By Brian Birdnow
Monday, October 14, 2013
The current politically correct imbroglio over the
Washington Redskins and owner Daniel Snyder’s stout refusal to appease the
bloodhounds on his trail by surrendering will probably soon pass, regardless of
the eventual outcome. The demands of the modern 24-hour news cycle guarantee
that this will not last too long. This mini-controversy does, however, serve to
illustrate the nature of the manufacturing of public opinion by the standard
bearers of cultural liberalism and their allies in the mass media, circa 2013.
Simply put, the Left decides that something is “offensive” and uses its media
access to declare this object impermissible, or “out of bounds” to use a
gridiron term. The media then goes to work and, through relentless pressure,
convinces huge numbers of people that the media view is the only legitimate
vision, thereby silencing opposition.
Consider the current controversy over the Washington
Redskins. The political correctness police have been on this so-called issue
for a number of years. Those readers with long memories can return to those
thrilling days of yesteryear, namely the early 1990s. The Left raised a ruckus
in those years over the Kansas City Chiefs, the Florida State Seminoles and the
Atlanta Braves, respectively. Most Americans, with the exception of certain
craven university administrators, dismissed this tempest as a classic example
of self-conscious political correctness, complete with the requisite dollop of
preening moral superiority that characterizes these exercises. The matter then
rested, albeit uneasily, for roughly twenty years.
Now interested people can sense an indecisive NFL
commissioner who is susceptible to pressure, and might cave on the issue.
President Obama got into the act last week and suggested that the Redskins
should change their nickname because, “…it offends a sizable group of people.”
Since the Left now has the official sanction of their leader this becomes a
crusade. The mass media will take up the issue, framing it as a morality play
with those who insist on the Redskins changing their nickname cast as the heroes,
and the die-hards who cling to tradition characterized as the villains. The
media echo chamber will attempt to quell dissenters by hurling invective and
abuse in their direction, thereby intimidating most people into silence. The
Left will deal with the last holdouts by isolating them and letting them no
that they are no longer invited to the party.
This treatment falls short of the totalitarian notion of
the Big Lie, being the idea that a falsehood repeated often enough takes on
truth in the minds of those who are forced to listen. It is more of a modern
variation of the idea popularized by Saul Alinsky, that the best way to
discredit one’s enemies is to subject them to constant mockery and ridicule,
and to plant the idea in the minds of the larger public that the targeted group
is truly beyond the bounds of permissible discourse. This tactic has worked
well, when adopted by the Left and the media in the recent past. Since the
1970s we have seen major societal shifts in civic attitudes toward public smoking,
the consumption of liquor, eating meat, and wearing fur. Those are largely
matters of individual preference but we have seen media directed campaigns
considering obscenity standards on television, and most consequentially on gays
in the military and, now, gay marriage. The Left and their media allies have
been able to draw the lines of argument and permissible dissent in these public
brawls and that is why they have triumphed, usually in the face of significant
initial opposition.
The Left had grown very sure of their control of mass
media until about 1995. Now, however, the Left has lost some of their former
ability to slam their opponents with the development of 1990s phenomena like
talk radio, the internet and Fox News and more recently through the employment
of social media like weblogs, Facebook and Twitter. Conservative websites like
this one have broken the liberal “news” monopoly, and provide a resistance
point for those unwilling to accept the liberal formulation on most important
sociocultural issues. The fact that these new media outlets have become quite
important can be measured in the rage that the Left directs at them, especially
Fox News. If an opponent is really no more than a mere annoyance one would
waste no time with criticizing them, but the liberals unrestrained fury at Fox
News shows that they have struck many nerves.
No one yet knows how the Redskins battle will play itself
out. Dan Snyder seems resolute in his stand, but his fellow owners could bring
a lot of pressure to bear. Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner, could
conceivably order Snyder to change the team name. The National Football League
has proven itself controversy-averse in the past (the league essentially vetoed
the prospect of Rush Limbaugh as a part owner of the St. Louis Rams during the
last decade) and might well decide to avoid difficulties by “encouraging”
Snyder to change the nickname or sell the team. What the casual observer can
see here is, once again, the ability of the Left and their media allies to
create a crisis where none exists, and to relentlessly push their agenda by any
means at their disposal. The world, of course, has greater problems than the
nickname of an American football team, but the cultural implications of this
type of bullying and censorship are very troubling, indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment