This article views “the media” as though it was still 2000. Today, the media is bifurcated and the more influential by far is the right wing media world. Media, for example, includes talk radio, which has been a deeply conservative format for a generation. Podcasts are all over the place but none carry a fraction of the influence of Joe Rogan, who has legitimized scores of radical right wing influencers. And speaking of influencers, the is an entire subculture of traditional conservative online outlets from TikTok to Youtube to blogs gathered under the PJ Media heading to Truth Social. Fox News has defeated all more centrist and left-leaning TV news outlets both in viewership and power. The overall number of newspapers has shrunk drastically, reducing their influence. Many, like the NY Post, were once avowedly liberal but, in the age of Murdoch, are now highly successful right wing outlets that wear their bandleader function as a badge of honor.
Many blame this on the liberal leanings of the now defunct “mainstream media” for alienating audiences in “flyover country”, as though those leanings were a new phenomenon rather than the reality since at least WWII. Undoubtedly, many in Middle America have been turned off by the asserted liberal focus on identity politics but much of that impression was stage-managed by conservative outlets and organizations, which are far more organized and effective at messaging than the hapless Democrats.
No messaging has had greater effect than the hard right attack on transgender people, which was and is a very small and vulnerable part of society. It makes for good press to rally around the portrayal of children and women being preyed upon by aggressive transwomen, something that is extraordinarily rare and nonexistent compared to violence from men. This issue reflects the true dominance of the right wing media.
Look, the left has a lot of problems and needs to focus on bread and butter issues. But left-leaning journalists and media outlets are toothless tigers, vanquished by a well-funded, organized conservative political and economic establishment. The same is true of moderate journalists and media outlets. The entire media structure has changed; old media — from the national networks to newspapers to publishing, is dying rapidly while the MAGA world is ascendant. Understanding the past, in this case, offers little by way of solutions.
I'm afraid I read this article and am still bewildered! What are these "radically new ideas" about race that the media has, allegedly, uncritically accepted? You don't give any examples. You say: "much of the Western media is now operating on a set of assumptions – gender is a social construct, multiculturalism is always good, and so forth" - but what is the evidence for that, and what is the kind of story that betrays it? You briefly give an example in relation to gender (the belief that people belong straightforwardly to two genders), but again I don't see why you think that's something that's been suddenly pushed by the media. The UK Gender Recognition Act is over twenty years old, prompted (IIRC) by caselaw rather than media pressure, its controversies extensively reported before and since. You refer to a Spiked article complaining about a use of pronouns, but I don't understand why you believe an (essentially subeditorial) decision is more significant than the fact that all these media have chosen to report on the case of a trans person who is also an (alleged) sex pest. As you say, story selection and framing matter too. Plus you refer to immigration as though it's a topic that is taboo for the media, rather than one that has decorated UK front pages for decades. These are common enough talking points and I'd like to understand what they're getting at, but I don't!
Thanks Jack, you raise some good points and of course I was writing to a word count so I had to gloss over a few things, but I'll try to address them here:
- On multiculturalism, there's a tendency to label anyone who criticises it as 'far right' regardless of their other views - the same label used for racist and often violent extremists. There's very little debate in the media over whether we should continue to organise our social policy around culturally distinct ethnic 'communities' - as opposed to a multi-ethnic but culturally unified society - despite clear indications that this has become an important question for voters.
- On gender, the GRA broadly reflects the traditional view that I outlined: that most people's gender aligns with their sex but a small number of people have dysphoria, and that they should be allowed to change their legal status after undergoing appropriate checks. It does not account for self-ID or for nonbinary identities. The new, radical view is that the male/female binary is wrong; that there should be no medical or legal hurdles for someone to be recognised as trans; and that parents, teachers and paediatricians should affirm trans ideation in children (which can lead them to undergo surgery that they later regret, as a large number of cases are now demonstrating). Some language used by the media (nonbinary pronouns, respecting female identification of male sex offenders who haven't medically or legally transitioned) suggests that many have adopted this view.
- I think there is a clear news value to stories of self-proclaimed transwomen waving their willies at children, staring at women in changing rooms etc. It demonstrates that self-ID can be exploited by predatory men, which puts women and children in danger and also risks stoking public hostility towards genuine trans people.
Ok thanks , I think your position is indeed a bit clearer to me now. I still don’t agree that there’s a “radically new idea around race” that’s suddenly been put out there.
Excellent and very thought provoking. It brings to mind the comment occasionally heard from media management in supposedly impartial organisations of measuring the level of complaints from either side of a debate to help determine whether they have the right balance in their reporting. But, if you have what is a publication with an inherently left or right wing audience, such a process is only going to be self-fulfilling unless carefully calibrated.
Yes indeed. Complaints are also generally the preserve of a motivated minority, and this can sometimes be exploited by pressure groups to give the impression of being more mainstream than they are. The same is true of comments under articles, though fortunately The Leopard is not prominent enough for such concerns!
This article views “the media” as though it was still 2000. Today, the media is bifurcated and the more influential by far is the right wing media world. Media, for example, includes talk radio, which has been a deeply conservative format for a generation. Podcasts are all over the place but none carry a fraction of the influence of Joe Rogan, who has legitimized scores of radical right wing influencers. And speaking of influencers, the is an entire subculture of traditional conservative online outlets from TikTok to Youtube to blogs gathered under the PJ Media heading to Truth Social. Fox News has defeated all more centrist and left-leaning TV news outlets both in viewership and power. The overall number of newspapers has shrunk drastically, reducing their influence. Many, like the NY Post, were once avowedly liberal but, in the age of Murdoch, are now highly successful right wing outlets that wear their bandleader function as a badge of honor.
Many blame this on the liberal leanings of the now defunct “mainstream media” for alienating audiences in “flyover country”, as though those leanings were a new phenomenon rather than the reality since at least WWII. Undoubtedly, many in Middle America have been turned off by the asserted liberal focus on identity politics but much of that impression was stage-managed by conservative outlets and organizations, which are far more organized and effective at messaging than the hapless Democrats.
No messaging has had greater effect than the hard right attack on transgender people, which was and is a very small and vulnerable part of society. It makes for good press to rally around the portrayal of children and women being preyed upon by aggressive transwomen, something that is extraordinarily rare and nonexistent compared to violence from men. This issue reflects the true dominance of the right wing media.
Look, the left has a lot of problems and needs to focus on bread and butter issues. But left-leaning journalists and media outlets are toothless tigers, vanquished by a well-funded, organized conservative political and economic establishment. The same is true of moderate journalists and media outlets. The entire media structure has changed; old media — from the national networks to newspapers to publishing, is dying rapidly while the MAGA world is ascendant. Understanding the past, in this case, offers little by way of solutions.
I'm afraid I read this article and am still bewildered! What are these "radically new ideas" about race that the media has, allegedly, uncritically accepted? You don't give any examples. You say: "much of the Western media is now operating on a set of assumptions – gender is a social construct, multiculturalism is always good, and so forth" - but what is the evidence for that, and what is the kind of story that betrays it? You briefly give an example in relation to gender (the belief that people belong straightforwardly to two genders), but again I don't see why you think that's something that's been suddenly pushed by the media. The UK Gender Recognition Act is over twenty years old, prompted (IIRC) by caselaw rather than media pressure, its controversies extensively reported before and since. You refer to a Spiked article complaining about a use of pronouns, but I don't understand why you believe an (essentially subeditorial) decision is more significant than the fact that all these media have chosen to report on the case of a trans person who is also an (alleged) sex pest. As you say, story selection and framing matter too. Plus you refer to immigration as though it's a topic that is taboo for the media, rather than one that has decorated UK front pages for decades. These are common enough talking points and I'd like to understand what they're getting at, but I don't!
Thanks Jack, you raise some good points and of course I was writing to a word count so I had to gloss over a few things, but I'll try to address them here:
- On multiculturalism, there's a tendency to label anyone who criticises it as 'far right' regardless of their other views - the same label used for racist and often violent extremists. There's very little debate in the media over whether we should continue to organise our social policy around culturally distinct ethnic 'communities' - as opposed to a multi-ethnic but culturally unified society - despite clear indications that this has become an important question for voters.
- On gender, the GRA broadly reflects the traditional view that I outlined: that most people's gender aligns with their sex but a small number of people have dysphoria, and that they should be allowed to change their legal status after undergoing appropriate checks. It does not account for self-ID or for nonbinary identities. The new, radical view is that the male/female binary is wrong; that there should be no medical or legal hurdles for someone to be recognised as trans; and that parents, teachers and paediatricians should affirm trans ideation in children (which can lead them to undergo surgery that they later regret, as a large number of cases are now demonstrating). Some language used by the media (nonbinary pronouns, respecting female identification of male sex offenders who haven't medically or legally transitioned) suggests that many have adopted this view.
- I think there is a clear news value to stories of self-proclaimed transwomen waving their willies at children, staring at women in changing rooms etc. It demonstrates that self-ID can be exploited by predatory men, which puts women and children in danger and also risks stoking public hostility towards genuine trans people.
Ok thanks , I think your position is indeed a bit clearer to me now. I still don’t agree that there’s a “radically new idea around race” that’s suddenly been put out there.
Excellent and very thought provoking. It brings to mind the comment occasionally heard from media management in supposedly impartial organisations of measuring the level of complaints from either side of a debate to help determine whether they have the right balance in their reporting. But, if you have what is a publication with an inherently left or right wing audience, such a process is only going to be self-fulfilling unless carefully calibrated.
Yes indeed. Complaints are also generally the preserve of a motivated minority, and this can sometimes be exploited by pressure groups to give the impression of being more mainstream than they are. The same is true of comments under articles, though fortunately The Leopard is not prominent enough for such concerns!
Sam, this is one of the best articles I’ve read lately on substack. Restack!
Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed it.