Scott Adams Controversy Spotlights Elite Media Playbook
Like sharks to blood, this latest controversy exposes the specific method by which legacy media outlets attack disfavored speakers
On Real Coffee with Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist recently said the following: “If nearly half of all blacks are not okay with white people . . . that’s a hate group.” He added, “I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people . . . because there is no fixing this.”
To begin with, I understand why the out-of-context version of these sentiments is offensive to many people, and why the in-context version is also offensive to many people. But that isn’t nearly the end of the inquiry.
Adams’ point is that nearly half of black people, according to the Rasmussen survey linked above, disagree with the statement, “It’s okay to be white.”
If any other group were involved, this would, of course, raise a huge concern—and rightfully so. If half of whites expressed a fundamental problem with another race, it would certainly be headline news in every one of the newspapers that just canceled Dilbert as a result of Adams’ remarks.
Here, Adams’ expression of frustration and concern over what these poll results might mean for the country, especially in urban areas, is taken as “segregationist” talk by mainstream media outlets.
But we also can’t take the word of these outlets. They rarely come from a place of good faith, especially considering the fact that Adams is partially credited for understanding (and predicting) the rise of Donald Trump long before any of them did.
Speaking personally, I wouldn’t go as far as Adams did in his comments, as I don’t believe in “staying away from” any group. As I said, I completely understand why those comments can be offensive. But his fundamental point, taken in context, is correct. The fact that about half of one ethnic group is willing to admit to a pollster that they believe being a member of another group isn’t “OK” is telling and alarming.
But, rather than concerns over ethnic division being the most newsworthy part of the story, most outlets ignored or downplayed all of this until Adams commented in a way they didn’t like. That response leads me the three key takeaways from this controversy:
1. Mainstream media outlets often try to use an out-of-context “extreme” position as a way to make less-controversial opinions toxic. This is a now-popular MSM tactic, used to move conservative (or even moderate) thought into the category of the unacceptable.
For example, the Washington Post article on Adams says, in part:
Adams, 65, also blamed Black [sic] people for not “focusing on education” during the show and said, “I’m also really sick of seeing video after video of Black Americans beating up non-Black citizens.”
Outrage followed.
Consider what has happened, here. The Post took Adams’ first statement, which WaPo knows will be opposed by the vast majority of its readers, and tethered to it two additional statements that would probably be supported by most Americans—and quite possibly by most black Americans.
In other words, while a statement like “black people, as a group, don’t focus on education enough,” may rankle the average, pearl-clutching, pronouns-in-bio staffer at a major American newspaper, most people—including black people whose communities are most affected—would nod in agreement.
Likewise, Adams’ point about endless videos of (usually, young, male, likely fatherless) black people attacking strangers is especially valid. The people who hate those videos most are the vast majority of black people (who are law-abiding). The seeming rise of random violence, especially in cities controlled by lax prosecutors who are “uncomfortable” prosecuting people who actually commit crimes, is a distant concern for people like Adams.
But, to the people who actually live in those communities, it’s a day-to-day, prominent concern. Depending on the city, many or most of those folks are themselves black. This is the same dichotomy that exists when it comes to the question of “defund the police,” wherein preening white progressives receive compliments from like-minded affluent friends at cocktail parties because they support “the movement.”
The reality is that the people those progressives purport to value are the ones who bear the merciless brunt of soft policing policies.
The article then quotes black cartoonist Darrin Bell, who makes a host of claims (unchallenged, of course). These assertions include the notion that, not only is Adams a virulent racist, but his racism is “not unique” among cartoonists, although Bell cites no additional examples. Bell also says that Adams’ views are similar to those of “angry people” trying to “redefine” the meaning of “racism.” That leads WaPo to this:
[Adams] offered a long, quasi-Socratic defense of his comments, which he said were taken out of context, and seemed to define racism as essentially any political activity. “Any tax code change is racist,” he said at one point in the show.
Clearly, Bell and WaPo are talking about two different things, and the WaPo author doesn’t grasp that (or is being disingenuous). Because what Adams is talking about here is the modern notion of “equity,” a concept that Bell undoubtedly embraces. Adams is parroting contemporary, Kendi-esque progressive dogma that any policy that has a disproportionate, negative impact on non-whites is, by definition, “racist.”
The Post totally misses this, and, instead, uses it as another opportunity to cudgel Adams. Moreover, they link Adams to Elon Musk (after Musk offered a supportive tweet) as yet another predictable way to try to attack a target they want to undermine.
Finally, they add to the “charges” against Adams by noting that, “Last May, Adams used ‘Dilbert’ to mock workplace diversity and transgender politics through a new character called Dave the Black Engineer.”
This is crucial, because, again, the Post is suggesting that workplace diversity or transgender politics are sacred cows that must not be satirized or questioned.
The Post and other outlets have given away the game, here: when a public figure generally holds views that clash against elite progressive ideology, these outlets and other progressive voices will leverage the most offensive thing they can find from said figures and attempt to use that to discredit everything else the person has done.
Here, for example, the “outrage” the Post references started with “Adams is a segregationist, isn’t that awful and unacceptable?” and quickly traveled to “Adams made fun of modern HR policies, isn’t that awful and unacceptable?” and then to a Cultural-Revolution-esque “Dilbert was never funny.”
2. The response by mainstream media outlets was tellingly unanimous and virtually identical. Nearly everything I’ve just said about the Post article above could be applied to articles by the New York Times, Associated Press, or a dozen other major outlets.
Not only is there one “accepted” view, without nuance, but all of these outlets seem to be (read: are) motivated to dispatch Adams to the ash heap of history. You can scan Twitter to see the outright glee with which some media figures are reacting to this latest conquest, even figures who themselves have been repeatedly and unceremoniously fired.
Likewise, the response to Dilbert’s cancelation was also swift and unanimous. All of this is very important to note. Almost in unison, these outlets become extremely motivated to attack public figures (e.g. Elon Musk or Joe Rogan or, as of today, Woody Harrelson) when they become “inconvenient.” They will wait for an opportunity to strike, or search the past to find that opportunity.
In fairness, part of that is due to common ownership, but that also just speaks to how pervasive these ideas and motivations are within the industry’s groupthink.
3. These moments also cause conservatives, moderates, and independent thinkers to cede ground that they themselves will need later. I follow Thomas Chatterton Williams, and I respect his perspectives. But I sharply disagree with his analysis of the Adams situation.
Note the distinction made, here: if someone gets punished because they run afoul of a not-yet-agreed-upon norm, then it’s cancel culture. But Adams ran afoul of established norms. So, it’s different!
Within two tweets, progressive (and cancel-culture advocate) Ian Millhiser correctly points out the flaw in this premise:
Millhiser is making the same point I am, but from the other direction. He agrees that Adams’ punishment is just, but he’s taking Williams to task for not agreeing that others who have been punished for “unsettled” norms were also justly punished.
My position is similar, but looking at it from the opposite end of the political and free-speech spectrum:
I then raised the example of Orson Scott Card, the Ender’s Game author who faced cancel culture forces once his support for California’s Prop 8 became public. Thomas Chatterton Williams might have said that, in 2008 or 2013, Card’s downfall was cancel culture. But what if someone expressed opposition to gay marriage in 2023 or 2030? Would it now not be cancel culture because support for gay marriage has reached critical mass?
The problem becomes instantly evident. One, who decides when a norm is “established” enough to be a valid reason for destroying a career? Two, if we make that distinction, then doesn’t it strengthen cancel culture, as zealots will simply work even harder to find old comments that subsequently became distasteful to enough cultural tastemakers to punish those individuals retroactively? Three, to bring it back to Adams, who decides whether what he specifically said violates the agreed-upon norm?
Put more simply—who needs to “agree” for a norm to become a valid basis for ending a career? And who decides whether specific conduct or comments violate such a norm?
The point, again:
Don’t take media outlets at face value, or assume good-faith intent.
These outlets will absolutely exploit any “weak point” to destroy the careers of anyone who may have enough influence to push back against mainline progressive elite sensibilities, but will also leverage those weak points to drag in other individuals—or ideas—they don’t like.
So total is the institutional control by these voices that even those who are not a part of this orthodoxy will unwittingly capitulate to some extent, which leaves them open for obvious counterattacks that undermine their credibility and strengthen their opponents’ positions.
One thing I won’t call Scott Adams is a victim. He obviously knew what he was saying and understood the consequences in real time. He also probably knew that the media reaction to his comments would draw much, much more attention than that Rasmussen polling would have ever gotten without his remarks, which might have been his ultimate goal in the first place.
What I would say, though, is that the elite cultural response to his comments is instructive, and another example of a pattern that is all-too-frequent. So frequent, in fact, that I do believe Adams (as usual) knew what he was doing. But the lesson, here, is that this gameplan has been used on countless others, will be used again, and may even be used on me or you. Even in a world in which media trust is—rightly—at an all-time low.