Quick to dissent; even quicker to cancel ?

Hindsight Is 2020

The question about the pandemic’s origins — was it a lab leak in China or animal-to-human transmission in a wet market in Wuhan? — has been splattered across the headlines these last two weeks.?Hearings on the subject?started in the House this week, and we’ve seen no lack of reactions and opinions; there was a?controversial New York Times editorial,?opinion pieces in other news publications, segments on?TV, and?threads?on?social media.?

Many angles to this story touch on Starts With Us values and?framework. We talk about reading beyond the headlines, thinking critically about the news, and all the ways we can discuss disagreements without it devolving into violence or ginning up a mob determined to cancel someone.

But here and now, let’s dig into how, in 2020 and 2021, anyone who questioned the government line that the pandemic started from animal to human contact was?vilified. We?aren’t?being?hyperbolic. Anyone who expressed?criticism of the zoonotic hypothesis?was smeared, ridiculed, and?even censored.

But guess what? Turns out there was real, factual, scientific credence to that line of thinking. And shutting it down didn’t help build trust in the government, the news media, or big tech. It did the opposite. We now wonder: Did the process of muzzling dissenting questions and opinions actually?harm the effectiveness?of public health advice?

We aren’t placing blame for those decisions and the changing landscape of public health guidance. We trust that the experts with responsibility for national health and safety in the midst of a global pandemic made the best choices they could with the information they had.

What we want to do is point out the danger of quashing dissent just because it’s politicized or we think it’s politicized. Skepticism doesn’t always come from a political place. And even politically motivated skepticism needs space in a free society. To quash those who question is counter to the values of our American framers and founders,?skeptics?who?themselves?valued truth, reason, and?questioning.

Make It A Habit:

1. Read a variety of sources. Mix up local, national, and international sources. Include newswires like the AP and Reuters — outlets that never publish opinion pieces.?Understand the bias?of the publications you are reading.
2. Reason through logic. Ask yourself: Is the argument supported by evidence? At every point? Do all the pieces of evidence build on each other to produce a sound conclusion?
3. Diversify thought. Get out of your “tribe” or sphere of influence. We naturally group up with people who think and act like us. Get out of your personal bubble, and see what another side is saying. This will help you get outside your usual way of thinking and allow you to gain richer insights.
4. Read beyond the headlines.?Headlines are not news. You must read an entire article to understand the points being made or the information being shared. And one article on a critical subject is generally not enough. Read several articles from a variety of sources on the same subject to get a real sense of what is known, inferred, and suggested. Be responsible, and don’t form opinion or parrot information without reading as much as you can about an issue or event.

We are starting with us. We hope you are, too.

Updates from our movement:

• ICYMI: This week, we released a study in partnership with the?Center for Media & Public Affairs?at George Mason University. The study showed that hyper-partisan politicians (as determined by the?Common Ground Committee Scorecard?) received?4x more media coverage?than their bipartisan colleagues around the 2022 midterm elections. In response, we’ve launched a?petition?calling on the media to correct the coverage imbalance. Thank you to everyone who has signed and shared so far!
• Our message is resonating. Check out stories in The Hill,?The View, NewsNation,?Columbia Journalism Review:?The Media Today,?Charlie Sykes’?Morning Shots?Newsletter,?MediaPost, and?American Press Institute’s?Need To Know?Newsletter.?
• Our partners have been vocal on social media, with everyone from?BridgeUSA?and?Lost Debate?to?Amanda Ripley,?Layla Zaidane, and?Ariana Pekary?talking about what it would take to #ChangeTheCoverage. ????
• This past Sunday, Starts With Us Founder Daniel Lubetzky was a featured speaker at SXSW. He joined Movement Partner Kmele Foster on stage to discuss the?importance of bridge building.?Daniel and Kmele got very real?about?the vicious cycle of polarization?and how the 87% of people exhausted by political division want to see bipartisan representation in the news. ?????