How the Main­stream Me­dia Oper­ates – A Case Study – Part 3

The Jewish Voice - - OP-ED - By: Den­nis Prager (CON­TIN­UED FROM LAST WEEK)

Does Swed pro­vide an ex­am­ple of my mil­i­tant po­lar­iz­ing? Yes, just one: my "call­ing lib­er­al­ism a can­cer." Like The New York Times ar­ti­cle, Swed did not place the words he at­trib­uted to me in quo­ta­tion marks, and for good rea­son. I have never in my life writ­ten or said that "lib­er­al­ism is a can­cer." What I did write re­cently is that "left­ism is a ter­mi­nal can­cer in the Amer­i­can blood­stream."

But I al­ways dis­tin­guish be­tween left­ism and lib­er­al­ism be­cause the two have al­most noth­ing in com­mon. Left­ism is as anti-lib­eral as it is anti-con­ser­va­tive. But Swed knows that writ­ing "lib­er­al­ism is a can­cer" ren­ders me far more ex­treme-sound­ing than writ­ing "left­ism is a can­cer."

How­ever, what is most dis­turb­ing about Swed is not that he wrote a col­umn against the Santa Mon­ica Sym­phony invit­ing me to con­duct. Hiltzik wrote a sim­i­lar piece, af­ter all. But as ir­re­spon­si­ble as Hil­tizk's piece was, Hiltzik is a po­lit­i­cal colum­nist. Swed is not. He is a clas­si­cal mu­sic critic. What he did was one of the rea­sons I wrote that left­ism is a can­cer in the Amer­i­can blood­stream: The left dam­ages vir­tu­ally ev­ery­thing it touches — the arts, ed­u­ca­tion, re­li­gion, the econ­omy, the news me­dia and the mil­i­tary, among other ar­eas of life.

When I was a young man liv­ing in New York City, I read ev­ery col­umn the leg­endary New York Times clas­si­cal mu­sic critic Harold C. Schon­berg wrote. I do not re­call him ever writ­ing a po­lit­i­cal col­umn. To this day, I have no idea whether Schon­berg was a lib­eral, a left­ist, a con­ser­va­tive or a Bud­dhist. He knew his role was to write about mu­sic. Swed, a man of the left, does not.

Fi­nally, we come to NPR. It pub­lished a piece on Aug. 13 ti­tled "Santa Mon­ica Sym­phony Orches­tra Con­fronts Con­tro­versy Over Right-Wing Guest Con­duc­tor."

Putting the ti­tle aside — again, it com­mu­ni­cates a neg­a­tive story when a pos­i­tive take would have been just as valid — the piece was con­sid­er­ably more bal­anced than those of the Los An­ge­les Times or that of The New York Times.

But it had the usual me­dia de­fect: It gave away its po­lit­i­cal bent. The sec­ond para­graph read: "Den­nis Prager's day job, how­ever, has mem­bers of the orches­tra up in arms — and lay­ing down their in­stru­ments. He is a con­ser­va­tive talk show host who of­ten tar­gets mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism, Mus­lims and LGBTQ peo­ple."

The writer gave an ex­am­ple in each case. For mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism, she cited a col­umn I wrote ti­tled "1,400 Girls Raped by Mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism." In it I de­scribed the kid­nap­ping and sex­ual en­slave­ment of over 1,400 English girls by young Mus­lim men over the course of more than a decade — while the po­lice and the me­dia con­spired never to di­vulge that the rapists were Mus­lim. The rea­son, as Bri­tish au­thor­i­ties later ad­mit­ted, was their com­mit­ment to mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism.

But for a writer at NPR — even one who did not go out of her way to por­tray me as a mean-spir­ited bigot, as The New York Times and the Los An­ge­les Times did — the mere fact that I wrote a col­umn against mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism ex­plains why mem­bers of the orches­tra were "up in arms."

As for "tar­get­ing" Mus­lims, she cited my col­umn ti­tled "Yes, Mus­lims Should Be Asked to Con­demn Is­lamic Ter­ror." In NPR's moral uni­verse, ask­ing Mus­lims to con­demn Is­lamic ter­ror is equiv­a­lent to "tar­get­ing" Mus­lims. When the left de­mands that our white pres­i­dent con­demn white-su­prem­a­cist vi­o­lence, is it tar­get­ing whites?

And the ex­am­ple the she supplied for my "tar­get­ing" LGBTQ peo­ple is my 2014 cri­tique of judges who, I ar­gued, over­reached their author­ity when they over­turned pop­u­lar votes to keep mar­riage de­fined as the union of a man and a woman. The whole ar­ti­cle was a cri­tique of judges, not LGBTQ peo­ple. But on the left, merely dis­agree­ing with judges about an LGBTQ is­sue is "tar­get­ing" LGBTQ peo­ple.

In sum­mary, all main­stream me­dia cov­er­age of this one story was tainted, bi­ased, of­ten false and pred­i­cated solely on left-wing pre­sump­tions. Mag­nify what they did to me a thou­sand fold and you will be­gin to un­der­stand me­dia be­hav­ior over the last two gen­er­a­tions, and es­pe­cially be­hav­ior to­day, when hys­te­ria and ad­vo­cacy have com­pletely re­placed news re­port­ing.

The me­dia pay lit­tle or no price among those who still be­lieve them.

But I will pay a price. The New York Times lied when it wrote that I "sug­gested that same-sex mar­riage would lead to polygamy and in­cest." Yet that will be cited for­ever as if it were true.

It's al­ready be­gun. On the night of the con­cert, the Fox TV sta­tion in Los An­ge­les re­ported: "A left wing at­tempt to boy­cott a per­for­mance of the Santa Mon­ica Sym­phony due to a guest ap­pear­ance by con­ser­va­tive ra­dio host Den­nis Prager back­fired on Wed­nes­day night; the event was a sell­out . ... Prager has made con­tro­ver­sial com­ments in the past, say­ing that he be­lieves gay mar­riage would lead to in­cest."

Den­nis Prager writes: “When I was a young man liv­ing in New York City, I read ev­ery col­umn the leg­endary New York Times clas­si­cal mu­sic critic Harold C. Schon­berg wrote. I do not re­call him ever writ­ing a po­lit­i­cal col­umn. To this day, I have no idea whether Schon­berg was a lib­eral, a left­ist, a con­ser­va­tive or a Bud­dhist. He knew his role was to write about mu­sic”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.