Media Gaslighting, Early July 2020 Edition

-- President Trump visited Mount Rushmore for a speech; the media called Mount Rushmore a monument to white supremacy that honors two men who owned slaves, and say it was built on land stolen from Native Americans. You may be surprised to learn that this is not how the monument was described when it was visited by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. Nothing about either Mount Rushmore or what we know about Mount Rushmore has changed in the past twelve years. So what has?

-- The president's speech was uplifting and unifying, and warned against the current trend of cancel culture and the push to destroy monuments. The media, perhaps listening to the wrong speech, described Trump's words as "dark" and "divisive," and pretended that cancel culture and the tearing down of monuments were figments of the president's orange imagination. Tammy Duckworth claimed, without any supporting evidence, that the president was defending "traitors" and "Confederates." I wish there were a follow-up question so we could find out, with the terms "traitors" and "Confederates," Duckworth was referring to Ella Fitzgerald, Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, Louis Armstrong, Muhammad Ali, or the Tuskegee airmen, whom the president had praised.

-- While discussing COVID-19 policy with respect to the upcoming new school year, Kayleigh McEnany said the following: "The president has said unmistakably that he wants schools to open. And I was just in the Oval talking to him about that. And when he says open, he means open and full, kids being able to attend each and every day at their school. The science should not stand in the way of this. And as Dr. Scott Atlas said, I thought this was a good quote. Of course, we can do it. Everyone else in the Western world, our peer nations are doing it. We are the outlier here. The science is very clear on this, that for instance, you look at the JAMA Pediatric study of 46 pediatric hospitals in North America that said the risk of critical illness from COVID is far less for children than that of seasonal flu. The science is on our side here, and we encourage for localities and states to just simply follow the science, open our schools. It’s very damaging to our children. There’s a lack of reporting of abuse, there’s mental depressions that are not addressed, suicidal ideations that are not addressed when students are not in school. Our schools are extremely important. They’re essential and they must reopen. Yes."

Several media outlets then proceeded to quote McEnany, but carefully snipped her words exactly at the words, "the science should not stand in the way of this." Just a few sentences later, of course, McEnany's context is clear -- that the science will not stand in the way of the administration's directives because the science does not contradict the directives. Science is on their side, McEnany said, but, rather than merely question that statement, which would have been in bounds, the media actually made believe that she was implying that the administration was acting in spite of science, which is an absurd and unfair allegation for the media to make, but also the type of attack that has become all too common.

-- The president was also recently asked about the incidences of African-Americans dying while in police custody, and responded by pointing out, accurately, that more Caucasians die in police custody. Media outlets rushed to "correct" his comment by stating that African-Americans die at a greater proportion than their percentage of the population would suggest, implying systemic racism as responsible for the disparity -- but virtually none of them mentioned proportionality to the rates of violent crimes committed, which account for the difference in outcome.

Here's the thing, Fourth Estate: if you are as tired as I am of hearing the phrase, "fake news," then perhaps one antidote would be to stop peddling it as often as you do.

Losing Your Job for Valuing Everyone's Life?

This week, Campus Reform reported that The University of Massachusetts-Lowell has recently terminated its dean of the Solomont School of Nursing, Leslie Neal-Boylan, reportedly in response to a letter she sent out to students and the school community.

Did Neal-Boylan make an insensitive comment about George Floyd? Advocate for renaming a library after David Duke? No. Here are the shocking, offending words:

"I am writing to express my concern and condemnation of the recent (and past) acts of violence against people of color. Recent events recall a tragic history of racism and bias that continue to thrive in this country. I despair for our future as a nation if we do not stand up against violence against anyone. BLACK LIVES MATTER, but also, EVERYONE'S LIFE MATTERS...No one should have to live in fear that they will be targeted for how they look or what they believe."

Terrible, right?

...wait.

Yes, most level-headed people will find nothing fireable in that excerpt -- and, at the same time, sadly recognize what part somebody else considered to be fireable. After someone contacted the university, via social media (of course), that Neal-Boylan included the phrase "EVERYONE'S LIFE MATTERS," Neal-Boylan was gone within days. The only encouraging part of this story is that she is vigorously advocating for herself, and, on social media (of course), many others are advocating for them, as well. Two candidates who were considering joining that faculty -- due to their admiration of Neal-Boylan -- are now apparently reconsidering.

In an unrelated/related story, Grant Napear is out as the play-by-play announcer after a tweet. Former King DeMarcus Cousins asked Napear for his take on Black Lives Matter. Napear's response:

"Hey!!!! How are you? Thought you forgot about me. Haven't heard from you in years. ALL LIVES MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!"

Welp! That's it. He's gone. Napear apologized on his way out the door for his, uh, hateful words, saying that he didn't realize that the phrase "All Lives Matter" is "counter to what BLM was trying to get across."

If anyone thinks that saying that "all lives matter" is somehow hostile to any one group, then obviously there's some sort of failure to communicate.

As I blogged in January 2017, in "Of Lives and Mattering,"

I do understand that most who say "black lives matter" do believe that other lives matter, as well, but they also believe that African-Americans are being disproportionately targeted by police. One may agree with that assertion. One may disagree. But at least the conversation can begin from there.

But if "BLM" deserves the benefit of the doubt, then the same is true for "ALM." If people should not mentally add "only" to someone else's "Black Lives Matter," then others should not mentally add "Except Black Lives" to someone else's "All Lives Matter."

Then there are the shoddy Internet comparisons. One argues that saying "all lives matter" is like a fire department hosing down all the houses on the street, not just the one burning, because "all houses matter." Or a surgeon operating on every bone in your body, not just the one that is broken, because "all bones matter." But I look at the lives being lost on the news. Folks, it's not just one house on fire. I see many broken bones, and they're not all one color.

Do I understand why people choose to say something as specific as "Black Lives Matter"? Of course. The killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd are three worthy examples. I won't throw shade on someone who takes the time to focus on their needless, unjustified deaths. Conversely, though, people who choose to include other people's lives, rather than to focus only upon one race, are not white supremacists for doing so. Actual white supremacists -- actual ones, not just anyone who disagrees with a leftist -- probably wouldn't be caught dead saying something as unifying and anodyne as "all lives matter."

Arbery, Taylor, and Floyd should be alive today. Forcing Leslie Neal-Boylan and Grant Napear out of their jobs will do N-O-T-H-I-N-G to advance anyone's cause. It will only alienate many people who want to be allies, because they used the "wrong three words" to express their support.

Say what you want to say. But no one should lose a job for saying that every single life has value.