|
Media Fell for Nazi-Manufactured 'White Genocide' Scandal |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35632"><span class="small">Adam Johnson, FAIR</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 04 January 2017 14:50 |
|
Johnson writes: "Fake outrage long enough and it becomes real outrage, as corporate media get played by white supremacists on the altar of objectivity."
Drexel professor George Ciccariello-Maher. (photo: George Ciccariello-Maher/Twitter)
Media Fell for Nazi-Manufactured 'White Genocide' Scandal
By Adam Johnson, FAIR
04 January 17
 “Twitter controversy” broke out on Christmas Day after leftist Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher tweeted out, “All I Want for Christmas Is White Genocide” to his 11,000 followers. The tweet–since deleted–was a play on the white supremacist myth of a “White Genocide,” a canard that whites are under threat from interracial dating and diversity.
Online Nazis (sometimes euphemistically referred to by their prefered marketing descriptor, the “alt-right”) quickly pounced. The faux Twitter outrage was further stoked by the far-right online tabloid Breitbart (12/25/16), which ran the story without any of the essential context (though it took the opportunity to denounce Venezuela’s “communist government,” for some reason). Before one could catch up to the substance of the “controversy,” it was asserted to be a controversy as such.
Much like George Hamilton is famous for being famous, “Twitter backlash” stories are often controversial for being controversial. So long as enough people are tweeting outrage—regardless of their motive or Nazi status—the story becomes one through sheer assertion. Someone is “under fire,” “provoking outrage,” causing “backlash”—no matter if this fire or outrage or backlash is merited, or sincere. What matters is there’s controversy, and this must be breathlessly covered.
In an effort to “both sides” the issue, corporate media indulged racist concern trolling over what, as anyone familiar with the term knows, is a white supremacist panic. Those stoking the outrage, namely Breitbart and hordes of online Nazis, know that the term means interracial relationships and diversity programs, not an actual genocide. Rather than investigate the outrage, its motives and its proper context, most media outlets—and, initially, Ciccariello-Maher’s employer Drexel University themselves—reflexively framed the issue as a leftist professor literally calling for genocide, without noting the cynical origins of the controversy.
As FAIR has noted several times before, headlines matter as much if not more than article text. 60 percent of Americans don’t read past the headline, and the same percentage share articles on social media without actually clicking on them. People’s impressions are formed by how issues are framed—how they are initially presented—and from scanning these headlines one is given the impression Ciccariello-Maher is a pro-genocide zealot:
- “What Is White Genocide? Race War Debated After Drexler Professor Tweets, ‘All I Want For Christmas Is White Genocide’” (IBT, 12/26/16)
- “Pennsylvania Professor Under Fire for ‘White Genocide’ Tweet” (Reuters, 12/26/16)
- “Pennsylvania Prof Under Fire for ‘White Genocide’ Tweet” (ABC/AP, 12/26/16)
- “Professor Under Fire for Tweet That Appeared to Support ‘White Genocide’” (LA Times/AP, 2/26/16)
- “Drexel Professor Slammed for ‘White Genocide’ Christmas Wish” (Fox News, 12/26/16)
- “Drexel University Professor Under Fire for ‘White Genocide’ Tweet” (New York Daily News, 12/26/16)
- “Uproar After Pennsylvania Professor Calls for ‘White Genocide’ in a Christmas Wish Tweet” (Daily Mail, 12/26/16)
It isn’t until three or four paragraphs down in most of these articles that they explain what “white genocide” actually means and the satirical nature of the tweet is dissected.
But the dubious attempt at balance didn’t stop with the headlines; the articles themselves were sometimes embarrassingly tone deaf. International Business Times (12/26/16) put on its Serious Journalism face to write this line:
It’s unclear if he was calling for the mass killing of whites.
Except it wasn’t unclear. Anyone who can take four seconds to google what “white genocide” means knows Ciccariello-Maher was not calling for the killing of one billion people. Common sense and the most basic due diligence are thrown out of the window in the interests of false balance.
The AP stoically reported:
A Drexel University professor has been summoned to a meeting with school officials after he tweeted a Christmas Eve message that appeared to support “white genocide.”
Appeared to whom? Most of the Nazi trolls know what the term meant, and thus understood the irony of it. Breitbart is in the outrage exploitation business, and likely didn’t actually think he was calling for gassing whitey. So to whom did this “appear”? Probably not the AP reporters, who went on to explain its satirical purpose. A meta-outrage sets in: AP’s journalists are not misinformed about what the tweet meant, nor can they identify a specific party who is legitimately confused, so they simply assert that it may, perhaps, “appear” to support killing millions of people.
While some outlets eventually caught up to the scam (USA Today, Slate, Jezebel and, ultimately, IBT), by that point the damage was done: A college professor’s SEO legacy as an advocate of genocide was permanently imprinted on the internet. The knee-jerk, reflexive desire to “cover the controversy” rather than critically investigate it is precisely the radical centrism the Nazi trolls and their right-wing media allies were exploiting. Fake outrage long enough and it becomes real outrage, as corporate media get played by white supremacists on the altar of objectivity.
 |
|
FOCUS: We're Not Opposing Donald Trump With the Unified Fierceness He Deserves |
|
|
Wednesday, 04 January 2017 12:53 |
|
King writes: "Our visible, tangible opposition to Donald Trump simply does not have the unified fierceness he deserves."
Donald Trump is scheduled to become our next President in less than three weeks. (photo: Don Emmert/AFP/Getty)
We're Not Opposing Donald Trump With the Unified Fierceness He Deserves
By Shaun King, New York Daily News
04 January 17
man who some believe to be a pretty terrible human being is scheduled to become our next President in less than three weeks. I won't make yet another rundown of all of the awful things he has said and done. I've done that a dozen times. Pretty much every reputable news outlet in the country has covered Trump's lies, deceit, failed commitments, his unethical business dealings, and his personal admissions on mistreating and sexually assaulting women.
We knew he was a bad man before he was elected. Since he's been elected, his character continues to fail us as a nation. He continues to pour profuse praise on Vladimir Putin. He repeatedly tweets vindictive messages to his "enemies" like he is some villain in a Marvel movie. In ways that we've never seen before from an elected President, he attacks individual journalists, union leaders, actors, comedy shows and Broadway musicals. He openly takes credit for business deals and jobs won that he had little to do with. He recklessly rambles on about nuclear weapons and arms races like it's all a big game. It isn't.
This is all very real. In less than three weeks, this man will pivot from being the President-elect to the President of the United States. He will occupy the Oval Office. He will have the nuclear codes. The FBI, the CIA, and all of our military might will be at his command. With Steve Bannon, who some consider the most offensive, sexist, bigoted, ill-tempered hot heads in the country by Trump's side, as his chief strategist, we are about to enter into a dangerous and troubling new era of American history.
I believe you feel it coming. I believe you see it coming.
The only way what's about to happen is anything other than a complete and total disaster is if Donald Trump's very nature shape shifts into something altogether different. His core values, his essence, the very fabric of his humanity would have to morph and transform in a miraculous manner for us to avoid anything other than calamity.
If he operates the government like he operates his marriages and relationships with women, we are in trouble.
If he operates the government like he operated Trump University, which just settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit with its students for overpromising and under-delivering, we are in trouble.
Yet, as I look out over the country, our visible, tangible opposition to Donald Trump simply does not have the unified fierceness he deserves.
Maybe we are exhausted or overwhelmed or so bewildered that we don't quite know what to do? That's a luxury we cannot afford.
Maybe we are waiting for the Democratic Party to rise up and oppose him for us? That simply isn't going to happen. The Democratic Party is in shambles. Bill and Hillary Clinton are not going to be opposition leaders. As she takes long walks in the forest and as Bill calls Donald to wish him well, I think we've seen clues of what they will be in a Trump administration. Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine has all but faded into the abyss. Will Barack and Michelle Obama, who opposed Trump so masterfully during the final weeks of the election, and seemed to be speaking from the heart while doing so, break tradition and vocally oppose his presidency? Or will they operate like most other former first families and simply give Trump the space to be himself?
Whatever the case, if what we see right now is a sign of the opposition we will be offering to Donald Trump, it's not enough. We must wake out of our Trump-induced stupor and fill the streets not by the dozens, or hundreds, but by the thousands and millions. If we honestly oppose this man like we say we do on Twitter, we must do more than tweet about him. He's about to do much more than tweet. He is about to sign executive orders and back legislation which will be far more problematic than his social media shenanigans. And if all we have are retweets and Facebook likes, we will lose in spectacular fashion.
South Korea should be our role model. For months on end, in fierce opposition to corruption with their President, millions of people filled the streets in protest. At first, what it would accomplish was not clear, but the people knew that corruption necessitates opposition. As the opposition grew and grew and grew, it gripped the nation and eventually broke the back of the administration, causing the ouster of their President.
Trump deserves this type of opposition. It will not grow from the establishment, but from the will and energy of the people. If Donald Trump is going to be opposed, it's going to come from the people and it must start now.
|
|
|
FOCUS: By Attending Trump's Inauguration, the Clintons Are Normalizing It |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 04 January 2017 11:53 |
|
Reich writes: "By attending Trump's inauguration, they're normalizing it - as if Trump were just another president and this were just another inauguration. He's not. It's not."
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
By Attending Trump's Inauguration, the Clintons Are Normalizing It
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
04 January 17
 y attending Trump’s inauguration, they’re normalizing it – as if Trump were just another president and this were just another inauguration. He’s not. It’s not.
I think all of us have a public responsibility to sound the alarm about what is about to occur. This includes former presidents and former presidential candidates.
At the very least, on January 20, at 12 noon eastern time, all of us should refuse to witness Donald Trump's oath of office -- turn off all TV sets, avoid any streaming video -- and instead observe a minute of silence out of concern for the future of American democracy.
What do you think?
|
|
Standing Rock, Flint Prove Environmental Crises Disproportionately Affect People of Color |
|
|
Wednesday, 04 January 2017 09:35 |
|
Excerpt: "The national media's failure to spotlight environmental issues as they arise effectively shuts the people in danger out of the national conversation, resulting in delayed political action and worsening conditions."
The Rev. Rigel Dawson, who leads North Central Church of Christ in Flint, took on the responsibility of distributing bottled water to his congregation. With him is his son, Roman. (photo: Brittany Greeson/WP)
Standing Rock, Flint Prove Environmental Crises Disproportionately Affect People of Color
By Media Matters for America
04 January 17
 n 2016, major environmental crises that disproportionately affect people of color—such as the Flint water crisis and the fight over the location of the Dakota Access Pipeline—were under-covered by the national media for long periods, despite being reported by local and state media early on. The national media's failure to spotlight these environmental issues as they arise effectively shuts the people in danger out of the national conversation, resulting in delayed political action and worsening conditions.
In early 2016, Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder declared a state of emergency in the majority black city of Flint over the dangerous levels of lead in the drinking water—more than a year after concerns about the water were initially raised. While some local and state media aggressively covered the story from the beginning, national media outlets were almost universally late to the story and even when their coverage picked up, it was often relegated to a subplot of the presidential campaign.
One notable exception was MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who provided far more Flint coverage prior to Snyder's state of emergency declaration than every other network combined. Flint resident Connor Coyne explained that when national media did cover the story, they failed to provide the full context of the tragedy by ignoring the many elements that triggered it. In particular, national outlets did not highlight role of state-appointed "emergency managers" who made arbitrary decisions based on budgetary concerns, including the catastrophic decision to draw Flint's water from the Flint River instead of Lake Huron (via the Detroit water system).
This crisis, despite media's waning attention, continues to affect Flint residents every day, meaning serious hardships for a population that's more than 50 percent black, with 40.1 percent living under the poverty line. Additionally, according to media reports, approximately 1,000 undocumented immigrants continued to drink poisoned water for considerably longer time than the rest of the population due in part to a lack of information about the crisis available in their language. Even after news broke, a lack of proper identification barred them from getting adequate filtration systems or bottled water.
At Standing Rock, North Dakota, like in Flint, an ongoing environmental crisis failed to get media attention until it began to escalate beyond the people of color it disproportionately affected. Since June, Native water protectors and their allies have protested against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline which would threaten to contaminate the Missouri River, the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation's primary water source. Several tribes came together to demand that the pipeline be rejected, as it had been when the (mostly white) residents of Bismarck, North Dakota, raised similar concerns.
The tribes' calls for another route option for the pipeline went "criminally undercovered" by the national press until September, when security forces and protesters started clashing violently. CNN's Brian Stelter wondered whether election coverage had crowded out stories about Standing Rock, saying, "It received sort of on-and-off attention from the national media," and, oftentimes, coverage "seemed to fall off the national news media's radar." Coverage of this story was mostly driven by the social media accounts of activists on the ground, online outlets and public media, while cable news networks combined spent less than an hour in the week between Oct. 26, 2016 and Nov. 3, 2016 covering the escalating violence of law enforcement against the demonstrators. Amy Goodman, a veteran journalist who consistently covered the events at Standing Rock, even at the risk of going to prison, told Al Jazeera that the lack of coverage of the issues at Standing Rock went "in lockstep with a lack of coverage of climate change. Add to it a group of people who are marginalized by the corporate media, native Americans and you have a combination that vanishes them."
The reality reflected by these stories is that people of color are often disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and their stories are often disproportionately affected.
In a future in which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could be led by Scott Pruitt—a denier of climate science who has opposed efforts to reduce air and water pollution and combat climate change—these disparities will only get worse. More so than ever, media have a responsibility to prioritize coverage of climate crises and amplify the voices of those affected the most, which hasn't happened in the past.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has reported that more than three-quarters of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. African-Americans are also particularly at risk from climate impacts like rising sea levels, food insecurity, and heat-related deaths, and the black community is three times more likely than whites to die from asthma-related causes. Similarly, Latinos are 60 percent more likely than whites to go to the hospital for asthma and 40 percent more likely to die from asthma than white people. New Hispanic immigrants are particularly "vulnerable to changes in climate" due to "low wages, unstable work, language barriers and inadequate housing," all of which are "critical obstacles to managing climate risk."
Leading environmental justice scholar Robert D. Bullard has found that "government is disproportionately slower to respond to disasters when communities of color are involved." But media has the power to pressure governments into action with investigative journalism. According to a Poynter analysis on media's failure to cover Flint, "a well-placed FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]," a "well-trained reporter covering local health or the environment" or "an aggressive news organization" that could have "invested in independent water testing" could have been decisive in forcing authorities to act much sooner. Providing incomplete, late and inconsistent coverage of environmental crises of this type, which disproportionately harm people of color, has real life consequences. And as Aura Bogado—who covers justice for Grist—told Media Matters, the self-reflection media must undertake is not limited to their coverage decisions; the diversity of their newsrooms may be a factor as well:
"When it comes to reporting on environmental crises, which disproportionately burden people of color, we're somehow supposed to rely on all-white (or nearly all-white) newsrooms to report stories about communities they know very little about. That doesn't mean that white reporters can't properly write stories about people of color—but it's rare."
Media has many opportunities—and the obligation—to correct course. Media has a role to play in identifying at-risk communities, launching early reporting on environmental challenges that affect these communities and holding local authorities accountable before crises reach Flint's or Standing Rock's magnitude.
While the dangers in Flint and Standing Rock eventually became major stories this year, they were not the only ones worthy of attention and there are other environmental crises hurting communities of color that still need the support of media to amplify a harsh reality.
Media could apply the lessons left by scant coverage of the Dakota Access Pipeline and Flint to empower these communities and bring attention to the many other ongoing situations of disproportionate impact that desperately need attention—and change. As Bullard suggests, every instance of environmental injustice is unique, but media coverage should be driven by the question of "how to provide equal protection to disenfranchised communities and make sure their voices are heard."
|
|
he last time a Republican president took office after losing the popular vote, he made it clear that ethics were his highest priority. How could we tell? At every campaign stop, George W Bush ended his stump speech by raising his right hand and promising to uphold not just the laws of the land but what he called “the honor and dignity of the office”. For good measure, he added: “So help me God.”
