When you pull stories from all these different sources to create a full picture of what happened, how do you make sure your own personal bias doesn't influence the story you are telling? I love your work Seth. I think it is very important. Thank you very much. Best $5 a month a I spend, and I am a very poor peasant.
It is something a curatorial journalist has to be constantly on guard for. The idea is to create a large enough matrix that whatever your biases are, if they're not grounded in the facts you will quickly discover that because you will only find "orphan" articles that don't link up to any others in the narrative—and in curation, you are *most* careful about such articles, and use them only if their background facts match up with the rest of the matrix you have. So *ideally*, the curation is so far-ranging that it effectively makes petty biases and pet theories impossible because they won't be reflected in the reliable major-media investigative journalism that you're using as your sole building blocks.
Thank you for your answer. I have been trying to do what you do for the last few years, but i find myself getting sucked into rabbit holes and I notice I can convince myself of some weird theories. I just don't have the skill set like you do.
How can we repair journalism to its critical function in our country? (Both the creation and the consumption!)Or has that ship sailed into 24-hour cycles and infotainment?
It's a long answer, but the short one is that we need more horizontal journalism—collaboration across brands and less discrete brands—rather than just more vertical journalism (though we need that too, i.e. more resources for investigative reporting and features and data journalism and so on). Essentially, "corporate ego" needs to erode to the point where you can have "neural networks" of news organizations that cooperate with one another and create a matrix of their reporting (probably using AI). I don't know how long it will take to get there.
Yes! Neural networks. Really smart. But is it corporate ego that needs to erode or the monetization/incentivizing of the “free” press? I can’t think of a model that doesn’t need a Mr. Pillow or two paying for ad space.
I am frustrated by the lack of integrity and flat out lies that pour forth from the GOP. I had the (misfortune) opportunity to attend a big ticket GOP fundraiser and was shocked at the fear and lies spewed at the donors, millionaires, billionaires, small room, big names. The claims were easily refuted if you had a brain cell yet the donors ate it up and were carried along on this boat flowing down a river of lies to justify the GOP cause for support and re-election. I mean come on...Cuba and Venezuela planning clandestine attacks - etc... etc...
My question, how to stop this 40 year reign of lies and ratFu*king by the GOP?? Where is the truth and consequences to be found in this cowboy arena with no regulation of truth??
We must expose all the money that funded the 1/6 attacks. I have made a good start but there is so much “dark money”. Any assistance/suggestions would be very helpful
I think it will depend on Merrick Garland—if anyone does it, it would have to be Main Justice, and it would probably have to be via a Special Counsel, and America is apparently exhausted with Special Counsels after Mueller. So I don't know. My hope is that so much great journalism will be done on this that, combined with a 9/11-style commission, criminal referrals will have to be sent to Main Justice and Garland will be *forced* to appoint a Special Counsel.
Your last piece for Proof you didn't seem to hold out much hope of Trump being held criminally responsible. What actions if any can people take to turn those tides?
I think the best hope is to push your elected leaders to act on a commission, issue referrals, and censure Trump to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. We can't do much to aid or get involved in criminal investigations or prosecutions.
I think Michael is, and he probably wouldn't disagree, something of a BS artist by instinct. He knows how to be charming, but I think he also knows how to be very, very much the opposite when he wants to be. I think he is ambitious and has a good head for his own self-interest. I suspect he is slightly more sensitive than he lets on and genuinely loves his family but has not had great role models. He is always engaging but he is difficult to trust.
I am a night owl, so I am usually asleep 4AM-11AM or so. But it varies.
I've read all your books, appreciating the pain of the detail. What's your opinion on today's paste & post "reporter" ? Do you ever regret the detail in put into your pieces, books?
Writing the Proof books profoundly affected my physical health and was mentally terrorizing, and then it did feel like media just pretended they were something they weren't anyway and that did make me wonder about all that effort and anguish
But with long-form digital writing I am usually pretty happy, it just sometimes gets overwhelming because you can't decide which details or threads to cut out of the picture given the space (even on Substack) you have, i.e. I often run up against the word/image limit even here
People notice what they "are". I have turned the most skeptical on to you and they are always now quoting your work. Sounds trivial but don't let the hate detract. You have a gift. Thanks for sharing.
Have you given thought to connecting Trump's treason with Nixon 68 (paris talks) and Reagan 80 (iran deal)? If those three seditious acts hadn't happened, we'd live in a very different america.
While it's important that Trump faces justice for his crimes, do you think we're not seeing the forest from the trees when it comes to the Republican Party and their affinity for authoritarianism and white grievance as a means for minority rule? As much as I despise Trump and the damage he's done to this country, he's the embodiment of and an accelerant for the Southern Strategy. Trump can drop dead tomorrow and someone else will fill the void he leaves behind (there's already talk of DeSantis running in 2024) because he's proven how effective the Southern Strategy is when norms and morals are tossed aside. What can we do to combat this dangerous approach to politics when the truth is clearly not good enough anymore?
I think it was a mistake to not call witnesses, but not for the reason many say. I think calling witnesses would have led to an extended delay during which ultimately the Senate would have returned to pressing business (e.g. COVID relief) while the managers would have had months to collect data from witnesses. Every day new information comes out that leads closer and closer to Trump's inner circle. That said, the managers did a great job with what they had to work with and it was the most bipartisan vote for conviction ever.
Any interesting stories about your hounds and their ability to smell? I have a dachshund and he amazes me daily with his ability to smell anything and everything. I recently discovered he can smell a brand new dog toy on a counter without ever seeing it... nose in the air and starts crying until he gets it.
Well, we have one sighthound (Scout) and one sighthound (Quinn)
Quinn will get so worked up about a single piece of kibble that she can smell and sense no matter how hard it is to reach or see that we will end up like moving furniture and immersing ourselves into an entire half-hour Scooby Doo episode just to find it for her because otherwise he's unconsolable and won't stop whining
Why did Trump hire people like Page, Papadopoulis, Gates/Manafort, etc.? Was it a result of poor vetting or was someone pushing these hires? If so, who?
I have written a bit about this in my books, basically yes it was always someone close to him pushing these people on him by convincing him they will do anything, don't have scruples, worship him, and agree with every position or policy he endorses
He is looking for cult members and he finds them pretty easily because he is also willing to accept people who are not true believers but just sycophants who never drop the act
Thanks. I realize Trump had a decade-long relationship w/ Manafort. I'll have to take another look at your books to glean more specific information. Interesting to note, I got John Solomon to admit (in The Hill comment board) Trump never should have hired Page, for whatever **that's** worth.
What criteria do you use in judging the reliability of a journalistic source? Is it a matter of finding multiple articles agreeing on some set of facts or are there sources that you immediately view with more skepticism?
There are a large number of criteria. A few: reputation of source; longevity of source; editorial structure; amount of investigation done; synchronicity with reporting in known reliable sources; pedigree and CV of top editors/reporter in question; commitment to the topic in question over time; plausibility of reporting based on known characteristics of certain actors; awards of other indicia of prominence in the outlet's jurisdiction; lack of anonymity among anyone associated with the outlet; and so on
No question. Just a thank you for your detailed and nuanced research and tweets/posts. Most cannot see connections like you do, or won't do the work required to do so. We see you and appreciate you!
Just updated the post. 75 minutes in, and my fingers ache! Thanks to everyone for all the questions.
I got missed, but not sure how. Please take a break tonight if needed and get back as soon as you can. Thank you for all you do, Seth.
When you pull stories from all these different sources to create a full picture of what happened, how do you make sure your own personal bias doesn't influence the story you are telling? I love your work Seth. I think it is very important. Thank you very much. Best $5 a month a I spend, and I am a very poor peasant.
It is something a curatorial journalist has to be constantly on guard for. The idea is to create a large enough matrix that whatever your biases are, if they're not grounded in the facts you will quickly discover that because you will only find "orphan" articles that don't link up to any others in the narrative—and in curation, you are *most* careful about such articles, and use them only if their background facts match up with the rest of the matrix you have. So *ideally*, the curation is so far-ranging that it effectively makes petty biases and pet theories impossible because they won't be reflected in the reliable major-media investigative journalism that you're using as your sole building blocks.
Thank you for your answer. I have been trying to do what you do for the last few years, but i find myself getting sucked into rabbit holes and I notice I can convince myself of some weird theories. I just don't have the skill set like you do.
How can we repair journalism to its critical function in our country? (Both the creation and the consumption!)Or has that ship sailed into 24-hour cycles and infotainment?
It's a long answer, but the short one is that we need more horizontal journalism—collaboration across brands and less discrete brands—rather than just more vertical journalism (though we need that too, i.e. more resources for investigative reporting and features and data journalism and so on). Essentially, "corporate ego" needs to erode to the point where you can have "neural networks" of news organizations that cooperate with one another and create a matrix of their reporting (probably using AI). I don't know how long it will take to get there.
Yes! Neural networks. Really smart. But is it corporate ego that needs to erode or the monetization/incentivizing of the “free” press? I can’t think of a model that doesn’t need a Mr. Pillow or two paying for ad space.
Perfect answer.
I am frustrated by the lack of integrity and flat out lies that pour forth from the GOP. I had the (misfortune) opportunity to attend a big ticket GOP fundraiser and was shocked at the fear and lies spewed at the donors, millionaires, billionaires, small room, big names. The claims were easily refuted if you had a brain cell yet the donors ate it up and were carried along on this boat flowing down a river of lies to justify the GOP cause for support and re-election. I mean come on...Cuba and Venezuela planning clandestine attacks - etc... etc...
My question, how to stop this 40 year reign of lies and ratFu*king by the GOP?? Where is the truth and consequences to be found in this cowboy arena with no regulation of truth??
We must expose all the money that funded the 1/6 attacks. I have made a good start but there is so much “dark money”. Any assistance/suggestions would be very helpful
Do you think anyone will eventually connect all the dots and go after all or most of those you’ve named as planning the insurrection ?
I think it will depend on Merrick Garland—if anyone does it, it would have to be Main Justice, and it would probably have to be via a Special Counsel, and America is apparently exhausted with Special Counsels after Mueller. So I don't know. My hope is that so much great journalism will be done on this that, combined with a 9/11-style commission, criminal referrals will have to be sent to Main Justice and Garland will be *forced* to appoint a Special Counsel.
Your last piece for Proof you didn't seem to hold out much hope of Trump being held criminally responsible. What actions if any can people take to turn those tides?
I think the best hope is to push your elected leaders to act on a commission, issue referrals, and censure Trump to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. We can't do much to aid or get involved in criminal investigations or prosecutions.
1. When the hell do you sleep?
2. What are your thoughts on Michael Cohen after being on his podcast? It was fun to listen to.
I think Michael is, and he probably wouldn't disagree, something of a BS artist by instinct. He knows how to be charming, but I think he also knows how to be very, very much the opposite when he wants to be. I think he is ambitious and has a good head for his own self-interest. I suspect he is slightly more sensitive than he lets on and genuinely loves his family but has not had great role models. He is always engaging but he is difficult to trust.
I am a night owl, so I am usually asleep 4AM-11AM or so. But it varies.
Lol. Michael Cohen is definitely a lot.
I've read all your books, appreciating the pain of the detail. What's your opinion on today's paste & post "reporter" ? Do you ever regret the detail in put into your pieces, books?
Writing the Proof books profoundly affected my physical health and was mentally terrorizing, and then it did feel like media just pretended they were something they weren't anyway and that did make me wonder about all that effort and anguish
But with long-form digital writing I am usually pretty happy, it just sometimes gets overwhelming because you can't decide which details or threads to cut out of the picture given the space (even on Substack) you have, i.e. I often run up against the word/image limit even here
People notice what they "are". I have turned the most skeptical on to you and they are always now quoting your work. Sounds trivial but don't let the hate detract. You have a gift. Thanks for sharing.
Have you given thought to connecting Trump's treason with Nixon 68 (paris talks) and Reagan 80 (iran deal)? If those three seditious acts hadn't happened, we'd live in a very different america.
I had not thought of this.
Bill Barr (eye roll emoji and snorting mad emoji)
While it's important that Trump faces justice for his crimes, do you think we're not seeing the forest from the trees when it comes to the Republican Party and their affinity for authoritarianism and white grievance as a means for minority rule? As much as I despise Trump and the damage he's done to this country, he's the embodiment of and an accelerant for the Southern Strategy. Trump can drop dead tomorrow and someone else will fill the void he leaves behind (there's already talk of DeSantis running in 2024) because he's proven how effective the Southern Strategy is when norms and morals are tossed aside. What can we do to combat this dangerous approach to politics when the truth is clearly not good enough anymore?
Lingering thoughts on Dems not calling witnesses?
I think it was a mistake to not call witnesses, but not for the reason many say. I think calling witnesses would have led to an extended delay during which ultimately the Senate would have returned to pressing business (e.g. COVID relief) while the managers would have had months to collect data from witnesses. Every day new information comes out that leads closer and closer to Trump's inner circle. That said, the managers did a great job with what they had to work with and it was the most bipartisan vote for conviction ever.
Any interesting stories about your hounds and their ability to smell? I have a dachshund and he amazes me daily with his ability to smell anything and everything. I recently discovered he can smell a brand new dog toy on a counter without ever seeing it... nose in the air and starts crying until he gets it.
Well, we have one sighthound (Scout) and one sighthound (Quinn)
Quinn will get so worked up about a single piece of kibble that she can smell and sense no matter how hard it is to reach or see that we will end up like moving furniture and immersing ourselves into an entire half-hour Scooby Doo episode just to find it for her because otherwise he's unconsolable and won't stop whining
Why did Trump hire people like Page, Papadopoulis, Gates/Manafort, etc.? Was it a result of poor vetting or was someone pushing these hires? If so, who?
I have written a bit about this in my books, basically yes it was always someone close to him pushing these people on him by convincing him they will do anything, don't have scruples, worship him, and agree with every position or policy he endorses
He is looking for cult members and he finds them pretty easily because he is also willing to accept people who are not true believers but just sycophants who never drop the act
Excellent answer. That’s what I always thought but could never put into words like you.
Thanks. I realize Trump had a decade-long relationship w/ Manafort. I'll have to take another look at your books to glean more specific information. Interesting to note, I got John Solomon to admit (in The Hill comment board) Trump never should have hired Page, for whatever **that's** worth.
What criteria do you use in judging the reliability of a journalistic source? Is it a matter of finding multiple articles agreeing on some set of facts or are there sources that you immediately view with more skepticism?
There are a large number of criteria. A few: reputation of source; longevity of source; editorial structure; amount of investigation done; synchronicity with reporting in known reliable sources; pedigree and CV of top editors/reporter in question; commitment to the topic in question over time; plausibility of reporting based on known characteristics of certain actors; awards of other indicia of prominence in the outlet's jurisdiction; lack of anonymity among anyone associated with the outlet; and so on
No question. Just a thank you for your detailed and nuanced research and tweets/posts. Most cannot see connections like you do, or won't do the work required to do so. We see you and appreciate you!