An Unfair Media Criticism

We often read something like the following:

“[Media outlet] interviewed [an enemy of ours]. The hosts deserve credit for pushing back on many of [the enemy’s] outrageous statements, but there were still plenty of lies/awfulness that went unrebutted.”

If you think about it, that is an unfair criticism.

My thoughts, but articulated by Claude:

• Brandolini’s Law: Falsehoods are generated faster than they can be rebutted. A skilled propagandist in a 45-minute interview can produce 30 disputable claims. Rebutting each one properly takes longer than stating it. The math doesn’t work.
• The critic bears no cost: He watched the interview, cherry-picked two unrebutted claims, and wrote a paragraph. He didn’t have to decide in real time which of 30 claims to challenge, maintain composure, keep the interview moving, or risk being accused of bad-faith hectoring.
• The implicit conclusion is never stated: Is the critic saying the interview shouldn’t have happened? That the hosts should have been more aggressive (and risked making the enemy sympathetic)? Or risked never getting guests. He never says. He gets credit for being vigilant without committing to any actionable position.
• The real function: This criticism is often deployed to make platforming the enemy politically costly regardless of how it goes — heads I win, tails you lose. Good interview? “Still plenty of unrebutted lies.” Bad interview? “Should never have given him a platform.” The media outlet can’t win.

There are distinct, fair criticisms of interview conduct, if carefully thought through, e.g., the hosts interrupted selectively, showed deference not shown to others, and failed to cite documented contradictions.