Happy Monday. Welcome to Infowarzel. Here's a few brief thoughts I had about something that (sorta) happened this weekend in pro-Trump media world.
On Saturday afternoon Mike Cernovich teased his latest scoop on Twitter. He'd come into possession of what's known as the "shitty media men" list — a Google spreadsheet compiled by women working in media. Before its existence was widely known, it was an open document that anyone with the link could edit anonymously. The list included names, alleged misconduct, notes, and the media organization of the men in question (full disclosure: BuzzFeed, the organization that employs me, is featured on it a number of times). It was careful to note that everything compiled on the list was — at this point — “allegations and rumors.“ Its disclaimer: "Take everything with a grain of salt."
These simple facts aside, virtually everything else about the list is fraught, complicated territory. There've been some excellent pieces written about it from a number of angles and you can read a few of them here and here as well as some important thinking about the whisper networks women have built in general. Since this is a newsletter about the pro-Trump media, I am going to focus on why I think he is publishing/teasing publishing it and what its role is in the greater info war between the MSM and the pro-Trump media.
1. Publishing this list allows Cernovich and the pro-Trump media to take the moral high ground in its war against the mainstream media. Since the Weinstein scandal broke, Cernovich and many members of the pro-Trump media have loudly condemned Weinstein, frequently tweeted support of the actresses who've spoken out against him and others, and have railed against Hollywood for a toxic culture of abuse and misconduct toward women. I will refrain from casting any judgement as to whether these condemnations are genuine or opportunistic (though it's quite curious they didn't seem too put off by the Access Hollywood tape!) but it's clear that the pro-Trump media has taken up the Weinstein scandal and the issues of sexual harassment and assault as a part of its continued war on the left and its media apparatus.
And as such, it's important to see this scandal as it relates to the broader information war — which is where the list comes in. Publishing the list allows the pro-Trump media to claim it is standing on the right side of history. And since the list is centered around mainstream media outlets, it's also a convenient tool to undermine the credibility of the mainstream media.
At the individual level, it has the obvious potential to damage reporter credibility. From an organizational perspective, it can be wielded to cast doubt on the moral integrity of an entire newsroom. Most importantly, it is a blunt tool the pro-Trump media can use to dismiss stories it doesn't like. It can use the list to cast doubt on rigorous, fact-based reporting with a simple 'How could we possibly trust anything X says about Y when they're accused of _____.' Or, from an organizational perspective, it can be used to suggest hypocrisy 'Pretty rich of [publication] to report on X when their reporters/editors/executives have been accused of the same thing.' It's also a powerful tool in the developing narrative that some of the most woke male voices in the public sphere don't act the same way in private.
2. For the pro-Trump media, the unconfirmed nature of the allegations in the list is perhaps its biggest asset. By flooding zone with anonymous, unconfirmed allegations it clouds any sense of what's really true. The pro-Trump media thrives in this environment. Much like a good defense lawyer muddying the waters in an attempt to get a mistrial, releasing incendiary but unconfirmed information like this is a great way to cast doubt on allegations of this variety in general (in this sense, it's worth thinking about the motivations of whoever leaked the list to Cernovich).
By teasing the publication of the list, Cernovich and the pro-Trump media set themselves up to win (in their own estimation at least) in any outcome.
If the MSM ignores it totally? No matter, it's still ammunition for their camp and confirmation for their followers that the MSM is as depraved and immoral as they believe it is.
.
If people get mad? Well, he can feign shock, which is exactly what he did yesterday in a Medium post. "Mike Cernovich has obtained the list, and to his surprise, people are angry — at him," he wrote. And he can suggest that he's done nothing wrong since he didn't create the list.
If people suggest it was a private list, never intended for public view? Cernovich can make the gatekeeper argument and suggest that the MSM cherrypicks the truth it wants to publish, rather than enacting true transparency. Spoiler: he did this on his blog! "If the list isn’t to be trusted, why are journalists sharing it? No one will answer this question," he wrote.
If people suggest that publishing the list is reckless? Again, he can use the women who created the list as a shield. When a Gizmodo journalist criticized Cernovich for threatening to publish the list in full, Cernovich responded with the following:
"Cernovich did not create the list, female journalists did. Is Tom McKay claiming female journalists lie about sexual harassment? That’s the only implication one can find from his Tweets."
This is, of course, disingenuous. But it doesn't matter as it plays well with the pro-Trump media and its audience, which sees Cernovich's logic as a kind of checkmate in this particular match with the MSM.
Perhaps most importantly though, in the pro-Trump media universe, publishing the list is akin to using the mainstream media's own tactics against them. The pro-Trump media and its readership at large feels constantly maligned by the coverage of them in the mainstream media. Like Trump, they feel that it's conducted in bad faith and intended to destroy and discredit them. The list — specifically people criticizing him for publishing it— offers the ability to cry out hypocrisy. It's especially true for Cernovich who has been long-criticized in the mainstream media for endorsing date rape in a series of old tweets (he alleges they were satire) and was, according to a New Yorker profile, accused of rape in 2003 (from the New Yorker: "the charge was later dropped, but a judge ordered him to do community service for misdemeanor battery. His record has since been expunged.")
If he publishes the list and is met with a chorus of "it is reckless to publish unconfirmed allegations of this nature" it offers him — and anyone else who feels unfairly maligned by the MSM — to suggest that they've been given a taste of their own medicine. See, how does it feel?! Another example of muddying the waters to force a clean slate.
3. Despite saying he'd publish the entire list he's so far only put forth two names (he is claiming that he's exercising caution and said he's evaluating the allegations and vetting them). But it really doesn't matter. By publishing just one name he's proven he's not bluffing. Instead, he's doing the same thing that Alex Jones did earlier this summer with his surreptitious recording of Megyn Kelly — he's used the scoop to control a narrative. The scandal of the list — it's verified presence in the world — is good enough for Cernovich and the pro-Trump media to claim moral superiority. He can dangle the prospect of publishing the whole thing — as he's been doing — and string out the news cycle on this. But publishing the full set of information is besides the point. In fact, by not identifying the men on the list, it allows his audience to choose their own adventure and insert whichever journalist/organization they find most reprehensible in its place.
It's ironic, perhaps, that by witholding names Cernovich is now the kind of gatekeeper that he rails against. But his audience doesn't hate it. Far from it, it's proof in their minds that they've ascended.