Good Breitbart article on the tactics of the political left

[Zinco]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/23/nolte-mens-health-wants-joe-rogan-blacklisted-for-vile-transphobia/

"We all know how this bullshit of “safetyism” works on the fascist left. You fascists accuse someone you disagree with of making you or POC’s or whoever feel “unsafe,” and suddenly expression that speech become “violence” and that physical act of violent speech must be blacklisted and canceled.

Meanwhile, according to the left, the terrorists in Black Lives Matter and Antifa who are burning, looting marauding, and toppling are not committing violence. Their actual violence is speech."

"When you accuse someone of “putting lives in danger” over a perfectly reasonable and science-based discussion about transitioning, especially when just a few years ago these arguments were treated as mainstream; when you accuse someone of “fanning the flames of hate” and being “dangerous,” that is way beyond a debate.

That is about silencing someone, about accusing them of being responsible in some way for a suicide or hate crime they had nothing to do with."

Is anyone going to take issue with what the article is actually saying?
Because if yelling 'Breitbart!' is the only response left has got, then they're in an even worse state than I thought.

Soz - the left has got

There seems to be misunderstanding of why we read a wide variety of sources. This includes the suggestion that we must be unaware of the nature of Breitbart and have been unwittingly seduced into eloping with them.

Up until a few years ago I wouldn't click on Breitbart links. The same went for the Daily Mail but the aversion was stronger with Breitbart. Like many good progressives I would get my news from approved sources like The Guardian and the BBC.

What happened to me is that once I became interested in the gender debate (3-4 year ago now) I started to see that particular news stories I was interested in would, in my preferred media sources, either be misrepresented in a way that was calculated to mislead, whether that involved missing out key facts or including "facts" that looked to be so twisted they were the same as lies, or would not be covered at all, seemingly in an effort to make sure I wouldn't start thinking in undesirable ways.

What this means is that now I follow the news rather than follow approved media sources and if it takes me to Breitbart, then I'll go to Breitbart. What I'll then do is use the "facts" I see there and search again to go another perspective.

@nauticant

There seems to be misunderstanding of why we read a wide variety of sources. This includes the suggestion that we must be unaware of the nature of Breitbart and have been unwittingly seduced into eloping with them.

Up until a few years ago I wouldn't click on Breitbart links. The same went for the Daily Mail but the aversion was stronger with Breitbart. Like many good progressives I would get my news from approved sources like The Guardian and the BBC.

What happened to me is that once I became interested in the gender debate (3-4 year ago now) I started to see that particular news stories I was interested in would, in my preferred media sources, either be misrepresented in a way that was calculated to mislead, whether that involved missing out key facts or including "facts" that looked to be so twisted they were the same as lies, or would not be covered at all, seemingly in an effort to make sure I wouldn't start thinking in undesirable ways.

What this means is that now I follow the news rather than follow approved media sources and if it takes me to Breitbart, then I'll go to Breitbart. What I'll then do is use the "facts" I see there and search again to go another perspective.

Exactly.

And I have, in this spirit, just read the article. I do not like or condone a lot of the language, but the points it makes are fair ones.

What this means is that now I follow the news rather than follow approved media sources and if it takes me to Breitbart, then I'll go to Breitbart. What I'll then do is use the "facts" I see there and search again to go another perspective

This is exactly how many of us now approach 'news' and political discourse, and as with you the whole radical TRA agenda is the reason why. I was astonished at how quickly and all pervasively these slogans and notions had taken hold on the so called progressive left.....with which I used to identify.

It has come as a real liberation to shake of all narrow affiliation, and feel the freedom to explore a whole range of ideas.

Owen Jones freely, and without irony, uses words and phrases like hegemony and article of faith to explain what has happened on the left.

Its more concerning that Breitbart is one of the few outlets that will publish articles from "our" side of the debate.

Are there any 'respectable' publications in the US which will do this? In the UK we have the Times and the Spectator, but what is there on the other side of the Atlantic?

Apparently the Wall Street Journal has just stated that it will refuse to be cancelled in its own opinion section. This came in response to a letter of protest by many of its own staff, who were demanding purity of message rather than free exploration and thought

"Last month, the New York Times published an opinion piece by the US senator, Tom Cotton, calling for the army to be used to quell rioters during the Black Lives Matter protests. Despite this proposition being supported by 52 per cent of Americans, the paper’s staff were not happy about its publication, and many publicly said the piece’s mere existence put their lives in danger"

"Shortly afterwards, an ‘Editors’ Note’ was added to the piece and James Bennett, who had defended publishing the article, resigned from his position as editorial page editor. At the slightest sign of pressure from its staff, the Times completely buckled"

"Over at the Wall Street Journal, it appeared that a similar dynamic might be playing out this week, after 280 of its journalists signed a letter to their publisher, complaining about the spread of ‘misinformation’ in the paper’s opinion section. The letter argued that recent pieces in the section, including a piece by Vice President Mike Pence, were unacceptable"

"It appears though that the opinion section of the paper aren’t taking the attack lying down. This morning, its editorial board published a response, and promised to continue to ‘offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media".

The response is worth a read in full:

"We’ve been gratified this week by the outpouring of support from readers after some 280 of our Wall Street Journal colleagues signed (and someone leaked) a letter to our publisher criticising the opinion pages. But the support has often been mixed with concern that perhaps the letter will cause us to change our principles and content. On that point, reassurance is in order"
"In the spirit of collegiality, we won’t respond in kind to the letter signers. Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility in any case. The signers report to the News editors or other parts of the business, and the News and Opinion departments operate with separate staffs and editors. Both report to Publisher Almar Latour. This separation allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment.
It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution. But we are not the New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media"
"As long as our proprietors allow us the privilege to do so, the opinion pages will continue to publish contributors who speak their minds within the tradition of vigorous, reasoned discourse. And these columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets, which are more important than ever in what is a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance"

justhad
Ha, was just about to post that! It's an interesting article, isn't it? The Spectator is launching a US version and is aiming at disenchanted NYT readers who have been alienated by its recent shenanigans.

"Bandying around phrases like fascist left and terrorist BLM is not journalism."

I'm sure that language betrays a point of view; but it's entirely normal in journalism that you could (often) point to terms used, or the way a certain narrative is being pushed, and say that the story has a bias in play.

Is that "journalism" to have such a bias? It depends on the context I think. There should be (as far as is possible) neutral news reporting in journalism. That's one side of journalism. But opinion pieces, or analysis of the news (where pundits will disagree) is another major part of journalism; and obviously you don't need to pretend that there isn't bias in that sort of journalism.

My point is, in this kind of story, where any sane reader would know that it's giving right-wing opinion on the tactics of political opponents, there is no problem at all in using some biased terms. Of course the story is coming from a particular perspective. That doesn't make it bad journalism imo. It's right wing opinion, so of course there is some bias to it. Big deal.

When you read the Guardian you know what you are getting. It's not a problem. When you read Breitbart you know that the analysis is going to be slanted in a certain direction. It's not a problem.

The problem would be in a supposedly "neutral" source like the BBC, where much of the time, if they are only having news analysis from a certain perspective, but pretending to be "impartial".

It's a problem when the BBC uses biased terms to control the narrative, as they are supposed to be impartial. It's not however a big deal for Breitbart to use biased terminology because they are open bias in a similar way to the Guardian. It's not bad journalism to have a bias in your analysis of the news, if you are quite open about it, and all the readers know what they are getting.

If I read source X, I will often be seeing things written from the perspective of conservative / liberal punditry. That in itself, I don't see as any problem at all.

The concern would be sources like the BBC that pretend to be impartial, or even have a requirement to be impartial. For me, it's the mainstream TV news media that is completely violating journalistic standards. I think it's fine for Breitbart to run "opinion" material, and that's completely acceptable as journalism.

@nauticant

There seems to be misunderstanding of why we read a wide variety of sources. This includes the suggestion that we must be unaware of the nature of Breitbart and have been unwittingly seduced into eloping with them.

Up until a few years ago I wouldn't click on Breitbart links. The same went for the Daily Mail but the aversion was stronger with Breitbart. Like many good progressives I would get my news from approved sources like The Guardian and the BBC.

What happened to me is that once I became interested in the gender debate (3-4 year ago now) I started to see that particular news stories I was interested in would, in my preferred media sources, either be misrepresented in a way that was calculated to mislead, whether that involved missing out key facts or including "facts" that looked to be so twisted they were the same as lies, or would not be covered at all, seemingly in an effort to make sure I wouldn't start thinking in undesirable ways.

What this means is that now I follow the news rather than follow approved media sources and if it takes me to Breitbart, then I'll go to Breitbart. What I'll then do is use the "facts" I see there and search again to go another perspective.

nauticant Yes, this is a very serious problem with certain parts of the media simply not covering news which it deems problematic. The BBC recently went as far as editing a picture to remove a guy wielding a plank of wood at a 'peaceful' demonstration. It only published the unedited version because someone found the original image. What is that if not fake news?

The language is a bit harsh and it's exactly what I would expect from Breitbart. I wouldn't go so far as saying this is a good article but it's important to consider whether it's accurate.

This is incredibly easy to check. One could look at Men's Health's twitter and see that they did say that. One could watch Joe Rogan's interview with Abigail Shrier. One could read her book.

I'm either browsing knitting patterns for baby bonnets or being dangerously radicalised by a group called HateMen.com.*

I might try this with my DH.

It has come as a real liberation to shake off all narrow affiliation, and feel the freedom to explore a whole range of ideas.

I agree. I’m learning so much on here and observing my own tendencies to be narrow and tribal in my thinking.

Up until a few years ago I wouldn't click on Breitbart links. The same went for the Daily Mail but the aversion was stronger with Breitbart. Like many good progressives I would get my news from approved sources like The Guardian and the BBC.

What happened to me is that once I became interested in the gender debate (3-4 year ago now) I started to see that particular news stories I was interested in would, in my preferred media sources, either be misrepresented in a way that was calculated to mislead, whether that involved missing out key facts or including "facts" that looked to be so twisted they were the same as lies, or would not be covered at all, seemingly in an effort to make sure I wouldn't start thinking in undesirable ways.

Same here.

It's hugely comforting to stick to the bien pensant news outlets, safe and smug in the knowledge that all your opinions will be the "correct" ones and you never have to actually engage your brain and think about the veracity of what's been put before you.

It's a shock when you realise how much you've been more or less lied to either by omission or intent and then have to ask yourself "If I'm being manipulated wrt that, what else..?" It's horrible to doubt everything.

I now believe it's better to get as much information as possible from as wide a range of sources as possible.

So many just seem to put their fingers in their ears and chant "I'mrightI'mrightI'mright" with no real understanding of what the counter arguments are - this was really brought home to me during the JKR debacle when it became increasingly obvious that most of those criticising her had no idea what she'd actually written, they'd just been told by "their" side that she was transphobic and that was all they needed to know.

It's tiresome in those who are old enough to know better.

I also find it interesting that a feminist is happy to throw the BLM protesters under the bus.

I fucking detest this notion that a feminist ‘owes’ something to a movement just because.

Yes, I’ll quite happily throw the Marxist organisation known as BLM under the bus. I’ve read the aims of the organisation and its UK equivalent and I want nothing to do wit any of it.

I’ll quite happily throw Dolores Di’Angelo and her racist confessional pamphlet under the bus while I’m there.

I'm left enough that I seriously consider actual Marxist candidates (as in, running for various marxist parties) when they run in my area. I don't know if that counts for leftist credentials or what.

I also don't particularly trust Breitbart as an organisation, I think they have political goals I find deeply immoral, and I am not convinced they are very wedded to fact checking and good journalism.

That being said, I no longer trust the journalistic integrity of a lot of mainstream left wing news sources either.

I do think though that it's worth reading what people are finding resonates with them from other political perspectives. This is an interesting article in that it's not mainly about facts in dispute or news reporting, it's an opinion piece. And I suspect it resonates with many people, and many regular people. It even clearly resonates with many people who belong to the political left.

That's extremely significant IMO in terms of the political landscape generally. Do people wonder why it is that an organisation like this has some level of credibility, that regular people living in some town in the US find them credible? It's because they have put their finger on something that many people feel, intuitively if not clearly, and the mainstream left is not talking about it.

That's important, because that lack of acknowledgement by groups like the Democratic Party or the Labour Party means the type of interests Breitbart have a huge tool to shape people's perceptions with, and the left has no way to counter it. It's like they are in a knife fight, and their tactic is to pretend the other guy's knife doesn't exist.

This is incredibly easy to check. One could look at Men's Health's twitter and see that they did say that. One could watch Joe Rogan's interview with Abigail Shrier. One could read her book.

I have watched the interview. There's not a transphobic word in it. It's an informative, calm and necessary discussion.

@Bishybarnybee

Do you never worry about the company you are keeping?

Do you?

terryleather Well said. I have actually been a Tory all my life (I know, duck and cover) and for some time have read the Guardian in much the same spirit as I (and many others) read the Daily Mail. But I do do it because it's important.

Also, frankly, I don't think you can ever be truly secure in your opinions until you've had them challenged from all sides and truly, privately, and without ego, considered whether and how those perspectives act on your own views and what your justifiable answers to them would be.

The OP specifically cites this as a good article.

Which parts of the article do you find particularly offensive/inaccurate @Bishybarnybee?

bishybarneybee "do you never worry about the company you are keeping?"

I've always found the "company you keep" fallacy a particularly odd one.

If someone told me that Hitler was vehemently opposed to battery chicken farming, I wouldn't consider (1) that political opposition to battery chicken farming was tainted by the fact Hitler also happened to hold the view, (2) that I must support battery chicken farming in order to avoid being linked with Hitler on all other issues, or (3) that battery chicken farming must be a good thing if Hitler's against it.
(I'm not sure which shade of implication you were going for.)

It would be a mildly interesting fact in and of itself, but nothing to do with the merits of the argument about battery chicken farming which should stand or fall on their own.

Also, frankly, I don't think you can ever be truly secure in your opinions until you've had them challenged from all sides and truly, privately, and without ego, considered whether and how those perspectives act on your own views and what your justifiable answers to them would be.

I aspire to this but I think it's hard to do in reality...doesn't mean one shouldn't try though!

terryleather Me too! There is probably only one topic in the world on which I would tentatively claim to have managed that for. And only after many, MANY tediously repetitive debates and reading over a number of years.

Interestingly, despite feeling absolutely firm in my view, it's the debate topic I get least cross about. Because I've heard it all before and know exactly what I think and why I think it. I understand that there are particular counterpoints that I respect (and which they are) even if I don't come down on their side ultimately, which makes it easy to agree to disagree with my opponent on those scores; and I understand which counterpoints are nonsense, and why, which makes it easy to briefly and politely explain to my opponent before privately writing them off as new to the issue or just a dolt without getting too exercised about it. The calm politeness also tends to result in making more headway with people in general.

It's a bloody lot of work to get there on any topic, though, and everything else is - shall we say - a work in progress!

It's not always easy to remember any of the above when getting riled up in the heat of debate, either, particularly when I get the feeling that the other person is pulling "facts" out of their arse unreliable data sources!