Archives for June 2019

True statements often get labeled a “conspiracy theory” because of how they are presented.

In this article, I’m going to show you how to make sure your truthful beliefs aren’t dismissed, because they seem too vague or conspiracy theory-ish.

What Makes A Conspiracy Theory

The biggest tell for a conspiracy theory is “they.”

“They want us dumb, just look at the schools.”
“They’re lying to us about UFOs.”
“They want us medicated and sick”
“They want us to go to war.”
“They faked it, and made a false flag.”

Who is “they?” Why do “they” want to do this?

By definition, a conspiracy theory must include a “they.” After all, in order for it to be a conspiracy, someone has to be conspiring.

However, these statements disempower. By keeping the opposition nebulous and vague, these statements prevent any real political organizing and action. How do you fight a “they?”

With vague opposition, comes vague goals. No one accomplishes anything. Then conspiracy theorists blame their lack of change on another vague conspiracy – “they” are stopping us.

Get Specific

If you want to write a better conspiracy theory – define the “they” and get specific.

Let’s take one of the most famous conspiracy theory statements:

“I don’t like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the freaking frogs gay!”

First – who is them? Why do they want to turn the frogs gay? What are these chemicals? How do they get in the water? How exactly do frogs “turn gay?”

On the surface, this seems like an absurd statement. However, it was inspired by a real study.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

Atrazine, one of the world’s most widely used pesticides, wreaks havoc with the sex lives of adult male frogs, emasculating three-quarters of them and turning one in 10 into females, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, biologists.

The 75 percent that are chemically castrated are essentially “dead” because of their inability to reproduce in the wild, reports UC Berkeley’s Tyrone B. Hayes, professor of integrative biology.

https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on

Hayes was first hired in 1997 by a company, which later became agribusiness giant Syngenta, to study their product, atrazine, a pesticide that is applied to more than half the corn crops in the United States, and widely used on golf courses and Christmas tree farms. When Hayes found results Syngenta did not expect — that atrazine causes sexual abnormalities in frogs, and could cause the same problems for humans — it refused to allow him to publish his findings.

In other words – there is indeed a commonly used chemical that caused frogs to change their gender.

However, this statement was better designed for memes than credibility.

Here is how you’d write the same statement without the “they” and get specific.

Atrazine, a commonly used herbicide, has been found to chemically castrate male frogs – turning testosterone to estrogen and making one in ten frogs turn from male to female. While, there are no studies on this chemicals effect in humans, it would be reasonable to assume the effects are similar. When a scientist working for Syngenta, the company responsible for Atrazine, discovered this, the company refused to allow him to publish his findings.

Does that sound like a conspiracy theory? Or does it read more like news?

This message is actually more grave. It implies that the majority of corn products (and keep in mind – most soft drinks and candy bars are made from corn) in the United States include a chemical that regularly induces sex change in frogs and chemically castrates them. Testosterone levels have been decreasing in Western nations. Could chemical products like this be related?

You’ll note – the majority of this statement is factual claims that can be empirically proven or disproven. Either Atrazine has been found to change hormone levels in frogs, or it hasn’t. The few statements that are speculation and noted as such.

For example, there are indeed no studies (that I know of) on Atrazine in humans. While it’s not a huge leap to assume the effects are similar, if you jump to that conclusion, you give opposition the chance to say “that’s not true, you can’t prove that.” And if you go full-meme and jump to the emotional conclusion of that speculation – “we’re being chemically castrated by CORN!” – you sound like a raving loon.

Acknowledging that the effects of Atrazine in humans hasn’t been studied also puts the burden of proof on the opposition. Shouldn’t they study the effects of a chemical on humans before putting it into the majority of the nation’s corn supply? What studies do they have to show that it isn’t harmful in humans the way it is in frogs?

Specifics Create Action

Of course, this factual statement suggests that big chemical businesses are the “they” and gives an environmental message. The solution here would be environmental regulation, which is do-able through existing political means. It’s less popular with conspiracy audiences, and requires the hard unglamorous work of political organizing.

It’s also less memetic than shouting wild statements with high energy. How far will the above factual statement travel compared to memes that have been made about frogs turning gay? The most popular conspiracy theorists make a dozen memetic statements in rapid succession, without explaining the source behind the claims. It’s great entertainment, but leads nowhere.

This vague “they”-style disempowers the audience. Without a clear “they,” the audience has no way of taking meaningful action against the forces behind these conspiracies besides consuming more conspiracy content.

Most conspiracy theorists have a business model built around media consumption. The “call-to-action” of their content isn’t political organizing – it’s buying products from them. They offer their media, health supplements, water filters, and bug-out bags as the solution. (“Problem, reaction, solution” to put it in conspiracy theory terms.)

If popular conspiracy theorists gave their audience a clear “they,” the response would be different. On Atrazine, it might be political organizing, avoiding processed foods, or growing your own garden. Right-wing conspiracy theorists might even find common ground with the left around certain issues like environmental regulation, reducing corporate power, or organic non-gmo food.

The biggest problem with bad conspiracy theories is that they disempower you. Behind every “they” is a real group. These organizations have boards of directors. Power structures. People who can be pressured. Do you really think Syngenta, a company you didn’t know about till you read this article, is all-powerful?

When you get specific, change is possible, and the power is back with the people.

Read more: The End of Neutrality

When I began working on my documentary American Circumcision, there were a lot of people who wanted me to create a neutral film, with an emphasis on showing both sides. I did just that – interviewing people from all perspectives for the film, and giving each a fair hearing.

However, since the release of the film, some critics have been upset the documentary included opinions beyond their own. Some wanted a pro-circumcision film, and felt the movie was anti-circumcision propaganda. Others wanted a strongly anti-circumcision film, and were mad I even show a circumcision. A few were upset that I showed both sides at all. What changed?

What Is Neutral Journalism?

I crowdfunded money for the film during the 2016 Presidential election. By then, there had been a significant change in what “neutral” journalism was. Much of the “neutral” press stated that the Republican Presidential candidate was so bad, so evil, and so Hitler-like that they had to let go of the norms of neutral-reporting and typical press behavior in order to stop him.

Now, “neutral” journalists from CNN frequently debate the President mid-question. Many of the journalists at Vox are former Media Matters activists. The press that covers activist groups like antifa is often from those activist groups. The Buzzfeed ethics guide says that in “activism” issues “there are not two sides.”

The press covering circumcision does not even compare to what “neutral” journalists do on mainstream political issues. Can you imagine if the press covering circumcision frequently debated doctors during press conferences, was staffed by former NOCIRC activists, and had written into their ethics code that there are “not two sides” to this issue? Would you call that neutral press?

The circumcision industry has never experienced real press, not the kind that other major American industries like fast food, oil, coal,  tobacco, etc. regularly deal with. Most news stories on circumcision uncritically repeat press releases from major industry lobbies without ever reading the data or scrutinizing results that favor their practice.

For an industry that has never faced scrutiny, real press might feel like bias. After decades of news articles that only show the industry perspective, a film that shows both sides might seem biased, because it looks different than previous press. However, this doesn’t indicate bias – only that the industry has never had objective or critical reporting in the past.

Most news articles on circumcision feel the need to shoe-horn in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy on circumcision (which is now out-dated). How many articles on circumcision studies insert something about the large activist movement against the practice, the fact multiple European countries are considering banning the practice, or the fact the rest of the world does not practice circumcision? Wouldn’t a neutral press include these as well?

If an article were to do this, I suspect those in the circumcision industry would accuse them of bias, because neutral reporting on circumcision has never actually been tried by the legacy media.

Both Sides Were Upset By Showing Both Sides

With American Circumcision, I had both sides get mad at me for my neutrality.

Some activists were upset that I filmed and showed a circumcision, saying that I should have thrown myself on the baby to stop the procedure. Others were upset I even included the pro-circumcision perspective, or didn’t demonize the pro-circumcision subjects I interviewed. There were also some who felt the film should have been more shocking – more gore, more anger, more rage.

However, I wanted a neutral film. This meant showing both sides. I took neutrality to the point of showing both sides of even the female circumcision debate.

The female circumcision debate is one most Americans do not believe there are “two-sides” to. The mainstream American frame of female circumcision is that it is always bad and done only to oppress women. However, an objective perspective would include the view of those who practice it, and the anthropological research, both of which contradict this view.

One activist was upset that I even included a pro-female circumcision perspective, because it might be used to roll back gains that movement had made. However, those same activists were not mad I included a pro-male circumcision perspective. True neutrality means showing both sides, even on the issues you feel are reprehensible.

What Is Bias?

Since releasing the film, I’ve had a few critics accuse the film of being “biased.” This accusation is usually used to dismiss the film entirely so they don’t have to address anything said in the film. It’s also usually made with assumption that I whole-heartedly agree with certain interview subjects, and disagree with others.

I’d love to go through the film with a critic and see which parts they feel are biased, because it would require them to say that one side shown in the film is “biased” and the other is objective truth. Dismissing one side without acknowledging their arguments is of course the definition of bias.

I also have to wonder what these critics feel isn’t biased. For example, Andrew Freedman, one of the authors of the 2016 American Academy of Pediatrics Policy statement on circumcision appears in my film. Intactivist critics point out that Freedman is Jewish and circumcised his own son on his kitchen table. Freedman feels that he is neutral on this issue because he only thinks that circumcision is a parental choice. Is he actually neutral?

Much of the legacy press cites the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) as a neutral medical authority. The AAP presents themselves that way. At the same time, they make money on circumcision. The circumcision industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. If I made over a billion dollars on something, would you say I was neutral on it?

When there is a bias for something, and a financial incentive to protect it, there is also an incentive to brand those who are actually neutral as “fake news.” The idea that an independent documentary with no financial ties to the industry it covers is “biased” while that industry itself is “objective” is absurd. Performing a circumcision or making money on circumcisions are not neutral actions and indicate clear bias.

Medical organizations that perform circumcisions presenting themselves as neutral or unbiased on the circumcision debate is as absurd as if Planned Parenthood presented themselves as neutral on the abortion debate. The whole reason for an independent press is so that someone can examine an industry without their paycheck depending on that industry, because it’s understood those industries are incapable of self-objectivity.

There are those who will say that doctors and medical organizations are capable of objectively examining the evidence despite their financial incentives and regular practice of circumcision. However, if you’re doing to argue that those in the circumcision industry can be objective and without bias, then you can’t turn around and argue that independent press, activists, or critics are incapable of doing the same thing.

Do People Want Objectivity?

In the mainstream press, activism is often masked as neutral press. At the same time, the industries covered by the press often attack actual neutral press as activism. Is there a place for neutral journalism anymore?

With American Circumcision, I’m not worried. The film has done well, and reached a massive audience. Everyday I see new people discovering it. It remains the best objective overview of the circumcision debate. However, as I move towards next projects, I wonder if there would be any point to doing a similar venture – or should I move towards something more opinion-driven?

Interestingly, if this happens, it will be because of those in the circumcision industry who accuse me of bias. While I have critics who are against circumcision, they still talk to me. Those in the circumcision industry often won’t. I want to talk to both sides, but if one side stops talking to me, what I create can only reflect the people who are speaking.

Many documentaries now are film as op-ed. The filmmakers have a clear activist intention. Their goal is not news but an opinion piece. There is a well established genre to work in here. Up until now, I’ve been careful not to venture into this genre. However, in the future, that is going to change.

Over the past few months, I’ve begun shifting my social media content to reflect this change – making statements that are more opinion than neutral reporting on this issue. What I’ve noticed is that activists share them more, and critics say “see! We always knew he was biased.” (The fact they haven’t been able to detect the shift worries me – because it means people’s ideological blinders are so strong, they can’t see the difference between opinion and objectivity.)

However, there are things I could contribute on this issue from an opinion or activist perspective. I’ve deliberately avoided doing this during my work on the film. However, that work is complete. Now, it’s time for something new.

Read More: Brendon Marotta Speaks At Yale University About American Circumcision

You can now contribute Bitcoin to creators like myself without buying Bitcoin.

Coinbitsapp has a platform for monthly contributions – like Patreon or Subscribestar, but with a twist – you give USD and the creator gets cryptocurrency – Bitcoin.

I’ve made a Coinbits profile. You can support my work here.

• Brendon Marotta on Coinbitsapp:
  https://coinbitsapp.com/$bdmarotta

The best part – you don’t have to know anything about Bitcoin to contribute.

Just pay like you would anywhere else, and the creator receives the contributions in Bitcoin.

I’ve wanted something like this for a long time. Coinbits bridges the gap between creators who understand the power of crypto, and audiences who aren’t technologically savvy.

Now you can give crypto without having to know anything about it.

If you’re interested in getting into crypto, but sacred of tech – they’ve got investing options too.

Learn more about Coinbits here: https://coinbitsapp.com