BRUCE EVANS: America’s Culture Wars Amplified My Misleading Media


BRUCE EVANS • Guest review

Bruce Evans was born, raised and educated in Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. After a Dal MBA, he pursued a career in project financing in several cities — Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, New York and Los Angeles — with various international financial players (Canadian, Japanese, French and Australian). He is happily retired to Arizona, volunteering, walking a dog named Charli, and working to earn a golf handicap down south.

I put pen to paper (well, fingers to keyboard, full disclosure) for two reasons.

First, to attempt to provide some factual context to my Canadian friends regarding what they have read or seen in their national press about certain American events.

Second, to stimulate debate regarding the influences of polarized media, Big Tech’s social agenda, and corporate overreaching into the social sphere, aka “wake-up call.”

And into the breach we go.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Canadians feel that the more conservative US states are spiraling out of control, presaging great societal peril should Republicans regain Congress later this year and the presidency in just over two year.

The American media tends to be plagued by biases that lean more than a little towards the liberal-progressive worldview. These are very often picked up and republished by much of the Canadian media without the usual critical analysis or journalistic skepticism. Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al) seeks to influence the narrative through suspicious fact checking, algorithmic shenanigans, and selective user banning.

And to complete the triumvirate of social proscription, there are companies, such as Disney or Procter & Gamble, who presume their missions extend to educating (harassing?) customers on appropriate social behavior. I stopped buying P&G products three years ago when they started running ads defining how to be a man. Soap when you wake up? No thanks. And almost without fail, these efforts and messages are based on emotional appeals, not facts.

The abortion dispute

Perhaps the hottest US news right now is the leak of a draft opinion from the US Supreme Court regarding a pending ruling that would overturn the 1973 SCOTUS ruling on abortion , Roe v. Wade.

First of all, everyone has the right to have their own opinion on abortion — it’s between them and their conscience and/or God.

Second, if Roe is overthrown, he does not ban abortion. It simply returns the jurisdiction to which it has always belonged, the 50 individual states. See the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Third, the 1973 Supreme Court invented rights that are not in the Constitution, including a right to privacy that does not exist in this document, to support an erroneous decision. Basically, assume a conclusion, make up/distort facts to support it.

Fourth, if Americans want to establish a national abortion law, it will require a constitutional amendment; an arduous process, as it should be – for example, should it be easy to amend the Constitution to revoke the rights to freedom of speech and religion? I do not think so.

Finally, Canada’s abortion laws are well defined and rooted in your own legal system. Would anyone in Canada, including the Prime Minister, who was quick to intervene on this issue despite its extraterritoriality, be excited if the Finnish Supreme Court decided to overturn an equivalent Roe v. Wade? For all the hyperbole and protest garb of Handmaid’s Tale, this is about constitutionality, not a retrograde attempt to impose moral restriction.

Facts matter.

Storm “don’t say gay”

Two months ago, Florida enacted HB1557, the Parental Rights in Education Act. To listen to the majority of the American media, this new law represents a dozen steps backwards in terms of homophobia, transphobia and other forms of sexist bigotry.

The press and the Democratic machine called it a “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Big Tech and Disney have jumped on the woke and fake bandwagon. Disney may have come to regret the move, both in terms of consumer denial and legislative change to their Orlando park’s past status as a quasi-governmental entity.

What does the bill really say? He says topics regarding sexual identity and orientation cannot be discussed in Kindergarten through Grade 3 without parental notification and consent – ​​that is, children aged five to eight. ! If these matters arise, education administrators are required to refer them to parents. Outrageous, right? On March 1, CBC’s As It Happens interviewed a Florida couple “my two dads” with a four-year-old daughter. They feared that this bill would lead to state-sanctioned ostracism, or worse, to the lifestyle of their daughter and her family.

The CBC caller swallowed the flawed logic of hook, line, and sinker without analytical query. The opposite is true. Imagine a homophobic teacher trying to promote a furiously heteronormative philosophy in a Florida freshman class. HB1557 protects this daughter and her two fathers from hate speech and bigoted instruction and demands that the teacher’s “lesson outline” be reported to them and removed from the curriculum.

Clearly, liberal-progressive politicians and media either did not bother to read the bill or, worse, deliberately chose to misrepresent it. HB1557 is only six and a half pages long. Here is a summary, with a link to the full invoice. Please read it. I’ll wait.

Ah, there you are, already back. Let’s move on.

Racial magnifying glass

Nowhere perhaps is the danger to society more existential than in the false characterization of much of the American population, including law enforcement, as racist white supremacists.

The #1 example is the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. BLM and its supporters are quick to jump on any situation that can be used to paint the police or others as racist killers. After all, aren’t hundreds, if not thousands, of unarmed black people brutally shot by police every year?

According to a Washington Post report, the number of people killed by police during the arrest and arrest process has remained stable at around 1,000 per year since 2014. Of this total, on average, 6% were not unarmed and the ratio of whites to blacks averages 2:1. To you, does this sound like rampant, systemic murderous racism?

Unfortunately, much of the violence in the black community is committed by black people. According to FBI statistics, in 2019, 89% of black people murdered in the United States were killed by other black people, especially in downtown Chicago, New York, Atlanta, etc.

I raise these statistics not to place blame but rather to present the issue in a more factual and less emotional light. But organizations like BLM don’t seem to care about bloodshed in their own backyards. Weekly totals of black murders in their own neighborhoods are ignored.

The problems in America’s inner city are tragic and horrifying – gang violence, crime and drugs, low graduation rates, fatherless families. But likely solutions are difficult and incurable with soundbites, protests and fundraising on the back of individual tragedies (tellingly, BLM is under investigation for the alleged embezzlement of funds to buy lavish residences for its leaders).

Falsely accusing otherwise decent people of white supremacy and racism does not help solve the problem; it exacerbates it by driving into corners and creating false narratives. As Rodney King said after the Los Angeles riots in 1992, “Can’t we all get along? »

Green signals

But all is not lost.

Hope Exhibit A: Elon Musk.

A man of no particular political color. A true libertarian with a deep and abiding love for freedom of expression. Thanks to his net worth of $270 billion, he was able to bid $44 billion on Twitter without having to worry about how to raise the dough. Apparently, he sees the investment less in capitalistic terms but more in aiding the facilitation of unfettered speech and thought by common electronic carrier agendas thereof.

We don’t need the Jack Dorseys or the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world dictating what we can or cannot discuss, freed from the intrusions of anonymous fact-checkers of undisclosed qualification. “Content moderation” is just a less alarming term for censorship. Musk is also focusing the disinfecting sun on Big Tech’s manipulation of internet search response rankings.

Hopefully Exhibit B:

Some of the left’s most public spokespersons, like Bill Maher, challenge their woke colleagues for the ridiculous lengths the movement has gone to. Maher and others are using their platforms to bring thoughtful people back to the center. And rationality.

Hope Coin C:

Companies that exist on the “more enlightened” edges of society see the error of giving in to a small fringe of woketoids. Netflix has told its most trigger-sensitive employees to look for work in happier climates. Maybe other CEOs will take a lesson from Netflix.

We will see how far this pendulum swings in terms of factual analysis taking precedence over purely emotional reactions. We can look forward to a new Age of Enlightenment, if not in politics, at least in more unbiased dissemination of information via many platforms – an enlightenment that will hopefully also bring down the scales of the collective eyes of the most woke. of us, whether in the press, Big Tech or corporate America.

I’m optimistic.

Source link

Comments are closed.