Glenn Loury and John McWhorter make Rookie mistake, gets conned
The dangers of being contrarian
The Black guys of Blogginheads.tv Glenn Loury and John McWhorter have both been my intellectual heroes for a long time. In fact, I owe the existence of my YouTube channel (Critical African Thinkers) and, by extension, this substack to Glenn Loury, as they were both born when I was challenged to a debate by an African American who argued that Glenn Loury is a coon. I thought otherwise and accepted to defend Glenn Loury against that charge. So, for a while, I mostly did commentary on or posted clips of Glenn and John’s bimonthly show on my YouTube channel.
While I don’t particularly fawn over them anymore—because I frankly got tired of the “race talk” they had every two weeks, which seemed almost performative for an audience longing to hear two Black guys complain about the dysfunction in the black community—I still hold them in high regard. They are very smart men, but like any human being, they are not immune to motivated reasoning, audience capture, and rookie mistakes, and that is exactly what happened to Glenn Loury and John McWhorter recently.
In one of their most successful episodes yet, entitled “The Truth About George Floyd’s Death,” Glenn Loury and John McWhorter essentially endorsed the narrative of a documentary by Alpha News called “The Fall of Minneapolis,” which claimed that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd and was wrongly convicted. John McWhoter in that episode proudly proclaimed, “We were lied to," supporting the conclusion of the documentary that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd.
It turns out that the documentary was less than honest and left out vital information about the case. An investigative journalist, Radley Balko, dissected the claims made by Glenn and John’s surrogate son Coleman Hughes in favour of that documentary—claims that Glenn and John happen to share with Coleman. Balko’s critique and expose of Coleman’s piece have made Glenn Loury and John McWhorter own up to their mistake by releasing a video with a thumbnail that read, “We got this one wrong.”
Glenn and John tried to do damage control on how easily they fell for the fall of Minneapolis propaganda in a recent episode of their show. Although it was more Glenn chastising them for being too hasty in believing the documentary while John played defence, stating that it was not their fault that they got deceived by the documentary, as they couldn’t have known they were being misled.
In the full episode of their show, Glenn Loury starts out by rightly stating how easy it is for a person’s judgment to become undermined by taking on the persona of a contrarian. John, on the other hand, wanted to recontextualize their exchange based on the new information being provided by Balko. I don’t think there was anything to recontextualize other than to admit that they didn’t do their due diligence as intellectuals before endorsing a narrative.
Glenn expressed a desire to hear the police side of the story—which was what the documentary offered—as part of the reason he indulged in the documentary. But the truth is, the police side of the story is irrelevant. In fact, any side of the story is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts of the matter. What matters is: what killed George Floyd? Did he die from the actions of Derek Chauvin? Did he die from a drug overdose and other health complications? Or did he die from a combination of both? In my estimation, I think George Floyd already had compromised health issues exacerbated by his consumption of high doses of fentanyl at the point of his arrest; Chauvin’s actions may have just pushed him over the edge.
Balko’s expose was particularly harsh on Coleman Hughes, employing a derisive tone of “Coleman Hughes says he does his own research; well, if he did, he would have known such and such.” - Paraphrasing. In my opinion, Coleman Hughes is a case of the bright kid who’s been told he’s the smartest all his life and has become complacent in thinking, trying to use common sense to analyze complex issues that are way beyond his capacity. I don’t blame him; he’s young, and he found fame and relevance at such a young age, but he must grow intellectually if he’s to fill the shoes he’s been given, but at the moment, it’s an oversized shoe, and it shows.
John McWhorter expressed dismay that the documentary was extremely misleading, but if he and Glenn had done their due diligence, they would have found out that the documentary makers were misleading them. The reason the film makers were brazen enough to be that misleading was because they knew people like Glenn and John would buy their narrative without question.
John continued by saying they had an obligation to the public discourse to call attention to the documentary, given the fact that it was totally ignored in the mainstream media and political discourse. Glenn rightly corrected him, saying that the problem was not that they called attention to the documentary but that they uncritically bought into the narrative of the documentary and helped propagate it.
At some point in the show, Glenn goes through more self-reflection, in which he inadvertently reveals the most damning thing about why he bought the narrative of the documentary. Glenn stated that the reason he so easily believed the documentary was because he didn’t like the police station in Minneapolis being burned down; he didn’t like the reactions and protests that followed the death of George Floyd, and because of that, he was looking for a counter narrative.
The idea that Glenn was simply looking for a counter narrative instead of looking for the truth because he didn’t like people’s reactions is utterly absurd and ridiculous. With that attitude, it’s easy to get duped by false counter-narratives. Even if the dominant narrative was false, that doesn’t make just about any counter-narrative correct or true.
It is possible to believe that the protests and destruction that followed the death of George Floyd were wrong, while also believing that the killing of George Floyd was unwarranted. It is possible to believe that the burning of the police station in Minneapolis was wrong, while also believing that the police sometimes use overhanded tactics and, as such, need to be held accountable. It is possible to believe that George Floyd was a criminal whose criminal actions led to the police interaction that ultimately killed him, while also believing that he had the right to a fair trial and that Chauvin’s actions contributed to his death. It is possible to believe all these things because multiple things can be true at the same time.
But it seems Glenn and John were so eager to pick a side and agree with that side, and by being ideologically driven, they got hoodwinked into believing and propagating—by their admission—a false narrative.
I like that Glenn and John tried to get ahead of this by admitting they were too hasty, but I fear that they are being too hasty in accepting Balko’s expose as being correct as well. Balko only released one part of a three-part expose before Glenn and John caved in to say, “We got this one wrong.” Did they take time this time to properly vet the claims being made by Balko, or are they just going off what seems correct, like they did the last time with the fall of Minneapolis?
Charles Ekokotu (Pharm. D.) is a bibliophile, prose fiction writer, poet, and playwright. His first self-published novel, Hotel Shendam—a crime fiction novel featuring a debate on race and colonialism—is available on Amazon. A very fun read! Grab a copy now!
Follow Charles Ekokotu on
Yeah, well reasoned. I also watched the doc and thought “this is HEAVILY biased”. I was surprised to see all three of my boys endorse it without caveat. Everyone makes mistakes, but especially when the dominant narrative so often turns out to be 180 degrees off the truth or at least has gaping holes unit.
Keep up the good work.