". Most Cuban Americans lean right because of Castro's state control of everything (totalitarianism). He rejects out of hand the language of the left where the left is against totalitarianism too.
I've used 'The medium is the message' as my primary guiding framework over the last decade or so and it's largely been a good north star for the seeming chaos in politics and information. But, this interview really makes me consider what a blunt instrument it is.
I'd love to hear Martin's view on the following: If the twitter files were seminal moment in your belief that you needed to act, what about the day-in-day out choice of people within the companies? What about the insanity of section 230 absolving these companies of any meaningful accountability? Is that not a more potent bastion of societal destruction?
You have to wonder how someone can be so smart about analysis and so obviously wrong in his political conclusions. This may be latent CIA training made manifest. They collect as much information as possible, and then do the stupid obvious when often, doing nothing would be the best course. This, from experience.
Fascinated by this interview. I wonder if like anyone else, Martin thinks himself subject to confirmation bias given his prediction of unfolding chaos and the death of the industrial age. If you're known for a certain worldview, how strong the temptation might be to see events conforming to that worldview.
if the public is revolting, (a fat pitch of a double meaning!) they seem to have very little so far to show for it.
I hope for your sake Mel Brooks isn’t on Substack. He may have been gracious to Hedy Lamarr, but you sir do not have her good looks!
Could we maybe hear from this alleged oracle of authoritarianism on the incredibly obvious authoritarianism of the Trump White House? A place with no regard for Habeas Corpus, which has launched extortionate lawsuits against Disney and others, and where senior officials demanded the resignation of a news anchor because he was mean about Stephen Miller? As it is, we get to hear about how he has the “skeleton key” to all discourse, and is always right, without this quite major example of a blind spot being interrogated.
Another thing which really happened was Ben Rhodes being flummoxed that media sources with no foreign bureaus were asking him what they should tell their audience to think about the Iran nuclear deal when that audience had not really been primed to think about Iran in any way. [Trusted government official] may be a member of the IC and may not but the IC has more power to shape people's opinions about foreign policy than domestic politics
So, so, so, so smart! So, so, so, so trapped by analysis... I'd love to hear the question he was asking that gave him Trump as the answer.
The question was Trump or Harris.
I’d hate to believe someone so smart reduced the question to something so simplistic.
No worries, as the question was posed by the election, not Gurri. He is no great admirer of Trump.
Most of what Martin Gurri says in this interview is banal, myopic, and flat wrong, not least:
"Disinformation, like propaganda, assumes that the public will be exposed through media to some opinion, and be persuaded of its validity. There’s zero evidence that this ever happens."
"Mass man" is however a good frame for what I was groping for for the voters that Team Trump knew they had to turn out this time
This story appeared in the New York Times Magazine so may be too elite by definition but in the Romanian election Georgescu had very little grass-roots support before a network of Russian bots on TikTok showed up to support him. He was then able to advance to the general election which was annulled with a mere 24% of the vote. A whole society will not fall for disinformation but there can be a certain proportion of people who are a) existentially afraid b) with poor critical thinking skills that sway what society is able to do.
(Former extremely useless member of a disinformation committee who eventually got impatient with the whole frame of disinformation because really media literacy training is what is wanted and needed)
Great piece. I love what he said about authoritarianism and language.
Martin Gurri's blind spot revealed itself when discussing the languaging of "disinformation". Most Cuban Americans lean right because of Castro's state control of everything (totalitarianism). He rejects out of hand the language of the left where the left is against totalitarianism too.
This man has no positive agenda. He’s Machiavelli reincarnated. I don’t need this little dude who epitomizes the banality of evil 😈😡😭
Wow, what a great read!
I've used 'The medium is the message' as my primary guiding framework over the last decade or so and it's largely been a good north star for the seeming chaos in politics and information. But, this interview really makes me consider what a blunt instrument it is.
I'd love to hear Martin's view on the following: If the twitter files were seminal moment in your belief that you needed to act, what about the day-in-day out choice of people within the companies? What about the insanity of section 230 absolving these companies of any meaningful accountability? Is that not a more potent bastion of societal destruction?
You have to wonder how someone can be so smart about analysis and so obviously wrong in his political conclusions. This may be latent CIA training made manifest. They collect as much information as possible, and then do the stupid obvious when often, doing nothing would be the best course. This, from experience.