There was a time when journalists from respected media outlets like the BBC, the New York Times and the Guardian, at least made a sincere effort to distinguish between reporting the facts and reporting one’s political opinions. But that era is long over. We now live in a world in which journalists blithely dismiss political movements they disagree with as “extreme,” “hard-right,” and “fascistic,” as though the superiority of their own political opinions was a self-evident fact that needed no explanation.
(To give additional support to my work in defence of a free and open society, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription)
This is perhaps nowhere more abundantly clear than in the response of Western mainstream media - in particular media that embrace progressive-leftist positions - to the recent election of Giorgia Meloni as Italy’s first ever female prime minister. From the tone of that response, one would think that Meloni was advocating the abolition of democracy, the abrogation of rule of law, or some sort of Putin-style military incursion into neighbouring territories.
Here is a sample of mainstream coverage of Giorgia Meloni’s election:
BBC: “Ms Meloni is widely expected to form Italy’s most right-wing government since World War Two. That will alarm much of Europe…”
CNN: “Giorgia Meloni claims victory to become Italy’s most far-right prime minister since Mussolini.”
El País: “The strong result for the extreme-right obliges the EU to be smart in how it manages its relationship with Meloni.”
The Guardian: “Giorgia Meloni is a danger to Italy and the rest of Europe.”
New York Times: “The country’s hard turn to the right has sent shock waves across Europe after a period of stability in Italy led by Mario Draghi.”
Meloni, president of the conservative “Brothers of Italy” party, swept to victory in Italy’s recent elections, and is now poised to become Italy’s first ever female prime minister. She is undoubtedly a controversial figure, and her style can be a bit shrill. She defends a range of positions that are now viewed with disdain by many Western politicians and journalists, such as the primacy of the natural family, the importance of maintaining a birth-rate above replacement level, the ideal of heterosexual marriage, the sanctity of human life, the value of national identity and culture, the positive value of religion, the opposition to transgender operations for children, and the rejection of illegal immigration.
(Click here to sign up for my free webinar, “Unlocking the Hidden Power of Civil Society,” to be held this Wednesday, 5th October at 7:30-8:30pm UK time)
On the other hand, being a bit shrill or abrasive hardly makes a political leader a threat to democracy or a harbinger of political instability. And let’s not forget that the positions defended by Meloni were perceived as perfectly normal in many parts of the West a few decades ago, so it is hard to see why they would now put her outside the pale of civilisation or make her a serious "threat" to Europe.
The media's intense hostility to Meloni, and by extension, the popular movement that brought her to power, can be explained by one simple fact: her opinions on “hot button” issues have put her directly at odds with the progressive-leftist movement that now dominates social media, mainstream media, EU bureacracy, and the Biden Administration. And that, for many self-styled progressives, puts her far beyond the moral and political pale.
One does not have to support Italy’s newly elected prime minister or her opinions to understand that mainstream media’s coverage of her is nothing short of reactionary. Progressive-minded journalists seemed unwilling or unable to understand how opinions different to their own could end up resonating with a sufficient number of Italians to propel the leader of a conservative, pro-life party into power.
Indeed, the crude, reactionary coverage of Meloni’s victory was quite reminiscent of the coverage of Trump’s election - a mix of perplexity and indignation at the prospect that a large number of voters might actually hold opinions radically at odds with those of progressive-leftist journalists and politicians. The only explanation that occurred to progressive-leftist analysts, in both cases, was that the voters in question were either ignorant or manipulated.
If journalists report on political elections almost exclusively as ideological cheer-leaders, dismissing opposing opinions as part of a “hard right” agenda that menaces the future of democracy, then they are not doing their jobs. They are not actually attempting to understand social reality as it is, nor are they attempting to empathise, even remotely, with voters who wear “the other shirt.” It becomes impossible for them to understand the motives and points of view of their fellow citizens, and it becomes impossible for them to respect the opinions of citizens who see the world differently from themselves.
When journalists become completely tone-deaf to opinions at odds with progressive-leftist principles, or automatically dismiss such opinions as anathema to liberal democracy, their coverage of political events loses any appearance of impartiality and their work becomes largely irrelevant to a large swathe of the citizenry. Once journalists enter into “campaign” mode, many citizens tune out or treat their pronouncements with a grain of salt.
And rightly so.
***SIGN UP FOR MY FREE WEBINAR***
As the international crisis deepens, once again, we are facing a very uncertain future, and need strong communities that can stand firm in the face of potential government over-reach. I invite you to sign up for a free webinar I am giving this Wednesday, 5th October at 7:30pm-8:30pm UK time, on the topic, “Unlocking the Hidden Power of Civil Society.” Prior registration is required.
Click here to sign up for my free webinar.
HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MY WORK:
To support my work, consider sharing this post on social media or upgrading to a paid subscription, which unlocks all blog posts.
Accepted 'leftist' ideology is always presented in the media as 'progressive' - I feel then that there's an implication that any shout-out to the other side is, by default, 'backward'. I don't think they're entitled to OWN the word 'progressive'.
That first paragraph is so true. I intend to write something about that very subject myself at some point because it chimes so much with me. Sometimes I wonder whether they feel they don’t have to hide the fact anymore because people have become so dumbed down. What other reason could it be?
It’s beyond obvious now that they are purveyors of opinion and the promotion of certain agendas rather than objectivity.