The growing confusion in conservative public discourse warrants careful thought and analysis. As prominent commentators such as Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, among others, influence civic life, many Christians try to avoid this content because engagement tends to expand the reach of forces that thrive on attention and manipulate emotion as a strategy of influence.
Avoidance, however, often becomes difficult, as the effects seep into parish conversations, prayer groups, and online communities where believers repeat phrases and suspicions absorbed through a stream of confident voices. Christians can enter these labyrinths of speculation and emerge unsettled, agitated, and occasionally persuaded that only a small circle of influencers possesses privileged insight into the unseen mechanisms of global power.
The methodology and appeal
I call it drip-feed conspiracy parajournalism, a name that reflects its operational method. The phrase draws from journalism, psychology, and media studies and describes a technique in which commentators reveal claims in fragments, using suspense as a mechanism of credibility. They hold out the promise that the next episode will unveil the critical revelation that will expose everything. Through this structure, they fashion an aura of investigative heroism. They cultivate an audience that feels discerning rather than naïve. They verify trivial details with theatrical vigor, and the audience interprets this as evidence of serious inquiry. Consequently, the performance gives the illusion of rigor even when genuine investigation rarely, if ever, occurs. The method prevails because it offers the thrill of discovery without the labor of disciplined thinking.
The analytical framework offered by Michael Barkun in A Culture of Conspiracy helps explain why such rhetoric resonates. Barkun identifies an intellectual ecosystem he calls “stigmatized knowledge,” meaning claims that live outside accepted scholarship yet attract devotion precisely because they exist beyond institutional boundaries.
He outlines five forms of stigmatized knowledge, although the most potent is suppressed knowledge. Barkun writes that “the suppressed knowledge category tends to absorb the others, because believers assume that when their own ideas about knowledge conflict with some orthodoxy, the forces of orthodoxy will necessarily try to perpetuate error out of self-interest or some other evil motive.” Once people accept this premise, they interpret every objection as confirmation. In this way, counterarguments become evidence of persecution, and institutional silence becomes evidence of secrecy. The entire structure becomes self-reinforcing.
This interpretive framework becomes the natural habitat of drip-feed parajournalism. The commentator who delays disclosure signals an obstructing force. The audience interprets the delay as evidence that the commentator stands against powerful interests. The sense of danger heightens the impression of significance. Suspense becomes currency, and the audience becomes dependent on the next reveal. The entire experience resembles serialized fiction, although intensified by the claim that real events hang in the balance.
Barkun’s observations clarify why this dynamic appears persuasive even when the material lacks substance. He notes that conspiracy theories function “both as a part of suppressed knowledge and as a basis for stigmatization,” since believers become “convinced that only they know the true manner in which power is held and decisions made.” The psychological reward is immediate. Ordinary individuals become guardians of forbidden truth. They acquire a sense of moral superiority, since the uninitiated appear gullible, while insiders appear enlightened. This shift in self-perception forms a barrier against reasoned correction, since any attempt at correction appears as further evidence of suppression.
The alleged empiricism within these narratives strengthens the appeal. Barkun writes that “stigmatized knowledge appears compelling to believers because of its allegedly empirical basis.” Commentators use documents, screenshots, unnamed sources, and fragments of testimony without providing relevant context or verification. Yet the posture of evidence signals seriousness. The parajournalist thus imitates the gestures of scholarship while avoiding its responsibilities. The audience, accustomed to displays of confidence rather than slow evaluation, assumes that careful research has taken place simply because the commentator behaved like someone who conducts research.
Stigmatization becomes validation
Barkun further notes that stigmatization itself becomes validation. He writes, “Stigmatization is taken to be evidence of truth—for why else would a belief be stigmatized if to suppress the truth?” Therefore, when institutions challenge a claim, the challenge becomes a sign that the claim deserves trust. Drip-feed parajournalists rely on this reflex. Every rebuttal is framed as evidence of a coordinated effort to conceal reality. Consequently, genuine critique cannot puncture the narrative, since the narrative absorbs critique as further proof.
Moreover, Barkun highlights the scholarly mimicry that characterizes conspiracy discourse. He describes how advocates “enthusiastically mimic mainstream scholarship” through footnotes, bibliographies, cross-references, and jargon, which together create “pseudoconfirmation.” Drip-feed parajournalists use the same strategy. Their productions bear the aesthetic of research while offering little of its discipline. Audiences encounter an atmosphere of intellectual seriousness even when the content lacks genuine analytical integrity.
Although the contemporary form appears shaped by digital technology, its ancestry can be found throughout American media history. The sensationalism of yellow journalism illustrates the pattern. Much of the reporting on the sinking of the USS Maine in the Havana Harbor in 1898 manipulated emotion through insinuation and selective detail, accelerating a march toward the Spanish-American War. Historians later uncovered the fragility of the allegations, although the cultural damage had already hardened into momentum. A society eager for certainty in a moment of tension favored a narrative of villainy over the ambiguities of investigation.
The McCarthy era (1947-1957) extends the parallel. Senator Joseph McCarthy released allegations in sequence, cultivating suspense while claiming access to classified information. The slow drip of partial accusations created a national mood of dread. Careers collapsed, and public trust eroded. Historians eventually revealed the weakness of McCarthy’s assertions, yet the long-term harm remained woven into the national memory.
Even the tabloid world of the late twentieth century reveals the pattern. Stories involving satanic cults, extraterrestrial agents, and secret government experiments circulated widely because they blended fragments of truth with sweeping imaginative arcs. Readers experienced the pleasure of forbidden insight while absorbing a worldview shaped more by performance than evidence.
Consequently, the digital landscape intensifies an old human vulnerability. Social media algorithms elevate emotional intensity, conflict, and novelty, therefore giving drip-feed parajournalism fertile ground. The speed of dissemination grants an advantage to speculation at the expense of time-consuming verification. The volume of information overwhelms attention spans, and the absence of interpretive anchors allows sensationalism to function as a substitute for understanding.
Echoes of ancient gnostic tendencies
This cultural environment can present profound spiritual challenges. Christians who take natural law seriously must cultivate disciplined reasoning, since natural law presupposes the mind’s participation in divine rationality. Clarity and proportion do matter. Drip-feed parajournalism weakens these habits by training the mind to treat suspicion as a virtue and hesitation as a sign of naïveté. Consequently, the Christian imagination risks becoming shaped by imagined dangers rather than by the sovereignty of Christ.
Thomas Aquinas teaches that “for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act.” Thus, a mind saturated with frenetic speculation becomes less receptive to divine illumination. Anxiety replaces contemplation. Fear replaces discernment. The believer grows attuned to alleged global plots rather than to the calm governance of Providence. The peace Christ intends to give becomes obscured by a restless vigilance that exhausts the soul.
The spiritual danger of drip-feed parajournalism echoes ancient gnostic tendencies. The parajournalist presents himself as one who unveils mysteries. He interprets events with an authority that rivals Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching office of the Church. Barkun’s insight that conspiracy adherents believe “only they know the true manner in which power is held and decisions made” reveals how easily the parajournalist becomes a substitute magisterium. The Christian who follows such voices with unexamined trust risks exchanging the Gospel’s openness for an esoteric worldview centered on hidden knowledge and elite insight.
Serious ethical concerns follow. Some commentators hint at possessing evidence of wrongdoing yet refuse to present it to the proper authorities. This reveals a preference for suspense over justice. Authentic journalism serves the common good. Parajournalism serves engagement metrics. Christians committed to moral truth should recognize such withholding as a failure in civic responsibility.
The legal system absorbs further damage. Real investigations require the slow accumulation of facts, evaluation of testimony, cross-examination, and careful argumentation within courts that follow established rules of evidence. Drip-feed parajournalism replaces these processes with insinuation. Barkun observes that conspiracy discourse “appropriates the apparatus of scholarship in the form of elaborate citations” while producing only “pseudoconfirmation.” This dynamic resembles legal reasoning without the accountability of legal procedure.
Once such narratives gain cultural traction, jury pools can be influenced by imaginative speculation rather than forensic analysis. Barkun’s reminder that individuals become “predisposed to accept” unfamiliar claims once exposed to them helps explain how courtroom impartiality weakens. Genuine justice then becomes more difficult to achieve, since jurors may distrust legitimate evidence while displaying confidence in the interpretive authority of parajournalists. The parajournalist, meanwhile, remains insulated from the social consequences he helps create.
These problems arise because drip-feed parajournalism thrives on logical shortcuts. Its arguments often depend on ambiguous causal connections and selective framing. Intellectual resistance requires patience, restraint, and clarity. Christians who cultivate these virtues regain control over their interpretive habits. They learn to evaluate claims by asking whether the evidence truly supports a conclusion. They consider whether institutions declined to act for reasons grounded in law rather than malice. And they reflect on whether a commentator has supplied material that could withstand scrutiny rather than speculation.
Choosing the Kingdom over the algorithm
Barkun warns that conspiracy systems evolve into totalizing worldviews. They expand to absorb contradictions. They reinterpret all events through a single narrative. Therefore, conspiracism competes with Christianity at the level of imagination. Christians see the world governed by Christ, whereas conspiracists see it governed by clandestine elites. Only one of these visions can anchor the heart.
Evangelization demands an interior world shaped by peace. Anxiety seldom draws others toward the Gospel. Clarity, calm, and trust in divine providence form the foundation of Christian witness. Believers must develop a disciplined indifference toward sensational content. When they remember that Christ reigns with authority that transcends the schemes of men, they become resilient against manipulative rhetoric.
The baptismal call urges every Christian to serve as an agent of renewal. Renewal requires intellectual honesty, courage, and charity. It requires resistance to narratives designed to erode trust. When Christians anchor themselves in Christ, they acquire the equilibrium necessary to navigate a culture dominated by noise. Their presence introduces clarity where confusion prevails. Their confidence steadies others. Their discernment exposes the emptiness of performers who trade in fear.
Drip-feed conspiracy parajournalism will continue to evolve, since the digital ecosystem rewards emotional stimulation. However, Christians can navigate this environment without surrendering their judgment. They can choose a posture shaped by the Kingdom rather than the algorithm. When they do, the illusion of conspiracism loses its force. The Christian mind becomes clear. The Christian heart becomes steady, and the Christian witness becomes credible. The peace of Christ reveals the smallness of para-journalistic performance and the enduring strength of truth.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I try to avoid the conspiracy conversations but it’s difficult.
Historians may have proven the weakness of Joseph McCarthy’s accusations but KGB files later revealed some of the origins. A conspiracy can begin with a grain of truth but then take on a life of its own. Following Covid, discernment about this has been a lot more difficult.
It was suggested to me recently that I “think too much”. Another time, by a different party, that I “think too little”. It may be unfair to ask, but, please if you can do help me with some tips how to deal with that, I mean about apparently random observations.
This article has 3 imbalances I thought: one, in that it would seem that it is necessary to have some qualification to make valid contribution, particularly academic/scholar qualification; another, the corollary, it does not explore how the unqualified do indeed make inputs that can be significant or materially supportive both in times of distress and in the everyday; finally, suggestions how to identify/distinguish good drip-feed, good parajournalism (sometimes far better than journalism) and good conspiracy analysis/targeting.
Then it occurred to me there is a fourth area left unattended: when otherwise good work scholarly or general, fails to acknowledge all sources honestly, trying to present itself as original to the moment while yet is unable to establish that.
Paralyzed by sound bite!
Sound bite paralysis –
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/vocal-cord-paralysis/symptoms-causes/syc-20378873
False Narratives are the problem. Save us from parajournalism.
St. Thomas Aquinas was right. “Knowledge of the Truth requires Devine help.”
Pray for Devine Guidance and stick to “Fact-Based Decision Making.”
Define “false narratives”. If that evades you, provide three examples you consider problematic.
“Parajournalism” is far less a problem than “yellow journalism”.
Only three?
🙂
When you grow up in a dangerous society, mother will be apt to advise, Johnny, don’t trust anyone. Personally I learned the hard way when an older much stronger classmate lured me into a secluded place and attempted to sexually violate me, threatening to strike me with a rock he held. I took the risk of being killed and ran, he threw the rock and missed. I’ve never trusted anyone with homosexual attraction since. Except for one poor soul, a fellow priest who struggled with alcoholism and suicide, and never made any gesture of the sort. That was a selective choice for sake of charity.
Otherwise Dr Peter is correct regarding drip feed conspiracy journalism, as well as the attraction many of us have with ‘mystery’, and the possibility of some grand conspiratorial conspiracy, which is why the absurd DaVinci Code was so popular. Especially when it deals with the Church.
Now here they’re special circumstances regarding the Church, the last papacy, and the tangible drift toward secular relativism. All of us, except the true saints among us, are, if not simply conspiracy buffs, lovers of mysteries. On that score Peter makes a most definitive observation:
“Thomas Aquinas teaches that ‘for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act’. Thus, a mind saturated with frenetic speculation becomes less receptive to divine illumination”.
The balance between legitimate suspicion and “a mind saturated with frenetic speculation” is a challenge in our extraordinary moment in Church history, although as the essay’s author suggests it’s warranted to make the effort.
One could easily argue that the problem with journalism is that it is often not grounded in Truth and too often Journalists conspire to evade Truth rather than affirm Truth which is unethical and misleading.
For example:
Despite nearly-three decades since it was first shown that mRNA could be used to generate specific immune responses against a pathogen, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines based on mRNA for human use had only been developed and tested in pre-clinical and clinical trials [6]. In 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA-based vaccines were developed at an unprecedented speed. In less than a year, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were designed, manufactured, tested and authorized for general and widespread use in the human population. An emergency public health situation can oftentimes justify rapid decisions, and some will necessarily be based on less than the minimum desirable information. However, regardless of the emergency, some corners must never be cut, particularly those that, if overlooked, could seriously impact human health. In other words, even emergency public health measures should heed the fundamental premise of primum non nocere, perhaps one of the main precepts of bioethics that all medical students are taught throughout the world [7], [8].”
The truth is that we were told that the vaccine would , by providing immunity to the Covid 19 virus, stop the spread when the reality is, and then, when it became clear that this was not true, the new claim was that the vaccine would make symptoms less severe, which may have been true but difficult to prove as there was no comparison studies done. The whole world acted as if the first premise was true, which ended up with very disturbing results due to inaccurate and sometimes misleading information from The World Health Organization.
We now know that:
hepcidin and the spike protein – Google Search
addition of Furin receptor on spike protein of Covid 19 – Google Search
furin regulates hepcidin – Google Search
hepcidin regulates iron – Google Search
the vaccine and hepcidin – Google Search
And that both the Virus and the Vaccine can cause iron deregulation in certain susceptible people and thus for those persons , the vaccine has the potential to cause more harm than good.
A well articulated argument for withholding a new med prior to sufficient clinical trials.
Although, a cause for that withholding were the dire reports coming from overseas, particularly China, and N Italy where the virus spread [China flights with infected passengers began there] and killed many. Suspicion is and the data continues to suggest that the virus was engineered and released as a bioweapon at a time when China’s economy was threatened by US economic policy.
We simply didn’t know what we were dealing with except for a new undetectable virus for which China took drastic measures.
Perhaps the greatest damage wasn’t the Covid vaccine, rather the prolonged shutdown here at home. What we know now from the experience gives the advantage of hindsight. Although, as you say, it may well have been better to bite the bullet and continue as normal without taking defensive measures including the vaccine.
Should read: Although, a cause for [not] withholding were the dire reports coming from overseas, etc.
Of course, very real scandal, subterfuge, using entire weight of Vatican or US government to attack opponents and very real manipulation of media by numerous world governments has nothing to do with folk trusting almost nothing today?…I recall the unrest of the 60s and 70s, and the scoffing by liberal elites over charges of communist influence, where later documentation disclosed by the US and Russians showed the various iron curtain countries were indeed directing a fair amount of far left operations…
We live today in an ever more real hall of mirrors, and that people are misled so easily by modern super-saturation in that media is no suprise at all…
and the vast majority today are utterly addicted to internet media and its personalities, where talking heads are more real than the external world.
As a warning I wish to add that should BBC Masterpiece should again appear starring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock, Do not watch! You will likely become seriously addicted to the series and conspiracy theory.
The series aired [TV] 1984-94 on PBS Masterpiece. I was among the victims and religiously viewed each episode Yearning for more to come. It was only with Brett retiring and a replacement taking the role that I was able to be relieved of my addiction.
Now I’m going to have to look for that BBC series on YouTube, Father Peter …
🙂
How was it mrscracker?
I haven’t had time to look for it yet Father. Too busy with family for Christmas, but I intend to ASAP.
🙂
Thank you.
The author doesn’t mention that some “conspiracies” turned out to be factual. It’s easy to ambiguously assign the term “conspiracy” about anything that we don’t want to hear. Let’s be more specific: disinformation from the governing class, the media, and establishment interests. The Iraq War, origins of COVID, Biden’s cognitive decline, transgender care, and many more all were manipulated by agents who did not tell the public the truth. All voices against the disinformation were condemned. The author criticizes “conspiracy theories” without specifying even one; he just bunches all them under the category of “Tucker and Candace” which, I guess, should scare everyone. You can bring in even Thomas Aquinas to make a case, but you’re not doing the hard work of dismantling the actual counter narrative that “conspiracies” allegedly promote. Assigning a scary label like “conspiracy theory” or “drip feed conspiracy parajournalism,” doesn’t account for the endless counter-narratives that turned out to be true, nor does it debunk the theories in any way. All this column does is reinforce the establishment’s power to promote disinformation. I don’t follow Owens, and I am skeptical of many of Carlson’s points of view, but I will always be deeply doubtful of narratives that the establishment is pushing. And if history is any kind of teacher, we all should be.
“The author doesn’t mention that some “conspiracies” turned out to be factual.’
Precisely. Nor does he mention that term “conspiracy theory” was invented to “frame” public discourse. It’s application is kill-switch on public open-mindedness and censorship. Another word for conspiracy theorist? Prescient.
Contra his assertion, there isn’t “growing confusion” on the right, there’s a growing awareness that the government doesn’t function like “School House Rock” and that our elected representatives are not better than us, in many ways their egos write checks that are not only beyond their abilities, but any human being’s and they are subordinating the public interest and their responsibilities to their private ambitions, foreign governments, private interest donors and the administrative superstate.
I’m really not sure how any rational adult who lived the erection of a massively intrusive surveillance apparatus after 9/11 or through the engineered hysteria and mindless public rituals of COVID or The FBI’s attacks on Mark Houck or Melania Trump’s underwear drawer, the attempted infiltration of Latin Mass groups and school board meetings, the billions spend on Ukraine, the just announced eighth consecutive audit failure of the DoD/DoW shouldn’t question EVERYTHING. Some of learn from our mistakes, such as getting off the couch to vote for Bush 43. Yes the other guy was worse, but “none of the above” is an option.
Coining a neologism doesn’t make one observant or authoritative. There’s simply nothing in the author’s public academic or professional background that suggests his thinly veiled arguments from personal incredulity are informed.
As for this: “Historians eventually revealed the weakness of McCarthy’s assertions, yet the long-term harm remained woven into the national memory.” On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that McCarthy was more right than wrong. See Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies Paperback – November 24, 2009. We now know that the Communist spying McCarthy fought against was pervasive – reaching to the highest levels of the White House and the top-secret Manhattan Project. Did you really think the U.S.S.R got the bomb in 1948 without stolen secrets?
For decades Alger Hiss denied his guilt, but the release of the Soviet archives proved he was a traitor. People born on the day JFK was born are now eligible for Social Security, but we still lack convincing answers about his public assassination or how “Epstein suicided himself”.
The author should actually pen article on theology or something within the confines of his academic expertise. These excursions into public affairs just reveal a woeful lack of direct personal knowledge or substantive experience with the topics upon which he opines.
I don’t agree with everything Tucker Carlson says, but for the open-minded, his most recent interview of former Congressman and Attorney General candidate Matt Gaetz is rather interesting.
We should have had these discussions when the late P.J O’Rourke penned “Parliament of Wh*res”, but better late than never.
Kudos!
Thanks.
Fact of Law: There are criminal laws against conspiracy.
Reason: People often join together to do bad things.
Note Bene: Those laws against conspiracy weren’t written as part of a conspiracy to get people to believe that conspiracies exist.
Note Bene: All kinds of people, including lawyers and judges and attorneys general and politicians and government bureaucrats, not just “the mafia,” participate in criminal conspiracies. And wrt lawyers and judges, there are plenty of examples of such people who do not respect principles of justice or rules of evidence, as the essay summarily asserts.
So yes, Tucker Carlson has demonstrated some poor credibility in soft-peddling interviews of the ignorant Churchill-smearing auto-didact Randall Cooper, and likewise with the infantalized, inflatable web-presence and white supremacist called Nick Fuentes.
And likewise yes, it is an actual conspiracy that Fulton County, GA operatives illegally certified over 300 Thousand unsigned ballots, in a state that GA asserts was won by 11 thousand votes, by the demented and perverted fraud Joe-showering-with-my-daughter-Biden. CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/atlanta/news/justice-department-lawsuit-fulton-county-2020-election-voter-data/
False conspiracy theories are the natural result of a society that engages in lying on every level and regarding every subject. Because no one knows where the truth is.
So are true conspiracy theories. Because the liars team up.
I don’t know of any way to maintain grounding in reality in such a society, except to cling tightly to the Truth, and to maintain a solid sense of one’s own ignorance.
Precisely put.
Another non-non-conspiracy:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/fulton-county-admits-to-verifying-315-000-votes-in-2020-without-poll-worker-signatures/ar-AA1SRuoy
“Despite nearly-three decades since it was first shown that mRNA could be used to generate specific immune responses against a pathogen, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines based on mRNA for human use had only been developed and tested in pre-clinical and clinical trials [6]. In 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA-based vaccines were developed at an unprecedented speed. In less than a year, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were designed, manufactured, tested and authorized for general and widespread use in the human population. An emergency public health situation can oftentimes justify rapid decisions, and some will necessarily be based on less than the minimum desirable information. However, regardless of the emergency, some corners must never be cut, particularly those that, if overlooked, could seriously impact human health. In other words, even emergency public health measures should heed the fundamental premise of primum non nocere, perhaps one of the main precepts of bioethics that all medical students are taught throughout the world [7], [8].”
I’m a little late to this conversation, I didn’t fully read the article or comments, and I don’t know if anybody will actually read this, but here’s a good one-sentence rebuttal to what this author seems to foolishly be writing:
People believe conspiracy-theories because so many of them turn out to be true and the people who bad-mouth “conspiracy-theorists” are often liars with something to hide.
Merry Christmas Mr. Fred.
Sometimes that’s the case, it’s true. But so is the reverse.
I think conspiracies can begin with something factual but then that gets hijacked, inflated, & reconstructed for a certain agenda. You end up with a fictional narrative.