Polarization has eaten our brains.

That’s the thesis of the excellent first installment of Zeynep Tufekci’s projected three-part series called “The Misinformation Trifecta.” Here’s how part one begins:

“There’s been a lot of focus on misinformation over there—often focusing on the outright COVID denialism. Indeed some of that misinformation has been outright deliberate  falsehoods and lies. Some of it—the polarization around masks or the obsession with hydroxychloroquine—is complicated by events early in the pandemic. Some of it, like claims around vaccines changing your DNA or the wild rumors around 5G chips, are clearly outright false, though the former is also complicated (as it is related to the furor around genetically-modified foods as well).

“But then there is the misinformation over here which is also quite persistent and also wildly wrong. This misinformation has its own cast of characters, ranging from the outright grifters to the misleading alarmists to, yes, large swaths of respectable opinion leaders and even officials spreading falsehoods. A few days ago, I noticed an article that seemed to hit the trifecta, both content-wise and visually (a no less important form of misinformation).

“What’s the trifecta here? It’s polarization (eating our brains), bad science (causing terrible policies) and puritanism and moralizing (masquerading as public health).”

“Bad science (causing terrible policies) and puritanism and moralizing (masquerading as public health)” will be the next installments, Tufekci promises.  I eagerly look forward to those essays. And yes, Tufekci makes it clear that she’s not advocating any kind of “false equivalence”:

“some falsehoods are worse than others, and at least in the United States, the damage done by the political parties to fighting the pandemic is clearly not equal. But it also seems important to understand how, and why, misinformation, bad science and policy and terrible attitudes are not just a problem over there.”

The entire essay is essential reading, and I’m grateful for Dr. Tufekci’s work, here and elsewhere.

I wonder if Tufekci might also consider what I believe to be a potential fourth candidate for her list: Pundit-Trolls (masquerading as journalists). For example, look at this advice from “Sifted,” a technology “opinion site”‘ run by Financial Times:

Here’s what we’re looking for. A punchy opinion.

We like starting conversations. There’s nothing better than a somewhat controversial or unusual point of view to get people talking about a subject.

So, don’t pitch us an idea about why it’s a good idea to talk to your customers early on (everyone knows that!) Pitch us an idea about why customers are stupid and should be ignored at all costs. That sounds much more intriguing.

I’m not so sure. Hyperbole and hot takes may attract rubberneckers, motivate clicks, generate more hyperbole and more hot takes, and feed the hot spew that one encounters routinely via “social media” (a tag almost comically useless by now). But do they start conversations? Is the answer to banal pieties like “it’s a good idea to talk to your customers early on” only a “somewhat controversial or unusual point of view” like “customers are stupid and should be ignored at all costs”? Really?

I think about “interrogation” and “pushback” as metaphors that foreground combat and coercion, compared to metaphors like “give-and-take.” When I hear “punchy,” I think “duck” or “swing back” or “give as good as I get.” I do not find myself intrigued.

Just as with the virologist in the New Yorker article, and the “neglect of social promotion” the 2014 New York Times internal strategy report warned about, the idea seems to be “grab them by the amygdala.” Frontal lobe engagement is just too slow, and unpredictable.   In this respect, “Sifted” is a misnomer. “Punched” or “pinched” or “provoked” or “outraged” might be more apt. I sure don’t think conversations get started this way. More like the “conversations” in an episode of the old Jerry Springer show.

But this isn’t a problem with “Sifted” alone. They at least have the cover of punditry, the land of angles and takes and provocations. Take a look at the headlines and taglines in The New York Times or The Washington Post on any given day. (The mobile version of the Post has particularly “punchy” taglines.) Think about how they engage your attention. Make a list, and rate them on a “hot take” scale. (I didn’t even know what a hot take was until my students started a “hot take” thread in one of my class discussion forums. At least the definition here was honest and funny: “Hi, I need a place to let all of my really pretentious, unpopular, and insufferable opinions into the ether.”)

A misinformation trifecta is bad enough. A Four Horsefolk of the Misinformation Apocalypse is worse. I know that “if it bleeds, it leads.” But cortisone as a business strategy masquerading as “engagement” is no way to empower a democracy.