In response to an ‘FT Data’ article on 23rd November 2016, entitled “Catalogue of hate incidents shows increase post-US election”
“US hate incidents appear to be on the rise, with a surge just after the election.
In light of this the Southern Poverty Law Center decided to start tracking the post-election hate incidents. So far they’ve catalogued more than 700 hateful acts that took place the week after the election. SPLC staff members check news reports and follow up with law enforcement to try to verify the reports’ authenticity.
Reports include a Mexican family, who woke up to graffiti that read, “Can’t stop the Trump, Mexicans” spray painted, along with a swastika, across their garage in Washington. Men in Oregon threw a brick at an African-American woman in a grocery store parking lot, breaking her rib. A Muslim teacher in Georgia received a note telling her to “tie [your hijab] around your neck and hang yourself with it…
Anecdotal, local, and national-level statistics all point to a rise in hateful incidents coinciding with the US election, similar to the 41% increase in hate crimes in the UK after Brexit. However, unlike the UK, where data were centrally reported both before and after the Brexit vote, it is harder to tell how much hate crimes have risen in the US” – FT Data
There are two separate issues here:
1. Violence on the basis of colour, religion, ethnicity or political affiliation is wrong - and against the law. I don't care if you're black, white, red, yellow, green or even orange (yes that includes Christine Legarde and Donald Trump) - people don't get to abuse you for it - full stop
2. The fundamental duty of the fourth estate is to hold power to account and to report what's actually happening in as unbiased a fashion as possible
So I have a question for the FT editors: Where are the in depth reports and analysis of the anti-Trump violence that has been filmed in cities across America for the past two weeks? Where is the condemnation of the so-called 'liberals' who clearly have a different set of rules for the 'deplorables' who had the audacity to disagree with them?
Last week the owner of the NYT apologised to his readers for the pathetically biased standard of reporting that he has allowed his paper to stoop to. Complaints have sky-rocketed and revenues have fallen - in a presidential election year for Gawd's sake…the equivalent of Xmas in retail.
It would be a shame if lost revenue was required in order to get the editorial board of the FT to wake up. It would be reassuring to hear that a desire to maintain a reputation as a 'real' newspaper was sufficient. But judging by the number of people who've mentioned their intention to allow their subscription to lapse, including a comment below, it may come to that.
Wakey wake up time folks. Be a newspaper - not a PR agency for the DNC.
Postscript: On Propaganda:
"Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business…the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products."
Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, MIT
For more on 'media propaganda' from Professor Chomsky, the following clip of him being interviewed by Andrew Marr of the BBC is very interesting. Note Professor Chomsky’s reply (and his facial expressions) when Mr Marr describes how he was bought up post Watergate to think of journalism as a crusading craft...