Once again I was
made aware of a current event and dove into a provided article in order to
learn the facts about it. I’m not sure what the source was, I think it was something
like The Daily Beast or Buzz Feed or the Cranky Turtle, or something like that.
I miss the days when news agencies didn’t try to have hipster sounding names
and stuck to names like The Post, The Tribune, or The Reporter. At least then
you knew they were owned by establishment types, whereas now you’re led to
believe they are led by hip young counter-culture types.
The news of the day
was that Disney fired Gina Carano for making controversial remarks on social
media. I clicked on the link to read the actual article to find out what she
said. I don’t think people are actually expected to do this, I think they are
supposed to take their cues from headlines and have their opinions provided to
them rather than making up their own minds. Nevertheless, the purveyors of news
feel like they have to give the appearance of actual reporting by including an
article to go along with the headline. It’s a time-waster for suckers like me
who hope to find actual substance in it.
It turns out that
the headline these days is the frosting on a sponge cake. Made from an actual
sponge. There is not actual “there” there, anymore, not in mainstream media. My
experience with corporate journalism articles since Trump became president has
been this: Enticing headline which makes me want to know more, followed by paragraphs
that reassert the headline without giving actual evidence for the assertion,
peppered with links that don’t provide the actual evidence I’m looking for, often
ending in an admission that the actual assertions might not be true. Look at
any Russiagate
article you’ve shared with others with a critical eye and you’ll understand
what I’m talking about.
Before going any further, I would like to point out that I am not and have never been a
Republican or a conservative. I have always considered myself to be firmly on
the left, which is why I’ve always been sensitive regarding the idea that people’s
livelihoods can be ruined because of the way they exercise their freedom of
speech. I always thought this was a liberal idea. After all, Joe McCarthy was a
Republican who smeared and ruined the lives of many a leftist. But it is also
worth noting that it was during a Democratic administration that the silencing
of Paul Robeson took place. It was under a Democratic administration that Eartha Kitt’s career was derailed after she spoke out against the Vietnam War
in front of Ladybird Johnston.
Here
is one article on the firing of Gina Carano that serves as a template for what is wrong with journalism in general. Please keep in mind the title
says Here’s Why Gina Carano Was Fired From ‘The Mandalorian’, the key
word being “Why”.
According to the
article, “she reshared a post that seemed to suggest having a differing
political view in 2021 was similar to being Jewish during the Holocaust”. A
statement from Lucasfilm states “Her social media posts denigrating people based
on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
That’s a big
stretch there. Taken on faith that Carano’s intent was to suggest having a
differing political view was similar to being Jewish during the Holocaust, it
does not equate to “denigrating people based on their cultural and religious
identities” In fact, it implies that Carano is identifying with the Jews, not denigrating
them. Nor is the post intended to equate Republicans with Jews so much as it is
to equate the current political climate with something capable of becoming
comparable to Nazi Germany. Her crime is one of hyperbole and a demonstration
of Godwin’s Law, but I do not see it as a denigration of people based on their
cultural and religious identities.
The comparison of
one’s political opponents to Nazis is overused, but there is some value to it.
You don’t want to wait until eugenics is in full swing to start comparing people
to Nazis. It’s the kind of thing you want to nip in the bud, so in my opinion,
it is safer to compare bad behavior to Nazism than it is to worry about hurting
people’s sensibilities.
Besides, it’s not
like Democrats have not been engaging in the exact same behavior for four
years. Type in an image search for “Trumpler” and see what you come up with (Let
me know how many pages of images you find).
So is that the trespass
she is accused of? Comparing the current political climate to Nazi Germany? I
guess the way to prove her wrong would be to incite a mob on social media to
demand she be fired from her job, right?
There’s more,
though, than just that one tweet, I get it. There was a string of unpopular
things she shared on social media, this was merely the final straw. Apparently,
she shared memes that “made fun of the mask mandate in California, compared
former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial to Groundhog
Day, and claimed Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.”
In terms of spreading
the belief that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself, few people believe the official story. I know exactly one person who implied he did. Virtually everybody knows there’s more to the story than we are being told, and
many just shorthand the assertion that the media is lying by saying “Epstein
didn’t kill himself.” Do I personally think he did? How would I know, the cameras
that were supposed to be watching him didn’t work. But everybody knows that it’s
fishy as hell. Even the media people whose job it is to silence discussion on
Jeffrey Epstein know it, even if they can’t say it.
As for her
comparing Trump’s second impeachment to Groundhog Day, is this seriously a reason
for getting someone fired? Seriously?
Lastly is the
issue of her making fun of California’s mask mandate. On this issue I
personally disagree with her. At least I think I do, I’m not personally
familiar with California’s mask mandate. And I’m not sure what exactly she said,
though I suspect it would be nothing I would try to get someone fired for. Let
us delve further into the article and get to the specifics.
Except there are no
further tweets or other social media shares to be found in the article. Let me
correct myself, there are no further tweets found in the article by Gina Carana.
Instead the article shares angry tweets by anonymous tweeters calling for
Carana to be fired. Within one is the assertion that she has expressed transphobic sentiments. But the article does not go on to share any evidence to back up the claim of an anonymous person on Twitter. Let me be clear: this article includes the assertion of an anonymous person on Twitter, and then does absolutely nothing to say if that assertion is true or false.
And this passes for
journalism. Maybe it’s just me, but if I were paid to report on the reason why
someone in the public eye lost her job for voicing her political opinions, I
would do the work and provide the actual social media posts she made, rather
than the angry tweets of anonymous people.
I was introduced to
this story by someone sharing another
article. It was an article that told me how I should perceive the
situation without providing me with the evidence I needed to make up my own
mind. I responded to the social media post by saying I could not find the actual
statements she made or shared. Someone else commented that I should follow the
links in the article. That person had assumed that actual paid journalists would
provide such information. But I had long ago discovered differently. There were
links, yes, but nothing to anything that provided any evidence. Not unlike the
Russiagate article I linked to above, which had no links even insinuating ANYTHING
about any Russians. The article in question was shared with me by an intelligent
person hoping to persuade me that Russian collusion was fact. An article that
mentions Russia nowhere but in the headline.
Journalism in our era
is not there to provide you with information, it is there to provide you with opinion.
But if you take exception to anything provided by establishment media, you are
accused of not accepting the facts or reality. And arguing your case will never
amount to anything.
They’ve got this
down to a science. They have propaganda and manipulation of the masses down to
a science. In the nearly one hundred years since the nephew of Sigmund Freud,
Edward Bernays, began using psychological principles for marketing and
propaganda purposes, think tanks and government entities have learned a lot.
You have to be aware of how this stuff works if you don’t want to fall prey to
it. Read everything critically, with the knowledge that there is always someone
trying to manipulate your feelings and how you view reality.
Again, I am not and
have never been a member of the Republican Party. I am not writing what I am
writing to defend them or Gina Carano or any particular position. I am writing this in the attempt to hold Democrats and the (alleged) left media to a
standard that rises above FOX News or Alex Jones. Right now, I often wonder if they’re
even capable of rising to the same sad standard.
If you liked what I write enough to support me, you can buy me a coffee. If you liked it but don't have a credit card handy, please share. Also, follow me on Twitter or Facebook, sign up for my newsletter, or check me out on Amazon.
No comments:
Post a Comment