“On Tyanny” - Chapter 11: “Investgate”

This chapter is the last of the “epistemological” chapters in the sense that we started with language and truth, and now are tasked with researching and determining what are and are not valid sources of information and how to move through political terrain.

Snyder’s checklist opens the chapter:

“Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalists by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of which come from abroad). Take responsibility for what you communicate to others.”

On the surface, this all seems fairly straightforward, but let’s be clear that all of this requires discipline and vigilance. Figuring things out for ourselves is important, but in doing so, we need to be aware of and confront our confirmation biases. Bertrand Russell in his entry on Truth in the Britannica Encyclopedia (if I’m remembering this correctly; I read this fifty years ago and while the source might be wrong, Russell’s examination of what truth is and how we use language to express truth claims accurately still lingers in my memory) abjured us to be wary of how we assert “truth”, “truths”, and “facts”. He offered a number of qualifying statements; for example, “this appears to be so” or using qualifiers like “apparently”, “evidently”, and so on. This has as much to do with accuracy as it does with ensuring that we have performed due diligence in verifying our research.

Buddha famously instructed his students to not accept his words willy-nilly. He told them to take nothing on faith, to not be led by the authority off the speaker, to test the words. Thus, Snyder has brought us to a similar place with additional caveats.

To be sure, Russell and very likely, Shakyamuni, would have been wary of propaganda; in these times, possibly more than at any other time in history, awareness of manipulation and disinformation needs to be emphasized. It’s not just bad actors; it might also be well-meaning fellow comrades who post op9inion as fact or who might overlook accuracy for rhetoric. To be sure, I find myself in that category. Hyperbole gets the better of us sometimes, but if we’re aware of it, we can take pains to reduce exaggeration.

Having said that, we live in a period where the stakes are higher than they were in Lord Russell’s time (and he was acutely aware of the precipice civilization was teetering on beginning at the dawn of the nuclear age.) With the internet, we have exponentially greater access to information and disinformation.

There is wisdom in supporting print media; subscriptions keep newsrooms and journalists afloat. That saiid, subscribing to resources online is certainly worthwhile.

Snyder begins the substance of the chapter with the question: What is truth? While he notes that sometimes people ask this question “because they wish to do nothing”. It’s too big, too loaded a question and can be used as somehow “unanswerable.” But for our purposes, Snyder gives a solid definition, because it’s straightforward, and actionable/testable: “[Truth] is your ability to discern facts that make you an individual, and our collective trust in common knowledge that makes us a society.” This is the bedrock on which we should build our relationships in the world.

Of course, Snyder recognizes that for many, their ability to discern facts has been compromised (perhaps a skill never learned) and there is now a broad and deep distrust of “collective knowledge”, but that doesn’t mean that we simply surrender in the face of these obstacles. Indeed, it is more critical than ever to approach information with as sharp a focus as possible. Given that journalists have been targeted as “enemies of the people” by the regime, it is more critical than ever to support those who are doing the work, particularly where it makes the regime uneasy or angry. For ourselves, in doing our individual “finding out”, we may find ourselves doing a fair bit of journalism of our own.

Snyder looks to the regime’s canard of “fake news” and its echoes of the earlier Nazi term “Lügenpresse”, and brings us to the Vietnam Era where U.S. lies about the war prompted Hannah Arendt to write “Under normal circumstances, the liar is defeated by reality, for which there is no substitute; no matter how large the tissue of falsehood that an experienced liar has to offer, it will never be large enough, even if he enlists the help of computers, to cover the immensity of factuality.”

As Snyder points out, the reference to computers no longer holds true, but he posits that because people have become so acculturated that two-dimensional reality seems to weigh on equal footing with three=dimensional, “people going door-to-door encounter the surprised blinking of American citizens who realize that they have to talk about politics with a flesh-and-blood human being rather than having their views affirmed by their Facebook feeds.” He notes that online tribes have risen up with entrenched worldviews, subject to manipulation. Parenthetically, Snyder adds, “And yes, there is a conspiracy you can find online; It is the one to keep you online, looking for conspiracies.”

Returning to the value of reading words in print as opposed to on screen, Snyder points out that “We need print journalists so that stories can develop on the page and in our minds.”He asks what it means when “women belong at home”, “pregnancy is an inconvenience”, “when the president’s enterprises are financed by mysterious foreign cash”, and so on. Often, we read these stories, take them in, and respond at a knee-jerk level. However, that’s part of the problem. The meaning of all these stories can be sussed out and explored online, but in that environment, “we tend to be drawn in by the logic of spectacle.” Snyder points out that online news, and broadcast news for that matter, is designed to gin up increasing levels of excitement, to spur the reader of the viewer to continue scrolling or watching. In many ways, electronic and broadcast media are as much bread and circuses as any TV show or movie.

Snyder emphasizes that “the better print journalists allow us to consider the meaning, for ourselves and our country, of what might otherwise seem to be isolated bits of information.” It is easy and facile to repost an article online but “research and writing is hard work that requires time and money.”

I had mentioned being aware of our own confirmation bias at the beginning of this piece. One of mine is to sneer at what legacy media has become in the current political climate. And yet, I have to concede that Snyder has a major point when he writes: “”Before you deride the ‘mainstream media’ note that it is no longer the mainstream. It is derision that is mainstream and easy, and actual journalism that is edgy and difficult.” I want to linger on this point for a bit.

We’ve seen institutions like The New York Times and The Washington Post “bend the knee” or frankly, “obey in advance”. However, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have dogged, driven investigative journalists working for them. I believe that the news media is certainly worthy of critique, but I take Snyder’s point. I don’t want to deride the writers that are still doing strong work for those institutions. Indeed, Snyder has something to say on the matter directly.

“”[T]ry for yourself to write a proper article, involving work in the real world; traveling, reviewing, maintaining relationships with sources, researching in written records, verifying everything, all on a tight and unforgiving schedule.” For the record, I”ve done this. I worked freelance for a small New England paper and have had articles published here and there. I don’t consider myself a “serious journalist” because the amount of effort it would take to do this for a living would kill me. I do my research when I’m writing for this blog; I still occasionally talk to people if I need clarification on an idea, and I certainly do try to double-check myself before I commit something to writing, but when I’ve had to write on a serious assignment, it’s a lot. Once I had to interview a guy running for selectman in my former town and my publisher gave me a list of people to interview. It was intended to be a feel good, puff piece, but the more I dug, the more I found out that there were issues behind the scenes tied to earlier eras of the town’s history that were less than rosy. I took this up with the publisher and asked him if I could do a meatier piece and he shot that down and warned me not to go digging and certainly not to push the idea to the rival newspaper one town over.

I turned the full article over to him (and he edited out the dubious past bits) and I never wrote for him again. The rival newspaper did receive an unsolicited anonymous manuscript that they edited/rewrote and apparently followed up on the leads spoken to in the body of that draft. They did due diligence, the guy still got elected to the board of selectmen and I had plausible deniability. Not being asked to submit any future piece didn’t hurt my feelings.

Snyder continues: “If you feel like doing this, keep a blog. In the meantime, give credit to those who do that for a living.” If there is one thing that comes from keeping a blog, it is that it keeps the writing muscles in some kind of shape. Doing so, hopefully, keeps one’s powers of observation from getting too flabby, at the very least, and at best, might even be worthy of reading.

“”[T]he work of people who adhere to journalistic ethics is of a different quality than the work of those who do. not.” This is an aphorism I need to have tattooed on my forehead. It’s a sound reminder to maintain some level of discipline and to try to aspire to some degree of excellence. As for those of us who need to “figure things out for ourselves”? Even if you aren’t planning on writing an article, an essay, or a blog post; do the work. Before committing to a perspective or entering a discussion about policies, legislation, or politics, have yours sources ready to cite, be ready to back up your claim and make sure that you are prepared. If you need to, save all that on a Notes app or a text file on your phone, just to have on hand when someone calls you out.

Snyder comes back to why it’s important to pay for journalism; we pay plumbers and mechanics and other professionals. Why would we not pay for something that in the final analysis is more important? Why “should we form our political judgement on the basis of zero investment? We get what we pay for.”

By the way, Snyder is certainly not anti-internet. He has pointed out that disconnecting has its advantages and he has - as in this chapter and others - iterated how important reading physical media is, but he also points out something else; the ability of the internet to circulate ideas and information. To wit, “If we do pursue the facts, the internet gives us enviable power to convey them.” He points out that all the writers he references did not have that luxury, and while some were persecuted or ignored, they eventually found their words shared with the world. Vaclav Havel, Victor Klemperer, Hannah Arendt, and Leszek Kolakowski all had faced various hardships, all from some form of censorship or worse.

Snyder quotes Havel: “If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living in truth.”

He follows this - which really should be everyone’s - motto, let’s call it with something that perhaps many of us who do write posts and essay online should keep in mind. “Since. In the age of the internet we are all publishers, each of bears some private responsibility for the public’s sense of truth. If we are serious about seeking the facts, we can each make a small revolution in the way the internet works. If you are verifying information for yourself, you will not send on fake news to others. If you choose to follow reporters whom you have reason to trust, you can also transmit what they have learned to others. If you retweet only the work of humans who have followed journalistic protocols, you are less likely to debase your brain interacting with bots and trolls.”

That last sentence tickled me. The more you spend time researching and sometimes finding out that the thesis you started out with might not have been as sound as you thought (I am saying you, but trust me, I also include myself here), you begin to develop a richer sense, almost an intuition for fakery and fraudulence when it comes to the unrelenting tenacity of the online army of automated responses and people who really don’t have anything to say but decide that when they do, they belch bullshit out there on the web for all to smell. I’ve learned to ignore the peanut gallery of twits and if I do engage with someone, it’s often enlightening for me (and sometimes, I’ve even come around to see something I’d written in a fresh light).

Snyder concludes the chapter with a caution about recognizing that “We do not see the minds that we hurt when we publish falsehoods, but that does not mean we do no harm.” He uses the analogy of driving a car and the care we take not to not run into other drivers. We protect others from harm driving as much as we protect ourselves. “[A]lthough we may not see the other person in front of his or her computer, we have our share of responsibility for what is on the screen. If we can avoid doing unseen violence to the minds of others on the internet, others will do the same. And then, perhaps our internet traffic will cease to look like one great, bloody accident.”

I have quoted far more extensively from this chapter because I believe that Snyder has laid out a sound guide to ethics in conduct on the internet. This is why I really hope people do buy his book. My commentary is only my response. You would, I hope, have a different one that is all your own.

One thing that would also come in handy, if/when you purchase “On Tyranny” or if you do own it already, is to schematize some of Snyder’s paragraphs where he lays out different points. The book itself is a list of 20 actions or behaviors that can help navigate the regime’s dystopia. Within each chapter are historical notes that resonate with each theme and much of what is going on right now in the world. Doing so would provide you with a fine reference to have on hand, a mnemonic device of sorts to keep one’s perspective clear and oneself also free from harm.

I don’t have to add a lot here in terms of what we will likely be called on to do. You will read, again and again, how important it is to contact your reps, to volunteer your time, to march in protest, and to help where you can/as you can.

Two places to start with:

Mobilize at https://www.mobilize.us/. I have the landing page set to my area; populated with events, petitions, and volunteer opportunities, it’s practically one-stop shopping.

Indivisible at https://indivisible.org/ is another comprehensive hub. You can sign up for updates, download their guide to organizaing, find candidates to support, and more.

If you don't have a copy of "On Tyranny", you can purchase one here:

"On Tyranny" at Timothy Snyder's website where he lists several options. Support local bookstores and buy local or check it out from your local library.

Navigation

Introduction and Chapter 1

Chapter 11