One of the more popular pastimes of establishment media pundits is complaining of their various “trolls”—anonymous, faceless basement dwellers who lurk online and harass with aggressive, non-stop vigor. But a recent online dust-up started by Washington Post columnist Philip Bump made something clear: When you factor in actual impact, big media pundits troll just as much as—if not more than—any random egg avatar on Twitter.
Last Monday, Bump ran a piece seeking to debunk a very popular claim by the Sanders camp: that his average donation was $27. The piece was framed with a “gotcha” headline:
The big reveal? The Sanders camp actually had an average donation of $27.89! What a scandal indeed. Predictably, this lead to a flurry of criticism from Sanders supporters on social media. In a follow-up post on the backlash against his piece, Bump admitted something rather relevant to the entire “Bernie Bro” conversation. Acknowledging that “I don’t see this as any sort of lie on the part of the Sanders campaign,” but that “the headline was viewed as suggesting dishonesty on the part of Sanders’s campaign,” he wrote:
The working headline for the piece was “How Does Bernie Sanders’ Average Donation Stay at $27?,” but we (my editors and I) ended up choosing a headline that was more provocative. And provocative headlines provoke.
This is the living, breathing definition of trolling: provocation for its own sake. To deliberately seek a reaction from people in bad faith. It’s something one sees often: Corporate media use deliberately antagonizing headlines to solicit outrage and generate traffic—only to turn around and feign indignation when they get precisely the reaction they sought.
As I’ve noted before, the “Bernie Bro” label—often used to describe pro-Sanders “trolls”—isn’t entirely without merit. As in any large system, there is a cohort of sexists lurking in the broader Sanders “movement,” and it’s useful to point this out when it happens. But the term has morphed into a catch-all to describe any online dissent aimed at traditional media, namely Clinton partisans. As I noted last week:
What at first meant “hostile online white male Sanders supporters” quickly morphed to “online Sanders supporters” to “any carbon-based organism I disagree with regardless of age, race, sex or demeanor.” Everyone from Sanders himself to women to the Pope has been called a Bernie Bro. One Vice article even asked if competitive gaming had created the phenomenon. The trope had reached peak absurdity, making parodies of the conceit indistinguishable from the conceit itself. We are all Bernie Bros, and yet—none of us are.
Did Slate say the 1994 crime bill had “good intentions”? That was just “promotional copy,” says Jamelle Bouie.
Frequent Sanders critics routinely admit to being provocative or distance themselves from gimmicky headlines. Slate’s Jamelle Bouie recently dismissed a headline that referred to the “good intentions” of Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill as “promotional copy.”
Vox‘s Matt Yglesias, when confronted over his continued reliance on lazy weasel phrase “most experts,” glibly suggested he continues to use the phrase “in hopes of garnering a link” from me. He was half-joking (I think), but he’s right: Corporate media outlets (typically more pro-Clinton) and online activists (typically more pro-Sanders) feed off each other in a troll-outrage industrial complex.
It’s a symbiotic relationship, except only one side is finger-wagged and derided for promoting a “toxic atmosphere.” Indeed, generally neo-liberal (and thus pro-Clinton) Slate has made something of a joke out of writing “provocative” headlines, often referred to as “Slate pitches,” specifically designed to get a rise out of people. What is this if not trolling on a wholesale level?
There’s a libertarianism to the discussion that is out of whack—power dynamics are never really factored in. Establishment media folks like Bump–the kind who get a “blue checkmark” when they post on Twitter, to certify that they really are who they claim to be—are the victims under siege, while random Twitter users with 40 followers are social media terrorists that must be condemned.
Certainly there are nuts and creeps, racists and sexists, and it’s important not to not dismiss these concerns. But too often, the online-troll narrative—and its offshoot narratives, like the Bernie Bro meme—fail to recognize that aggressive online activism is the logical result of a corporate-consolidated media that omits certain voices and causes.
Not all these voices are worth hearing out (alt-right, #GamerGate, bigots, etc), but many in the activists community are, and to dismiss all of these voice as unhinged “trolls” is little more than a way to avoid criticism and gatekeep the discussion. Put another way: If establishment pundits are genuinely concerned with trolling, perhaps they can start by criticizing their own editors who do it on a much greater scale than any random Bernie Bro ever could.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
led; not lead
“all of these voices” not “all of these voice”
mods: feel free to delete my comment after the article’s been edited
Black pot boilers
What about the 5 million Clinton’s PAC is spending to troll anti Hillary comments.
I see the resurrection of the Monica Luinski tactics.
I don’t agree with beginning every kind of conversation about Bernie Bros with assertion that “there are some, blah, blah, blah.” . Of course there are some sexists among supporters of every candidate. Because you are not a woman I think you are falling int o this trap that Hillary supporters are somehow immune to that. Nothing can be further from the truth. Male Clinton supporters are extremely condescending to me, a female Sanders supporter. In fact, males are just in general condescending to women. Bernie’s message is such that it repels sexists, so my guess is that his supporters are probably the least affected by this. Also age is important, definitely the older the male the greater chance of sexism. Same with education level, more education-less sexism.
The truth is Clinton won the “sexism” just by throwing a shadow of suspicion at our movement. And we help Clinton when we defend ourselves, We solidify the notion THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL about there being sexists among Bernie supporters when this is just a fact of life.
Same with accusations of racism. They knew Bernie was coming for the working class, and there are higher rates of working class among POC, so naturally his movement had to be presented as elitist and racist.
I had someone tell me I was sexist because I attempted to explain why I supported Bernie Sanders, which happens to be because I really understand the issues. If I had it my way, I’d vote for Elizabeth Warren, but I can’t. Bernie isn’t a bad consolation prize in that respect.
I must say the people who are truly sexist are many of Clinton’s female supporters. I’ve had many of them discuss a world in which Clinton is only being attacked because she is a woman. I’m sorry, get over it. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright made the most sexist comments of the entire campaign — WHILE HILLARY WAS STANDING NEXT TO ONE OF THEM. Oh, and not to mention, De Blasio’s CP time joke and Clinton’s offensive comment that she carries “hot sauce” in her bag. To me, call it what you want, that’s racist and sexist just as much as blatant racism and sexism is such. Using stereotypes to provoke fear or make jokes to feign support is offensive. You do that when you can’t win on the issues. That’s not a leader, that’s a shill.
So, yeah, I agree that Clinton supporters are sexist, but I put both males AND females in that camp. You can be sexist and be a woman, please let’s not forget.
Who cares what Bernie says Hillary steals the NY primary from him, spits on his supporters and he wants a platform plank!
Feh
Time to find someone with a spine to stand up to the most corrupt slime ever to hold any office.
At least Trump us not a wuss.
ABC
Good rumination of the sorry state of reportage and punditry that’s floating aroun these days.
Thank you so much for sending me a copy of your April 2016 Vol. 29, No. 3 Extra newsletter! What I want to know is why isn’t the horrific situation in Honduras and Sec’t’y. Clinton’s criminal involvement there a major part of Sen. Sanders campaign? It’s hard to believe that he is not aware of it but there’s not a word anywhere about it, not even in a long list of issues on his web site.
So I have tried every way I can think of to get your news and that of the Nation magazine to Bernie Sanders. I mailed my copy of your newsletter to his Burlington address (made a copy for myself first). His aid in DC was not in a position to be able to help but gave me the phone No. for his Burlington Office and said to keep trying to reach them, which I am doing but am only able to leave voicemail messages. I tried to e-mail him and his staff on his web site only to be told by Google that I don’t have a couple of programs needed to be able to send emails to him! And I normally use G-mail my self! CAN YOU HELP? I am a registered voter in Indiana and have an absentee ballot to vote for Bernie and other Democrats. Surely Bernie’s having the whole story about Honduras will put him over the top for votes and delegates. Thanks!
As Matt Bruenig has documented (http://mattbruenig.com/2016/02/05/in-reality-the-bernie-bro-argument-shifts-endlessly/) the “Bernie Bro” smear didn’t even start out referring to online harassment–it started out referring to well-off young white males who were enthusiastic Bernie supporters; the implication of sexism came later, when it seemed politically useful.
It’s always been about trolling carbon-based organisms who have BadWrongIdeas.
Then there’s this happy horse crap: https://imgur.com/gallery/5AMat/
I don’t watch any of those slime bucket lame stream butt heads anymore…I read….
The only thing worse than a garden-variety troll is one who’s on a company payroll, paid for discrediting people who support some other player. That realization seems to be missing from many of the reactions to this fine post.
If you don’t have something useful to contribute to a discussion, drop the keyboard and back away. Keep your bile in your liver or park it on reddit. FAIR doesn’t need it here.
“Not all these voices are worth hearing out (alt-right, #GamerGate, bigots, etc)”
And GamerGate isn’t worth hearing because…?