Thread. All very true, it’s a question of sadly finite resources. It’s very hard to pick and choose what to respond to, because if you fight every battle that’s all you end up doing. This takes such careful coordination - and so much money.
Investigative journalists have never been more important, because their stories are one of the few things that have the power to disrupt the manufactured controversies of the “culture wars”. They help set the agenda. They need resources so urgently.
It’s so interesting to see how the hard-right are terrified of well-informed celebrities, because they are the sole group with the credibility and reach to consistently battle tabloid headlines.
Imagine the rage (masking fear) you'd see from the hard-right if a group of well-informed celebrities started a progressive media venture: a venture which funded a rotating cast of investigative journalists, who published their stories on the eve of major cultural events.
People who say "politics and sport don't mix" are terrified of the combination of the two, which is still largely untapped. Look at the astonishing impact of Colin Kaepernick. Think about how many "culture wars" he knocked off the front page, just by kneeling. Protest works.
I keep thinking about Dominic Cummings telling Boris Johnson not to pick a fight with Marcus Rashford. A Prime Minister with an 80-seat majority, scared of a 23-year old footballer. And Cummings was right. Johnson lost. That's part of the answer, right there.
The trick is to get a critical mass of well-informed athlete-activists, so they don't feel isolated in their advocacy: to normalise the mixing of sport and progressive politics. I think the WNBA managed that really well and were forerunners of that approach in the modern era.
Marcus Rashford terrifies the hard-right not only because of the brilliance of what he has done but because it can be replicated by other athletes. Pick a single issue, give it a human face, pursue it with relentless focus. That can be taken to scale very quickly.
Hard-right commentators are sweating and sweating about "The Rashford Model", trying to call Rashford a Marxist because they know that sounds scary to people, but people thinking "he doesn't look scary". Fear is such a hard sell. This is the most likeable England team in years.
Anyway, thanks very much to @hannahrosewoods for inspiring this thread. I think a lot about how people can disrupt the narratives around the "culture wars", it's not an easy thing to do, so I just thought I would write down some ideas (and sympathise with her too). /End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The biggest challenge is keeping focus. We are living in a time governed not so much by “debates” and “polarisation” as the outright denial of fact. Large parts of society are not so much “divided” as tearing themselves free from reality. The hardest thing is how to address that.
I have been thinking about this article a lot recently. It was praised for its nuance and balance but it omitted the huge issue for many around the race report - the report’s deliberate distortion of sources, often to the horror of those who were claimed as contributors.
This is something I see constantly in British political discourse: the avoidance of huge and horrifying realities in the search for reassuring nuance. But a Government that lies to the electorate in the vast majority of its Facebook ads doesn’t want nuance. It wants domination.
That narrative of “black lives matter is racist against white people” has really taken such deep roots in the UK. Just a few months from a video of a black person getting choked to death by a police officer, and now you’re “woke” just for caring about that.
When people say “stop being so woke”, they sometimes mean “stop being so self-righteous”. *Most* of the time, though, they mean “stop having integrity”: because they don’t have integrity and they’re too cowardly to get it, so they have to market their own failures as bravery.
The world would get a lot better a lot faster if people stopped using the word “woke” as a defence mechanism and simply admitted “I’m simply too exhausted and terrified to care about anything other than the basic needs of me and my immediate social circle”.
I worry that the debate culture in which so many journalists were raised - where a smart line or argument demolishes the opposition’s case - has made them uniquely vulnerable to this political moment. You can’t beat these people in debate. The platform itself is their victory.
When it comes to anti-democratic actors, sunlight is rarely if ever disinfectant. Sunlight is what they crave. Debate didn’t reduce the effectiveness of online extremists. Removing their platforms did. But of course the biggest profits come from politics as spectacle.