I'm going to begin the "Propaganda Files" series by discussing an opinion piece in Newsweek by attorney Neil Baron. I chose this piece for my lead-off because analyzing it highlights the difference between how I approach things and how people now publishing in American media generally approach things. I bring certain (perhaps naive) expectations to the table, and these are not the expectations of most authors in Newsweek or brand name newspapers or CNN or MSNBC.
My approach and expectations make me an outlier, evidently, although I think I am a reasonable man with logical, obvious expectations. My antennae, however, seem to be tuned to very different frequencies.
Baron's piece, published January 26, is titled, "The Question of Legal Culpability for COVID Deaths." Let me say, first, that I find nothing "wrong" with the piece in terms of facts or logic. I have a problem with what the piece does not say. The disconnect for me, regarding this particular article, is quite jarring. I chose to tackle this piece first because it really does serve as a convenient example of what I see as a pattern by American media.
I highly recommend everyone read it. He begins by comparing Ethan Crumbley's parents, who are charged with manslaughter, to those politicians who discourage Covid vaccination or mask-wearing. The parents can be charged with manslaughter because they were aware that their actions or lack thereof contributed to the risk. As Baron writes, "Proving those charges doesn't require proving intent to cause another's death, only the awareness of risk."
It's a fascinating argument, and it's hard to evade the legal logic of an analogy to states' anti-mask mandates or the Supreme Court's ruling against President Biden's vaccine mandate. Baron closes with, "They can't help but be aware of the risk of unvaccinated deaths, yet they're choosing to ignore it. That ought to be against the law, and probably is."
My Expectations
Although I heartily endorse Baron's intriguing piece, I had some problems with it. The self-subscribed limits caught me by surprise. With "The Question of Legal Culpability for COVID Deaths" as the title, I had certain expectations.
First, since I consider deaths due to Covid vaccines as "COVID Deaths," I thought there would be at least some brief mention of culpability and liability involving vaccination deaths or disabilities. It honestly didn't occur to me that the topic wouldn't be mentioned at all. Certainly the U.S. government has some estimate regarding vaccinations gone wrong. But not one word or one number. Topic non grata.
I also thought that if bad red state politicians' advice was considered possibly criminal, then bad CDC advice, like telling people early on that mask-wearing wasn't necessary, might be mentioned as also possibly criminal. The non-mask advice, it turned out, was primarily to conserve mask supplies for medical workers. Certainly, the CDC should have some legal exposure from not recommending masks, especially when other countries were simultaneously saying that masks worked. But no mention of CDC legal exposure.
Perspectives
I have nothing negative to report about what Baron wrote, other than my surprise (given the title) about what he decided to not write. If DeSantis and various are culpable and legally responsible for legislating in favor of pro-risk behaviors that result in more "COVID Deaths," then so was the CDC when it gave misguided advice on masking for the primary purpose of conserving masks for health care workers and not mentioning that was the reason for the advice.
I flew to Las Vegas during those early days. My girlfriend argued for my wearing masks based on interviews she had watched with South Korean doctors. I argued that the CDC knew what it was doing. I wore gloves, as the CDC recommended, but no mask. I can tell you matter-of-factly that had I contracted Covid and died, the CDC would have been culpable.
Whatever the limited scope of Baron's piece, given the Newsweek headline title, I expected both a glance at vaccination bad-outcome culpability and CDC culpability. But not a peep. Regarding culpability, I thought I was asking obvious questions that anyone would ask. When these kinds of holes or limitations appear in an article ostensibly about culpability, I need to ask why. I don't think the answers have much to do with column inch limitations.
And that is my point. Much of what is published by Newsweek, USA Today, CNN, and so on assumes a particular perspective that asks some Covid questions, addresses some Covid topics, and consistently avoids others. When perspectives are always framed a certain way, when the rhetoric is generally scripted, relying on these perspectives becomes both rote and laden with unseen risks. In the weeks ahead, these "Propaganda Files" will feature patterns of submission and omission that suggest an overriding editorial process in action. This editorial process may be plotted, planned, and micro-managed administratively, or it may simply be that a ubiquitous intellectual fashion sense results in non-investigative homogeneity. If what's not said forms an unyielding media pattern, if the holes left by what isn't asked are consistent, then we have endemic American propaganda.
Being a professional gambler, I tend to ask everything. That is not a popular thing to do in the 2022 United States. Not popular at all.
Bob Dietz
January 28, 2022
