While I am an Yglesias fan, I don’t think your take is unfair. Matt often describes himself as a professional take-haver, and admits to trying to put out somewhat contrarian takes on topics. One of my favorite recent columns of his was a love letter to the “Slatepitches” that Slate.com used to be known for, as an example of unique voice and differentiation in mainstream media that may be going by the wayside in the age of social media: “ Slate had a whole editorial style that was based around provocative — some would say trolly — articles and up-is-down theses. At its best, Slate championed unpopular causes and provoked fantastic debates. At its worst, Slate seemed to be deliberately stretching to come up with indefensible ideas.”

https://www.slowboring.com/p/slatepitch?s=r

> Slate.com used to be known for, as an example of unique voice and differentiation in mainstream media that may be going by the wayside in the age of social media: “ Slate had a whole editorial style that was based around provocative — some would say trolly — articles and up-is-down theses.

How the hell is that unique either in "MSM" or online media? He basically just described Gawker, BoingBoing, DailyKos, and a slew of other "hot take" sites. In terms of traditional media, every city has the garbage tabloid-level paper.

Nobody claimed it was unique. Slate was just particularly egregious, to the point that virtually every article was like "Was Chattel Slavery Entirely Bad?" The article text would largely dodge the take in order to make some mild pointless observation, but I'm pretty sure articles were accepted based on the ability to write that kind of headline for them, and rejected if they couldn't come up with one.

Is Running the New Smoking?

I know we're not supposed to ask why people are downvoted but I'd be fascinated to know why you were downvoted.

I like Matt Yglesias, I think his Very Serious work is usually at least interesting, and I find some of his trollish witticisms very appealing. But I think you've hit the nail on the head; he creates a sort of Poe's Law situation around his own work because of them.

In this case I think he's overreaching a little.

But then I also think the lab leak theory was discredited and avoided partly from well-meaning applications of the wrong reasons, because even if you make a serious review of it as a professional accident, the Wrong People will definitely like and share your work for their own awful/vile/violent reasons. And nobody wants to be part of that.

I can't recall an actual article where he's trolling. That's more of a twitter thing.

I don't think you have to read the tea leaves of "trolling intent" to evaluate a Yglesias take. Whatever his intent, he lays out his reasoning transparently, and you can decide for yourself if it holds water.

I wouldn't blindly adopt a Slow Boring headline as my own opinion because Matt Said It, but I wouldn't do that for any other opinion-haver either.

I'd rather have a well-argued contrarian take that the author doesn't really believe, than a badly-argued one that the author genuinely believes.

poisoning the well