And I'm wondering if, especially in a culture where politicians have become influencers,

is silence on all of our part, right, is ignoring this type of stuff, whether we're the

media or whether we're just outraged people on Twitter with the ability to quote tweet,

is that a way to break this cycle?

I mean, I think the better question is, what is news?

If I even think about, you know, the war in Ukraine and how quickly we were able to tap

into live Twitter feeds from participants on the ground, right, to learn very detailed

information about the movement of troops, about the conditions on the ground, it changes

what news means.

And so in that context, I do wonder if there isn't a case to be made for this strategic silence,

even when it feels to cut against a grain of the old, you know, traditional journalistic

ethics.

When somebody for the times writes about Marjorie Taylor-Greem, for example, is anybody

being convinced of anything they don't already believe?

I'm Charlie Warzel, welcome to offline.

Hey everyone, welcome to offline.

I'm Charlie Warzel.

This week, I'm filling in for John, as he is offline.

Now guess this week is the writer Michael Sikassis, online he writes under the name LM Sikassis

and is the author of the fantastic newsletter, the convivial society, as well as a forthcoming

book called 41 Questions, Technology and the Good Life.

Michael is one of my favorite technology thinkers, where I am a journalist, he is a sculptor,

...