The last few months have been pretty rough for the Social Justice Warrior community. The mainstream media has worked with the outspoken SJW community “in good faith” for so long that they’ve practically let the bloggers into the editor’s office to write the stories themselves. It’s either that or what counts for journalism has changed substantially over the years. And yet, somehow, the collective social justice community keeps having it all blow up in their face.
Last week Australian blogger and SJW Tessa Kum took the news establishment for a ride with her compelling account of a Muslim woman on a train. Her Dec. 16 blog entry “#illridewithyou” successfully pitched the most recent installment of SJW hashtivism. If Billy Mays sold Twitter hashtags, not even he could do this well.
Speaking as someone who has had an education at the prestigious Ernie Pyle School of Journalism (now part of IU-Bloomington’s blandly titled ‘Media School’) I can attest to the fact that journalists are taught the value of sensational stories. Sensational stories are good for circulation and readership, and a dull story isn’t going to impress the editor. Yes, even journalism, the supposed watchdog of truth, is vulnerable to capitalistic influences.
Not including this most recent shovel-load of manure from Kum, we’ve had a history of similar events pitched to us through the mainstream media. We should expect activists, SJWs, and other parties to try and use journalists for personal and self-interested goals. The role of an editor is to make sure that a news outlet’s journalists aren’t parroting silly and unsubstantiated tales. When editors are asleep at the wheel, they need readers to keep them honest.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s most recent feminist wet dream about campus rape was found to be a hoax. But, before that horrible horrible tale of “Jacky” America fell in love with both of Erdely’s earlier stories about sex abuse in the Catholic church, and rape in the military. The #GamerGate fiasco continues to simmer in the background, so let’s not forget about how Brianna Wu fumbled the kick-off on her own series of self-inflicted harassment; Anita Sarkeesian continues to spin a good yarn about threats to her person because of her video game criticism; and Zoe Quinn, a.k.a. “Literally Who,”… well, I think we already know her story.
Seeing the trend yet? Leftist M.O. is to inflict injuries upon others or themselves (whichever is most believable) and then demand real-world solutions to their own problems. The other important fact to consider is that there’s always a new liar from the SJW community, and you’ll go blue in the face before you’re able to disprove all of them. They know this. The SJW community knows that we don’t have time to disprove everything they say, so their time-proven tactic is to rely on the statistically high chance that a number of false stories will make it past a news editor and land on the front page. This technique is also called “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks” or “run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it.”
Editors and journalists should know damn well how to prevent this kind of stuff from happening, and I shouldn’t need to remind them of it. For everyone who isn’t a school-trained journalist or editor here are some ways to know when someone is pulling your leg:
-Is the story highly sensational? If the story sounds too good to be true, don’t take it as the gospel truth.
-How are the story’s claims substantiated? If we have to rely on one person’s word, don’t take it as the gospel truth.
-How many sources are in the story? If it’s a single-source story with only one quoted person, don’t take it as the gospel truth.
Moral of the story? Don’t believe anything except for the gospel truth as being, well, the gospel truth.
A good journalism story will have a diversity of sources. This means there should be at least three sources each from a different group. A good diversity of sources will mean that a feature or hard news story about some problem in the city will quote city officials, city residents who are directly affected by the problem, and someone from a social or civil service organization. In the event of accusations being made it is important to hear from at least two sides of the problem. It is rarely the case that every single source in a story will lie about the same central facts, so you can reasonably believe a story with a diversity of sources. The reason why this is generally the case is because the people being quoted are putting their professional reputation, credibility, and livelihood on the line to say it. Of course, this is to say nothing about what a journalist risks by perpetuating the same.
Newspapers still get carried away when they know better. Editors and reporters are still human, they put on their pants one leg at a time like the rest of us, and a compelling or heart wrenching narrative still affects them like it would any other person. Radical feminists like Erdely, white-hating bloggers like Kum, and professional scam artists like Sarkessian know exactly what they’re doing when they spin up a story about how evil white men are oppressing everyone else with fart rape, stare rape, I-accused-him-and-that-makes-it-true rape, and (less frequently as of late) legitimate rape.
So why does it all continue even after it comes out that the stories were (obviously) false? The venerable Heartistse shares his readers’ wisdom with us and cuts right through the mists of bad excuses:
You see, journalists and editors don’t get to renew their contracts if they break narrative conformism and fail to keep the prevailing political correctness of the day. If they can’t confirm the popular narrative that women are in danger of “literally being raped at any moment” or that all black men killed by white cops were “gentle giants” then they don’t get invited to schmooze it up with corporate execs at the Christmas party, let alone invited out for drinks with their fellow reporters and producers. It’s no wonder why they keep running with shit stories– it’s the money, duh. What’s really hard to figure out is what it will take to make them stop publishing those kinds of stories. I try to be optimistic, but I doubt that even being hit in the face with a hammer will convince them to change their ways.
In spite of it all, these are the people upon whom we should be focusing our criticism. Editors and journalists are the gate keepers who control what counts for news, and we keep the media honest by calling them on their bullshit. It’s that easy.