Sometimes, it really can feel like the riot act is being read to you, proverbially speaking of course. This can come from all sorts of directions, from your parents, from your boss or supervisor, even from your friends sometimes. Where you might not want it to come from? From your news source. Personally, I'm not really the sort that responds well to having people get up in arms about something, particularly when it feels as though I'm being yelled at, scolded, or generally spoken to like I'm an idiot. That's really just not a proper way to make your point, to me.
Of course, if your entire purpose is to draw upon the emotional response of your audience, to skirt the line of ethics in reporting by claiming you aren't a journalist so you can say whatever you want, then of course, perhaps this tactic works perfectly for you. And so, I give you exhibit A:
"I never wanted to be neutral," she says. "I never wanted to report on the news, I wanted to comment on the news, I wanted to make the news."
Here's the thing. She has every right to have that stance. She has every right to have that desire and to pursue it and to engage in it once she's reached that point. But...Yes, there's that ubiquitous 'but' that always seems to make its way in where it isn't wanted. So, as I started, the 'but' here is that while she is commenting on the news and she is billed as a 'commentator' she has been hired by and is working for Fox News. Last time I checked, Fox News, for all its flaws, is still a news site. When they bring on a 'commentator' who makes such horrifically inflammatory statements it serves little purpose but to lower their credibility to thinking, logical viewers. Then, that seems to be the key part - the viewers. Tomi Lahren doesn't really look for credibility among a broader audience, she seeks a specific audience and utilizes emotional appeals through incendiary statements, specific wording and repeated phrases to highlight (incorrectly most of the time) an issue, and rhetorical questioning to 'stick it to' whoever her target of the hour is.
For instance, she insists that team owners have every right to enforce rules (they do) and that standing for the anthem should be one of them. There's just one problem. This situation has, in a way, already been addressed. West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette. Just to cover some excerpts as they pertain to this whole 'controversy' about taking a knee during the anthem:
"Symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas. The use of an emblem or flag to symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality is a short-cut from mind to mind. Causes and nations, political parties, lodges, and ecclesiastical groups seek to knit the loyalty of their followings to a flag or banner, a color or design. The State announces rank, function, and authority through crowns and maces, uniforms and black robes; the church speaks through the Cross, the Crucifix, the altar and shrine, and clerical raiment. Symbols of State often convey political ideas, just as religious symbols come to convey theological ones. Associated with many of these symbols are appropriate gestures of acceptance or respect: a salute, a bowed or bared head, a bended knee."The emphasis is my own. The above quote was from Justice Robert Jackson within the ruling on the above linked court case. Yes, this case was from 1943, but it's still law and it's still on the books and ... it still applies. And here, aside from the fact that it was mandated that it is illegal and unconstitutional to force, under penalty of reprisal, a person to participate in a patriotic demonstration.
Anyway, I could get into breaking down the points that she is attempting to make, but that's not exactly the purpose here. Also, someone else already did it for me. A few times:
Honestly, I think the counter-videos really cover things fairly well on the argument of the points she's trying to make. That said, BOTH Tomi Lahren's videos and Hasan Piker's videos show slant. However, Piker's video does this much, much less so, as he's actually willing to show an understanding of counterarguments and present rebuttals against potential reactions. He openly invites dialogue and discussion of these topics instead of ranting, as the BBC article stated: "she talks more than 50% faster than the average English speaker - directly into the camera."
This really is off-putting. It comes off like an attack or a rally cry. Either way you take it however, it's not helpful. These are statements being made to encourage discourse, they aren't being put out there to encourage people to actually come together and have intellectual discussions of differing opinions. These are rapid-fire statements and calls to action and encouragement of silencing dissenting opinions from their own. Sure, she claims to completely support free speech. Just, as long as what you're saying doesn't disagree with what she thinks. Then you need to just shut up. I'm not sure if I'm more angry listening to her videos because of what she's saying or because this otherwise seemingly intelligent young woman is making herself more and more of an outright fool the longer her lips move. I'd expect better. I hope for better. As of now, I'm continuing to be disappointed.
This time, my dear readers, casual skimmers, accidental clickers, I am afraid you are not going to be subjected to my heavy use of memes. Nor, this time, am I going to give you a goodbye meme. You see, I'd like to see a response to this, I'd like to see comments, thoughts and opinions. Let me know what you think and let's discuss the matter more. So, to those ends, I'm forgoing the goodbye meme because I don't want this to end the conversation - I want to start it. So come on and share some thoughts with me. I'm looking forward to it. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment