It’s meant to be plausibly deniable, but still for those in the know the whole time is “these people are laughable out group and a safe target to be mocked” while ostensibly holding to the principles of good journalism
The fact that the New Yorker article introduces Eliezer as “a bearded guy with a fedora” who “dropped out of school after eighth grade” read to me as an insult with plausible deniability.
Journalists try to communicate the facts that are important for their readers.
For an average reader, the most important fact about a person is whether they are considered high-status or low-status. Is it safe to mock them? Should I be afraid of them?
Here the journalist correctly informs their audience that Eliezer is harmless, and that it is perfectly safe to mock him. (He won’t sue you, won’t try to get you fired from your job, won’t try to ruin your company.)
I do not believe journalists are acting in the public interest by describing their subjects in a mockable way like this, even if it’s what readers want.
The fact that the New Yorker article introduces Eliezer as “a bearded guy with a fedora” who “dropped out of school after eighth grade” read to me as an insult with plausible deniability.
Journalists try to communicate the facts that are important for their readers.
For an average reader, the most important fact about a person is whether they are considered high-status or low-status. Is it safe to mock them? Should I be afraid of them?
Here the journalist correctly informs their audience that Eliezer is harmless, and that it is perfectly safe to mock him. (He won’t sue you, won’t try to get you fired from your job, won’t try to ruin your company.)
I do not believe journalists are acting in the public interest by describing their subjects in a mockable way like this, even if it’s what readers want.