I didn’t have time (20 minutes? Really?!?) to wade through the whole story but I skimmed it thoroughly enough to get a fairly accurate impression.

You want so very badly to believe the core findings of Lenihan’s study that you’re desperately trying to salvage what little credibility he has. You know in your heart of hearts what he is, but you still extend to him the benefit of the doubt that this is all “satire”

In an effort to appear “balanced,” you spend an ungodly amount of time giving the appearance that you’re carefully weighing the statements of “both sides,” but it’s pretty clear which side your bread is buttered on.

Your treatment of his interview with Paul Nehlen—a guy who celebrated the slaughter at Tree of Life—sums it up perfectly. You give undue weight to Lenihan’s own explanations while hedging just enough to avoid being called out on it.

As AWM points out, Paul Nehlen has been openly making antisemitic and white nationalist statements since 2016, rendering nonsensical Lenihan’s claims that he was trying to “expose” him in 2018.

To the extent that you even address the content of the AWM post, you use it as a way to back up his contention that it was all just a joke with a righteous purpose: “Angry White Men’s own description makes it sound more like Sacha Baron Cohen-type mockery with a straight face.”

You also take it as granted that his spat with Talib Kweli was just “satire” too. You can call his ProgDad character “satire” because it (sort of) is, but in that tweet he clearly breaks character and just tells on himself for the racist heel he is. The text was something to the effect of “Yessa, massa Kwelib” etc.

If you can’t call all of this what it is, you’re either a rube or a witting accomplice. Neither is a good look.

Instead of disguising spinelessness as nuance or “balance,” pick a side.

In my opinion, you already have, but you don’t want to admit it.