Tom Nichols, a former Republican, a current Never Trumper, and the author of “The Death of Expertise,” is plagued by the Washington Examiner appearing in his mailbox even though he never subscribed to it.

Imagine my delight to find the @dcexaminer in my mailbox with a centerpiece on how investigating the Russia *story* hurt America – not Russia, the investigation – along with a piece by Devin Nunes.

I can't even cancel my subscription because I never chose to subscribe to it. — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 23, 2019

I'm so sorry this is happening to you. — Some guy tweeted something ??‍♂️ (@jtLOL) April 23, 2019

Which piece, Tom? — Tim Carney (@TPCarney) April 23, 2019

Aside from the one written by Nunes? The one by @BecketAdams that is about how the "collusion fable" harmed America. — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 23, 2019

Oh, this piece by Becket Adams, where he writes about the damage the media did to itself over the past two years hyping the Mueller investigation?

If hundreds of thousands of viewers are renouncing the opinion and commentary shows that went all-in on collusion, the same has probably happened to newsrooms that pursued the charge with similar zeal. The problem here isn’t about declining subscriptions and revenues, it’s that many Americans are emerging from this news debacle with an even deeper distrust for institutions that are supposed to keep them informed of the goings-on of the powerful. This means the powerful can probably now move more freely and with little fear of the disinfecting qualities of the news spotlight. The collusion bust will also lead to more voters treating the reality that enemy powers interfere in our politics as if it were wild fantasy. But what can you expect when you hype a false story for two years?

We don’t see anything in there about the investigation hurting America, just the media’s mishandling of it.

The story you're referring to (since the two other features were about the Democrats and SCOTUS from @ishapiro and Biden by @SethAMandel) is by @BecketAdams and had to do with the PRESS COVERAGE and how that did harm, not the investigation itself. https://t.co/AtFDH6RlSv — Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) April 23, 2019

Actually about the press coverage. Reading for content is critical to expertise, I have found. You miss shit when you assume. https://t.co/awOtzmxLYX — Extremely Unfriendly Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) April 23, 2019

And just so we are clear, I haven’t taken sides with respect to the press coverage of the Russia investigation. Some of it was very good. Some of it was awful. The collective back patting by journalists without the critical self reflection just makes it all worse. — Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) April 23, 2019

And the notion of @BecketAdams as some sort of MAGA propagandist more than a little ridiculous. — HumphreyBohun (@HumphreyBohun) April 23, 2019

it’s tough out there for experts, figuring out what words mean. — T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) April 23, 2019

The Death of Expertise=reading something written by someone other than Larry Tribe — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) April 23, 2019

Is being dunked on a field of expertise? Because if so then at least Tom is technically telling the truth. — neontaster (@neontaster) April 23, 2019

The death of reading articles before you comment. @RadioFreeTom — Sean Agnew (@seanagnew) April 23, 2019

Area expert opines on articles he chooses not to read. — JM (@JMtweets40) April 23, 2019

Again, don't let experts intimidate you. They're usually not worth shit outside of their very small area of mastery. — Extremely Unfriendly Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) April 23, 2019

There is no such piece in the magazine as Tom describes, idk what "centerpiece" is supposed to mean here and neither does Tom, and I can only imagine throwing a hissy fit about a friend's publication b/c it contained an article I thought I might disagree with. Welcome to Twitter: https://t.co/7lFmCIMUZq — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) April 23, 2019

The piece is still up if Nichols can debase himself enough to read it.

Related: