Liberal Media's 'Right Thinkers' Suppress 'Wrong' Views at Their Own Peril

By Henry Srebrnik, Online article, [Halifax, NS] Chronicle Herald 

The rise of U.S. President Donald Trump, Hungary’s prime minister Victor Orban, the right-wing Polish Law and Justice (PiS) ruling party, and Britain’s anti-EU Brexiteers, all falling under the rubric of “populism,” have unnerved establishment organs such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Globe and Mail, and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, among others.

They have become very shrill in “defending” a “free press” — as opposed to what they consider the “fake news” of anti-establishment “samizdats.”

But what they really mean is that they adhere to what French philosopher Michel Foucault called a country’s “truth regime,” that is, the ideologically acceptable views of its ruling elites.

In that sense, the Soviet flagship newspaper Pravda also was “free” — it could run debates within its pages about various policy differences within the nomenklatura, arguments about Marxist-Leninist theory and so forth.

But they could not challenge the overarching hegemonic power of the ruling communist circles. That remained off-limits.

The same holds true for “respectable” discourse in today’s Western mass media, which must adhere to a liberal-left political line and its pop slogans. In other words, there are certain parameters that define what is appropriate in public discourse.

Just as Pravda was not able to publish what communists would have considered “anti-socialist propaganda,” so today views not deemed “politically correct” are looked upon with disfavour.

At best, they are deemed “provocative,” “controversial” or “divisive,” and readers are alerted to be on the lookout so they may discount them should they appear in print.

Opinions not seen as worthy of serious consideration are often tagged with words such as “skeptics” (anti-European Union “Euroskeptics”), “deniers” (as in “climate-change deniers”), or “populists” (an elastic word that is applied to anyone the liberal media disparage).

Those who question policies around multiculturalism and immigration, and mantras such as “inclusion” or “diversity,” are written off or silenced, referred to as racists, xenophobes, and so on by those with the “proper” attitude. Such views are, to use religious language, heretical.

So today, many people increasingly distrust and resent the mainstream media. A major reason is that many journalists have crossed the line from reporting to advocacy.

They tend to share a uniform ideology, which originates in their university education, tightly-knit peer groups, and the influence of popular culture since the 1960s.

As a result, newsrooms are often out of touch with the communities they serve.

It gets worse.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced in November that the government was introducing $600 million in tax credits and incentives to help the media industry over the next five years.

A government-appointed panel would determine which organizations would be eligible.

“When the media, or media organizations, or in fact, individual journalist jobs are dependent on government subsidies, that is the antithesis​​ of a free and independent press,” remarked Conservative MP Peter Kent, a retired journalist himself.

This is bad news for journalists, and bad news for journalism. As people continue down the path of growing mistrust of the mainstream media, they will start looking for alternatives.

It also allows those like Trump, himself accused of spreading falsehoods, to portray the media that constantly attack him as themselves purveyors of “fake news.”

Trump in 2016, remember, ran against the entire political class, including the national political media.

It is time the journalistic mainstream addresses this problem. Motivated by good intentions, it has allowed a narrow orthodoxy to restrict debate about the burning questions that confront us today.