It’s never a good thing when questioning officialdom becomes a shameful act

Dr. John Reizer

In a healthy society, one would think news platforms and mainstream media should act as watchdogs, questioning those in power to ensure they tell the truth.

Ideally, when a government or a major institution releases an official story, the media’s job should be to test that story, look for holes, and present the evidence to the public. But for many decades, this process has gone by the wayside.

Instead of focusing on whether claims are true or not, mainstream media platforms focus on whether the people making claims are “allowed” to be challenged by the public.

Most mainstream published articles on the Internet feature comment boards that, in theory, let the public debate various subjects. But in reality, these discussion boards are used strategically to reinforce official narratives and discourage anyone from disagreeing with officialdom.

Social shaming is a real thing online. When someone publicly challenges an official narrative in an article by writing a comment on a thread, the responses from other mainstream posters are often not a detailed rebuttal of any facts, but a critique of the person’s character. People who question officialdom are routinely labeled “dangerous,” “irresponsible,” or “conspiracy theorists.”

By painting dissenters as crazy or as threats to public safety, the conversations move away from the truth and toward judging individuals.

When people see others being shamed, mocked, or professionally ruined for asking the wrong questions, they stop asking questions themselves. This creates a silent majority of people who may have legitimate concerns or evidence but are too afraid of the social costs to speak up.

When the cost of dissent is personal shame, only the most fearless or the most extreme voices remain in any conversation, which further polarizes the public.

When the media comment boards attached to important stories overwhelmingly attempt to shame anyone challenging an official story, it should become apparent to others that an official story is likely too fragile to survive a fair debate.

If the truth is actually on the side of the officialdom being promoted, then evidence should be enough to win the argument. When evidence is replaced by character assassinations, it makes me wonder what is being hidden and why the “truth” requires the silencing of critics through shaming.

Today, we know that much of the online public shaming is carried out by paid trolls or bots that are programmed to promote official narratives and discourage dissenting opinions. Like many other institutions, the mainstream media is a rigged casino, in my opinion.

Ultimately, the truth should never fear any questions. Dissenting opinions on important stories should always be welcomed so the public can decide for themselves, based on evidence and without fear of ridicule, what makes sense.