There’s certainly a far right to fear, but why won’t mainstream media apply equal vigilance to the far left?
Reporters increasingly display their mistrust of readers by telling them what to think; in doing so, they are undermining faith in their craft
There was a time when the term “far right” was reserved for describing seriously dangerous, creepy people.
The label used to refer primarily to the likes of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, serial anti-Semite Ernst Zundel and hate instructor Jim Keegstra. Others who qualified included residents of white supremacist compounds in Idaho, heavily-armed Freemen enclaves in Montana and neo-Nazis such as those who rallied in Charlottesville, N.C.
These days?
The term is thrown about so loosely it could apply to church-going stay-at-home moms who think Canada should go back to accepting 400,000 immigrants annually instead of a million and believe criminals with penises belong in men’s prisons.
That’s because a great many journalists are using the label to defend the powers that be by cautioning readers about individuals and organizations opposed to the progressive verities of the day. Given that the term “far-left” is so rarely applied, it’s difficult for observers to conclude otherwise. Activists thus are free to claim increasingly extreme territory on the left without fear of prompting any alarm, let alone sanction, and the spectrum shifts accordingly.
Perhaps journalists are trained to do their job this way. Or maybe no one ever told them left wing extremism killed 100 million people in the 20th Century. Who knows?
What we do know is that not so long ago, wise editors stayed away from allowing the use of subjective adjectives in reporting. Or, if they were used, supervisors would insist they be applied equally so that the “right wing” Fraser Institute got the same treatment as the “left wing” Centre for Policy Alternatives. I prefer journalism that eschews adjectives, but I did once work with opinion writers who thought it was fair to describe Reform Party supporters, for instance, as “brown shirts” - a reference to uniforms worn by German Nazis.
The problem then, as it is now, was that my colleagues had no interest in taking the time to explain to readers why using such a slur - and it is definitely one of those - was appropriate. To them, the parallel was self evident, which made it easy to just pull the pin on their belletristic hand grenade and watch to see how much damage it did when it exploded in the public square of opinion.
It’s main aim then, as it is now, was to shut down debate.
Fast forward a couple of decades and use of such terminology is no longer restricted to opinion pieces. It’s now standard practice in news stories such as this one posted on CTV’s website.
The author details how a “brand new left-wing coalition” in France joined with unions and anti-racism groups to protest the “surging nationalist far right” headed by Marine Le Pen, leader of Rassemblement National.
“Those who fear that the elections will produce France’s first far-right government since World War II gathered at Place de la Republique,” writes Jade Le Deley of Associated Press.
In other words, Nazi equivalents are threatening to seize control of France. Unfortunately, Le Deley offered no information to justify the use of the term “far right” - perhaps because Associated Press believes, like my former colleagues, that it is self-evident.
As with most news consumers, though, I like to form my own opinions, so I looked to Wikipedia to find out more about Marine Le Pen’s sympathies.
She’s certainly conservative, believes that multiculturalism has failed, wants a moratorium on immigration and is opposed to what she calls the “Islamization” of France. She also appears to have purged her party of racists, including her father. She favours open access to abortion, is opposed to the death penalty, supports the Euro and rejects the privatization of public utilities and the Post Office. She also appears favourably disposed to democracy and the rule of law.
But I’ll leave it to you to decide whether she fits this Wikipedia definition of “far right:”
“Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.”
I expect some of you will agree that Le Pen fits that definition and some of you won’t. But the point is that - unlike the reporter who wrote the story - I have supplied you with some information that allows you to decide for yourself.
Journalists who don’t trust their readers and feel compelled to instruct them how to think about events, shouldn’t be surprised when they lose the public’s faith in their work. Why, after all, would readers trust reporters when reporters make it clear they don’t trust readers?
Le Deley did note that within the left-wing (but not far left-wing because apparently there is nothing to be alarmed about there) coalition, “Some chanted ‘Free Palestine, viva Palestina,’ and wore keffiyeh scarves.”
Wikipedia’s definition of the far left can be found here. You may recognize some positions:
“Far-left groups support redistribution of income and wealth. They argue that capitalism and consumerism cause social inequality and advocate their dissolution.”
I’ll leave it with you.
This is an awkward time to be criticizing Global News given the obviously distressed state of its parent company, Corus Entertainment, whose CEO took “early retirement” last week after shares traded as low as $0.14.
But I’m afraid this story cries out for correction. The entire piece is based on an unsubstantiated allegation by one individual who told the reporter trans youth are being denied gender-affirming care by psychologists and doctors in Red Deer due to fears of repercussions from the Alberta government’s proposed parental rights policy.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the reporter attempted to speak with any doctors or psychologists in Red Deer to confirm or deny the sole-source allegation. Nor is there any evidence that Global News attempted to speak with any of the trans youth who Amy Mendenhall, executive director of the trans support agency HOME, says have been denied care. Had to read it several times to believe it, but the entire “story” is based on - at best - second hand information regarding what somebody told someone somebody else said to them.
That is no foundation upon which to base journalism. Little wonder it needs a government bailout to survive in this country.
Thanks this week to Scott Radley of Hamilton’s 900CHML and Alex Pierson of AM640 Toronto for having me on their programs last week. I was also interviewed by Quinton Amundson of The Catholic Register. Thanks for the interest.
(Subscriptions are free unless you prefer otherwise! Sign up!)
Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, past vice-chair and AB-NWT Commissioner at the CRTC, former editor-in-chief and publisher of the Calgary Herald and a National Newspaper Award winner. He also worked as executive director of the Royal Saskatchewan Museum.
Superrb piece ... a must read, from Mr. Menzies ...
Bang on!