Rising fascism in the US

@Lash,

It's an AP guideline for use of a specific term that might not be well-known to the general public. It cautions against blindly adopting a term used by extremist groups to rebrand certain beliefs and ideologies, and suggests to explain what the term actually means and stands for instead.

He explicitly says "Avoid using the term generically and without definition."

Nowhere does he suggest that journalists should no longer report names, quotes, and facts. In fact, he specifically says "when writing on extreme groups, be precise and provide evidence to support the characterization."

How do you get from this that he wants to stop journalists reporting names, quotes, and facts? What do you base this on?

1 Reply

@layman,

I've read the original source now three times.
My excuse that I get maporsche's impression, too, is that I'm not a native English speaker (but he is). And I don't know what he thinks.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've read the original source now three times.
My excuse that I get maporsche's impression, too, is that I'm not a native English speaker (but he is). And I don't know what he thinks.

Well, Walt, when reading it did you pay any real attention to these passages:

Quote:

1.The “alt-right” or “alternative right” is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology...

2.Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race....

3. the term may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience. In the past we have called such beliefs racist, neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

4. We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them.

5. Finally, when writing on extreme groups, be precise and provide evidence to support the characterization.

Get the gist? If "others" (who may be two editors back at the office) "see them" as being despicable racists, THEN that is "EVIDENCE" for the charge.

2 Replies

@layman,

Well, since you know what Daniszewski thinks, you will be right here, too.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, since you know what Daniszewski thinks, you will be right here, too.

I didn't say anything about what he thinks in that last post, so why bring it up?

To him, the following, by his own admissions and standards, appears to be "good journalism:"

"Some (many, more than a few, etc) see this group (person) as being decidedly RACIST."

P.S.: By the way, Walt, for what it's worth (little to you, I suspect), I too happen to be a "native english speaker."

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

I didn't say anything about what he thinks in that last post, so why bring it up?

Correct. But I didn't say that either. (You wrote so in Post: # 6,314,544 )

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

layman wrote:
I didn't say anything about what he thinks in that last post, so why bring it up?
Correct. But I didn't say that either. (You wrote so in Post: # 6,314,544 )

The question was "why do you bring it up?" That was NOT the post you were responding to.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

To him, the following, by his own admissions and standards, appears to be "good journalism:"

"Some (many, more than a few, etc) see this group (person) as being decidedly RACIST."

Mind giving the source for those quotes?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

]Mind giving the source for those quotes?

Not at all. It's from the very site you yourself referred me to for "clarification." I asked you if you had paid any attention to the parts I excerpted (and bolded).

Do you have any further comment on the contents, or my observations about the comments I quoted?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Get the gist? If "others" (who may be two editors back at the office) "see them" as being despicable racists, THEN that is "EVIDENCE" for the charge.

He doesn't say "report only how others see them." He says that journalists "should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them."

Why are you ignoring the rest of the sentence? Does it not fit your narrative?

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

He doesn't say "report only how others see them." He says that journalists "should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them."

Why are you ignoring the rest of the sentence? Does it not fit your narrative?

I'm not ignoring anything. Nor does he say you must report each and every category of "facts" that he mentions as alternative. He saying that you SHOULD report "how others see them" as one of the alternative things that should be reported. Another alternative is their "associations."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

He saying that you SHOULD report "how others see them" as one of the alternative things that should be reported.

It's not "one of the alternative things" if it's preceded by the words "as well as".

Reporters limiting themselves to only report how others see the alt-right, without being precise, providing evidence to support the characterization, and also reporting their actions, associations, history and positions would not be in compliance with the guideline.

You're changing words and ignoring the context.

0 Replies

@old europe,

It's also revealing that he doesn't suggest that you report their actual words, or interview them. It's all to be done by implication via associations, how others see them, etc.

2 Replies

@layman,

Of course, if you had an actual "action" to report, such as "the slimy bastard was seen lighting a cross on the lawn of a black man, just last night" then you would definitely want to report that TOO. But that's not required by the context.

0 Replies

@layman,

You're pretty quick to move on to the next item on your complaint list, aren't you?

You made that claim that reporting what others say is enough, then moved from that position to claim that reporting what others say is one of several alternatives suggested, to simply abandoning that position entirely when it's refuted by the actual text of the article you're citing and focusing on the next controversy.

Classic gish gallop.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Yeah, right, eh?

By the way, Yurp, are you ever going to answer the question I asked you 4 or 5 times yesterday, before you abruptly hauled ass without responding?

1 Reply

@layman,

And here's the deflection.

Instead of addressing the topic that's being discussed, let's sidetrack the discussion by talking about a different topic from a different thread.

I like your style.

1 Reply

@old europe,

My style?

No, that's your style. This is about the 6th time you have evaded even making an attempt to support or justify your false claims.

Just answer the damn question.

0 Replies

Speaking of "reporting what members of the alt-right actually say", I think this video should be posted again.

This was one week ago, at the Ronald Reagan Building right in Washington, D.C., during the annual conference of the National Policy Institute.

These are the people who refer to themselves as "the alt-right".

But apparently it's fascism to refer to these people as racists, neo-Nazis or white supremacists.

3 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

These are the people who refer to themselves as "the alt-right".

These people? Has any person there, other than perhaps, this particular speaker, referred to himself as "alt.right?

Does everyone who might be called "alt.right" share the views of Spencer? Apparently not:

Quote:

For most of the day, a parade of speakers discussed their ideology in relatively anodyne terms, putting a presentable face on their agenda. But after dinner, when most journalists had already departed, Spencer rose and delivered a speech to his followers dripping with anti-Semitism, and leaving no doubt as to what he actually seeks.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

Typical instance of attempting to smear a whole crowd of people with "guilt by association." Just what I would expect from a cheese-eater.

This guy, as a presumed authority on the topic, is pressed, at length, to describe what the "alt.right" means, and he doesn't say anything like Spencer. Go figure, eh?

2 Replies

Rising fascism in the US

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know