It was kind of conservative pundit David Strom to let his head explode so mine didn’t have to, and he generously authored a rant so I could restrain myself.
What set him off was a legitimate provocation. Elizabeth Spiers, who is a frequent contributor to the New York Times op-ed pages, revealed in a social media spat with Noah Blum the Chief Technology Officer of Tablet, which focuses on Jewish issues, that she thinks Hamas doesn’t run Gaza:
Then Strom tracked down the earlier Twitter exchange in October, which introduces this post.
He is, understandably, aghast. Among her many credentials, Spiers was the co-founder of Breaking Media. She consults to progressive organizations. She teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism at NYU. In addition to being contributor to the opinion section of The New York Times, she was formerly the editor in chief of The New York Observer and editorial director of Observer Media Group. Along with her Times gig, Spiers has had her articles and essays published in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The New York Review of Books, New York Magazine, The New Republic, and GQ. And she often writes about Israel, of which she is consistently critical.
So how is it possible that she thinks the idea that Hamas runs Gaza is a conspiracy theory, and doesn’t know this basic fact as she calls for a ceasefire in Gaza? “If she bothered to read anything, she would know,” fumes Strom. “Unfortunately, she has the reading habits of the average teenage TikToker…Spiers apparently is a special kind of stupid, which I suppose is very on-brand for somebody who writes for the Opinion section of the NYT, The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books, and teaches at a J-school…”
He continues, “She doesn’t know that Hamas is the government of Gaza. And she is spewing out opinions about the Israel-Hamas war. As a ‘journalist’ …It blows your mind. I admit that I regularly show contempt for the MSM, but even I didn’t expect that a ‘journalist’ would be so utterly ignorant as to not have the most basic facts in their head–5 weeks into a story!–before spewing their own opinion onto the internet.” Strom concludes,
Many journalists are venal, but relatively few are this stupid. I thought. At least I thought that. Maybe I overestimate them. They could be wrong so often and push ridiculous propaganda because they are so stupid that they never even bother to check into a thing before they hit “Publish.”
What’s going on here? Oh, just about everything, and its all unethical. In a sane and ethical world, this kind of wilful incompetence and ignorance would end any professional’s career. We can see how the mainstream media allows bias to cancel out due diligence and objectivity. We see how the world of journalism works on the basis of ideological alliances and affinity rather than merit and talent. We can see how bias makes journalists, editors and pundits not merely stupid, but untrustworthy. We can see how the cult of Facts Don’t Matter has the nation by the throat.
I must also say that yes, Strom does overestimate today’s journalists. Of all professionals, they exemplify the Peter Principle most vividly, rising to a level of responsibility their intellect and character are not sufficient to handle.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack: “Of all professionals, they exemplify the Peter Principle most vividly, rising to a level of responsibility their intellect and character are not sufficient to handle.”
Slight Quibble: I don’t think they rise to that level. Many of them likely start out that way, completely unprepared to perform the job appropriately.
-Jut
Indeed. But doesn’t “rising to a level” also include the minimal level of presuming to be a journalist in the first place?
It’s technically accurate that Hamas isn’t elected.
It *was* elected. Then is suspended elections beyond the next elected. So now it’s not elected.
However, surveys (of whatever reliability they are in that context) would imply that Hamas would indeed be re-elected if the opportunity came up.
Yup, a great lesson learned from Hitler. Exactly.
Technically, Hitler wasn’t elected at all. President von Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor of Germany; he wasn’t elected to the post at all.
In the last elections Germany had until after WWII, in March of 1934, it was heavily rigged – though I would imagine today’s MSM would consider that a conspiracy theory, too. There was no “No” option on the ballot, it was not a secret ballot (and places that provided for a ballot to be filled out in secret had signs on the door that read “This way goes treason”, plenty of write-in “No”s were trashed and, let’s not forget, the Nazis’ main competition, The Communist Party, had been banned after the Reichstag fire.
So the Gazans probably had a freer election than the Germans did.
My earlier post about emotion explains this. Elizabeth Spiers is arguing from emotion. She ‘feels’ that the Palestinian cause is just, so any argument that suggests it isn’t is just wrong. Logic doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter. Those are tools of toxic masculinity and whiteness. She ‘feels’ the Palestinians are right, and the result is an argument like this.
This type of reasoning is behind the Bud Light fiasco, Disney’s downward spiral, Target’s strategy, etc. These companies are being led by ‘feelings’.
I think it goes beyond that, Michael. I think when lefties say, “Day is night and night is day,” they really believe it. It’s like them saying Bidenomics has created a strong economy, inflation is down, Iran won’t build a bomb, the border is secure, and the Biden presidency has been a tremendous success. I’m convinced they really believe stuff like that. It seems to be some sort of compelled belief syndrome.