I think so, Brain … but what if History was true?
… I can remember when our betters in the Progressive elite told us that we should believe all women. It seems that The Rules have changed in Seattle. Christopher F. Rufo has a post over at City Journal about what happened when a rape didn’t fit The Narrative.
A woman was raped by a resident of a Seattle city-sponsored homeless camp. When city officials dismissed calls for measures such as warrant screening at the camp, she worked with Rufo, a documentary film maker, to create a video telling her story in her own words. When the video was posted on FaceBook, the public’s reaction was supportive.
We edited the film together and posted it to Facebook on April 22. That evening, it was the lead story on all four local Seattle news networks and had reached more than 35,000 people on social media. The public renewed its call for warrant checks at city-sanctioned encampments. Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan condemned the assault and commended “the courage of a survivor of sexual violence to speak out.”
Then the Progressive backlash hit.
Seattle’s activist class seems, then, to have more compassion for transient criminals than for the victims of their crimes. Lindsey’s story should be a clarion call for everyone who cares about violence against women. But in the tortured logic of intersectionality, the story of a homeless rapist demands “context,” while the white, blonde, middle-class target of his assault is an unsympathetic victim.
Lindsey’s story reveals a fault line opening between elite opinion and public opinion. Most private citizens praised Lindsey as a heroic survivor and echoed her call for greater safety at homeless encampments. They should reflect on the likelihood that their leaders’ contempt for her extends to them, too.
Read the whole thing.
That’s a question posed by Congresscritter-elect Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) when a recently elected Democrat accused Donald Trump of undermining democracy. The Democrat was unable to cite any example of democracy being undermined. Perhaps a skeptical public should begin asking that question more often.
There was “deliberate interference” with the election in Georgia.
There’s evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the 2016 elections.
The lack of evidence to support a claim reasonably suggests that the claim might be fishy. John Adams once observed that facts are stubborn things, and that stubbornness can be a problem for some political arguments. I expect that we will see more appeals to Homer Simpson’s notion that “[f]acts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!” Especially when those stubborn facts get in the way of The Narrative.
Seen at Instapundit—
SEEN ON FACEBOOK: “Jesus, NBC is still wallowing in the blood. The Borderline shooting is wall-to-wall, pictures of the shooter, his full name, teary next of kin of the victims. It’s like they want copycats.”
Well, of course! Back in the ’60s when I was working in broadcasting, the film crews (this was before portable video tape recorders) would get back with their evening reels, and decisions would have to be taken (choices are taken not made) about which film to develop first. Big car crashes or other disasters would always get processed ahead of the Metro Council meetings. NBC is sticking with an ancient form which has the advantage of also supporting their anti-Second-Amendment narrative.
… I remember when a “fake but accurate” story cost Dan Rather his job. Now, it’s close to the new normal. David Harsanyi writes over at The Federalist:
“Notionally accurate” sounds a lot like “fake but accurate.” Do reporters covering the White House, some of whom are about to release books about the Trump presidency, believe that notional accuracy is a standard that deserves professional deference or serious attention?
Read the whole thing.
I’d be willing to bet that Trump Derangement Syndrome can cause some “journalists” to happily violate even a notionally accurate standard if doing so advances The Narrative.
Winston Churchill once remarked:
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
That says quite a bit about the elections this year. We’ve seen more than the usual share of malicious attacks and ignorant derision, and most, but not all, of course, has come from one side. Thus far, after each outburst, the truth has wound up taking center stage in spite of significant campaigns to confuse the public. As Stacy McCain writes, the truth has been going viral.
When I was working in radio in Nashville back in the ’60s and ’70s, their were only six effective daily news outlets in town: The NBC outlet (WSM-AM/TV), the ABC outlet (WSIX-AM/TV), the two separately owned and staffed CBS outlets (WLAC-TV and WLAC-AM), the morning paper (The Tennessean), and the evening paper (The Nashville Banner). Only one, the Banner, had a conservative point-of-view. In the early ’70s, the Nashville media market began to “diversify” when WPLN joined NPR. Nashville was not unique in left-wing dominance of its news media.
The media landscape isn’t like that anymore. The cost of entry into the news business has essentially evaporated. A $300 laptop and a cup of coffee at Starbucks is all that it takes to access the world via the Interwebs. The result has brought about the left’s worst nightmare, even worse than math for President Obama. They’ve lost control of the narrative.
Chairman Mao once said, “Let a hundred flowers bloom.” That might have been controllable. Millions of flowers are simply too many for them.
UPDATE—Several folks roughly my age at those news operations have gone on to other things. I’ve gone from WLAC-AM to working at Goddard Space Flight Center. Oprah Winfrey moved on from WLAC-TV and Pat Sajak from WSM-TV to other work in television. And Al Gore has moved from The Tennessean to Current TV.
UPDATE 2–An excellent example of viral truth may be found here. Brava, Danielle Saul!