1) Let's talk, a la Kevin Williamson, about how the mainstream media censors journalists whose views it finds inconvenient and uncomfortable. As we saw over the weekend, what genuinely horrifies the Establishment press is anything that speaks real truth to power.
2) They’re also afraid of anything (Hello, Ms. Wolf) that confronts and attacks the tide of authoritarianism that is drowning our democracy, mainly because of the authoritarian backlash they will receive. They have been conditioned to respond this way for years.
3) The primary conditioning is practically embedded into American newsroom ethos: namely, a stark raving fear of being accused of “liberal media bias.”
4) This fear’s potency is based on the fact that it come from both above (their conservative bosses/owners) and below (an army of rabid right-wing readers).
5) In the end, what actually happens is that anyone even suspected of harboring a liberal bias, or whose work might credibly lead to such an accusation, is completely shut out and deplatformed.
6) Instead, the default view of editors and producers is that right-wing views are the only “real world” views.
7) So conservative voices are given special privileged treatment in newsrooms and publishing platforms, while anything that exposes conservative miscreancy is treated like stinky rubbish best shunted out the back door. This is especially true on op-ed pages.
8) Look at Williamson’s example. He’s widely published across a number of Establishment platforms, from NRO now to the WSJ. The Atlantic only chose not to give him a platform when his violent misogyny, previously expressed, surfaced for all to see.
9) In other words, he’s widely read and broadly platformed, is invited on to cable talk shows all the time, and is celebrated for his lack of conventionalism, except of course when it comes to conservative dogma, where he is the apotheosis of the conventional.
10) It was only when it emerged that he has on several occasions argued that women who obtain abortions should face execution (or some similarly severe punishment) that those same editors realized they had embraced a real extremist and backed away from him. Some of them, that is.
11) I offer myself as the counter-example. Despite working a beat for years that is a subject of intense national moment right now (right-wing extremism and terrorism), and being respected both for accuracy and prescience, I'm generally ignored and overlooked by mainstream media.
12) Of course some of this is just my bruised ego bitching, though the truth is I'm long accustomed to it. But it's also a clear example of how the system is skewed to favor right-wing authoritarianism. It's a problem.
13) My book ‘Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump,’ is actually selling rather well in spite of the fact that these major media outlets refuse to even recognize its existence, let alone review it. These include NYT, Atlantic, LAT, NYRB, Nation, and WSJ.
14) Reviews in U.S. have appeared in New Republic and WashPost. And that’s pretty much it for the American press. Even my local Seattle Times only ran an interview.
15) NPR’s Fresh Air interviewed me for over an hour, and then ultimately opted not to interview me, saying vaguely that I wasn’t “a good fit.” Same with other NPR shows. MSNBC’s Maddow and Hayes declined to have me on. CNN wouldn’t return our calls.
16) In Europe, this is much less the case. Here's my appearance in Perugia at the International Journalism Festival two weeks ago (where I was in high demand), so you can judge for yourself how I might fare in a TV interview.
Last week we saw two major acts of violence committed by right-wing extremists, first at the Waffle House in Tennessee and then in Toronto by a van-driving “incel” warrior. Even though ‘Alt-America’ describes these views in detail and warns of their potential, no one called.
18) Our publicists tried, too. People took my name down. No one called back. Instead, the subject that really needs addressing – the mass radicalization of young white males around the world – is just flat out ignored. Did you see any cable chatter about it?
19) I have little doubt that their reluctance is directly related to the fact that I DO directly connect the radical right’s surge to Donald Trump, right in the subtitle. That connection is the elephant in the room. And I gather that calling out its reality is just plain rude.
20) That’s what happens to actual liberal voices speaking out against the tide of authoritarianism: They are deemed “rude” and shunted to the back of the line. That kind of talk is just “uncivil.” Because we must have civility above all, right?
21) So when a comedian drops a Truth Bomb on the same authoritarian-conditioned press, then the discussion becomes endless and fevered. And of course it is access-dependent Beltway journalists who lead the charge to shut it down. Eyeliner indeed.
22) At some point, journalists – that is, the real ones, the folks who take seriously their duty as an institution of democracy to provide accurate and truthful and important information to the voting public – need to stand up and defend themselves against this tide of bullshit.
23) Because, in the end, that must be our ethos: The enemy is not right or left, the enemy is bullshit. And especially authoritarian bullshit. #30 #AltAmerica
