This is supposed to be defense of one of too many uncritical “human interest” @nytimes pieces on neo-Nazis and other far right people. It shows depth of ignorance among journalists. nyti.ms/2i621hr
1. First and foremost, it shows media’s tendency to think in clichés - the purely evil bad person and the purely good victim.
2. Second, it shows the enduring problem of white privilege in the media, undoubtedly strengthened by whiteness of newsrooms as noted by @jbouie
3. No other group of bigots gets so much understanding and voice as white racists. They are whitewashed and redefined as misunderstood or willfully ignored.
4. It also shows completely self-obsessed and self-righteous world of media, which first builds up cliché of “neo-Nazis” (to critique right) and then attacks that cliché (to critique left).
6. Much of it is what I can “far right porn”, stories about “well-dressed” male neo-Nazis or “beautiful” female neo-Nazis.
7. These stories feed a base obsessed with the far right, who loves to read about their “rise” and feel “aware” about the danger.
8. To make the stories about often marginal neo-Nazis “newsworthy”, so that it doesn’t look like far right porn, their importance is exaggerated.
9. Given that many of its core readers are highly educated whites, they know situation isn’t really thát bad - unfortunately many others do not and truly believe the hype.
10. The “Nazi next door” story also shows complete disregard of academic knowledge by journalists.
11. Same applies for the “economic anxiety” pieces on Trump support, which misrepresents Trump electorate and whitewashes racism.
12. Academic research from many disciplines have shown that (original) Nazis were not just evil killing machines, but fairly ordinary people.
13. Think of Hanna Arendt’s famous piece on “banality of evil”, of Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men”, or Bernd Eichiger’s “Downfall”.
14. Three decades (!) of empirical research on European far right has convincingly shown that nativism and immigration are key explanations of far right voting.
15. Finally, journalists always respond to critique of long periods of overly normative coverage by short periods of “neutral” coverage, in which (white) people can say whatever they want without pushback or context.
16. “Reporting the news” means neither just letting people speak nor telling readers that those people are good or bad. It means contextualizing the story!
17. To contextualize you need knowledge rather than opinions. This requires resources, such as experts and time.
18. Unfortunately, few media still invest in journalists, who jump from topic to topic, often on free lance or otherwise precarious conditions. Stories are written fast and with aim to sell.
19. This is one reason why I wanted to create a Center for Analysis of Extremism & Democracy: to create space where journalists could learn more about political extremism to improve their writing.
20. Also to connect journalists with academics and practitioners, to make them all communicate better and learn from each other.
21. All of this is, of course, part of bigger issue, which doesn’t only relate to poor coverage of “the” Trump vote or of “the neo-Nazi next door.”
22. Most elite media recruit disproportionally from elite schools which recruit disproportionately from upper class whites on Coasts.
23. Those journalists are then based in big cities on Coasts and only go to “the Heartland” for cliché stories (same for stories on minorities).
24. Perhaps they can start seriously diversifying internship programs, have these non-Coastsl/Ivy/white/male interns shadow established journalists and provide input and feedback.
25. But, more than anything, journalists should get out of their bubbles, on the Coasts and on Twitter, and follow and meet more diverse voices.
26. And realize that journalists are bringers and contextualizers of “news”, not activists, not moralists, not psychoanalysts, not sociologists. #TheEnd
