MaxRa—I agree this is also part of the mainstream media’s anti-EA mind-set: a zero-sum view of influence, prestige, and power. There are many vested interests (e.g. traditional political institutions, charities, think tanks, media outlets) that are deeply threatened by EA, because they simply don’t care about scope-sensitivity, tractability, neglectedness, or long-termism. Indeed, these EA values directly challenge their day-to-day partisanship and virtue-signaling.
The EA movement may have naively under-estimated the strength of these vested interests, and their willingness to play dirty (through negative PR campaigns) to protect their influence.
What “organization” do you currently have evidence is “running” a negative PR campaign against us because we directly threaten its interests? We’re not a threat to TIME magazine in any way I can see.
David—TIME magazine for decades has promoted standard left/liberal Democrat-aligned narratives that prioritize symbolic partisan issues over scope-sensitive impact.
From the viewpoint of their editors, EA represents an embarrassing challenge to their America-centric, anthropocentric, short-termist, politicized way of thinking about the world’s problems.
We may not be a direct threat to their subscription revenue, newsstand sales, or ad revenue.
But we are a threat to the ideology that their editors have strong interests in promoting—an ideology that may seem invisible if you agree with it, but which seems obviously biased if you don’t agree with it.
This is how partisan propaganda operates in the 21st century: it tries to discredit rival ideologies and world-views with a surprising ferocity and speed, once they sense a serious threat.
IMHO, EA needs to get a bit less naive about what people and institutions are willing to do to protect their world-views and political agendas.
I feel like an equally informative version of this is “people are more critical about the bad behavior of those they disagree with politically ”, and then it sounds relevant yes, but far less sinister and discrediting.
I think that’s a somewhat different point. It’s often true that people are more critical about bad behavior by their political opponents’.
But most of the news stories I read in mainstream media that are critical of EA go far beyond demonizing EA individuals. I sense that these editors & journalists are feeling a panicky, uneasy, defensive reaction to the EA movement’s epistemics and ethics, not just to EA individuals. It reminds me of the defensive, angry reactions that meat-eaters often show when they encounter compelling vegan arguments about animal welfare.
Admittedly this is a rather vague take, but I think we do under-estimate how much the EA perspective threatens many traditional world-views.
MaxRa—I agree this is also part of the mainstream media’s anti-EA mind-set: a zero-sum view of influence, prestige, and power. There are many vested interests (e.g. traditional political institutions, charities, think tanks, media outlets) that are deeply threatened by EA, because they simply don’t care about scope-sensitivity, tractability, neglectedness, or long-termism. Indeed, these EA values directly challenge their day-to-day partisanship and virtue-signaling.
The EA movement may have naively under-estimated the strength of these vested interests, and their willingness to play dirty (through negative PR campaigns) to protect their influence.
What “organization” do you currently have evidence is “running” a negative PR campaign against us because we directly threaten its interests? We’re not a threat to TIME magazine in any way I can see.
David—TIME magazine for decades has promoted standard left/liberal Democrat-aligned narratives that prioritize symbolic partisan issues over scope-sensitive impact.
From the viewpoint of their editors, EA represents an embarrassing challenge to their America-centric, anthropocentric, short-termist, politicized way of thinking about the world’s problems.
We may not be a direct threat to their subscription revenue, newsstand sales, or ad revenue.
But we are a threat to the ideology that their editors have strong interests in promoting—an ideology that may seem invisible if you agree with it, but which seems obviously biased if you don’t agree with it.
This is how partisan propaganda operates in the 21st century: it tries to discredit rival ideologies and world-views with a surprising ferocity and speed, once they sense a serious threat.
IMHO, EA needs to get a bit less naive about what people and institutions are willing to do to protect their world-views and political agendas.
That doesn’t seem to match with EA being a front cover story last year, and being shown in a positive light.
I feel like an equally informative version of this is “people are more critical about the bad behavior of those they disagree with politically ”, and then it sounds relevant yes, but far less sinister and discrediting.
I think that’s a somewhat different point. It’s often true that people are more critical about bad behavior by their political opponents’.
But most of the news stories I read in mainstream media that are critical of EA go far beyond demonizing EA individuals. I sense that these editors & journalists are feeling a panicky, uneasy, defensive reaction to the EA movement’s epistemics and ethics, not just to EA individuals. It reminds me of the defensive, angry reactions that meat-eaters often show when they encounter compelling vegan arguments about animal welfare.
Admittedly this is a rather vague take, but I think we do under-estimate how much the EA perspective threatens many traditional world-views.