Yeah, the mere use of that term didn't help my warm feelings here.
The use of "Cancel Culture" implies some new invention (of the Left, of course). After one reads up on "shunning" and "anathematization", you realize it's older than civilization. After one reads up on (1) Charlie Chaplin, (2) Paul Robeson, (3) Billie Holiday and "Strange Fruit", plus of course the Blacklisted "Hollywood 10", you know how common cancellation is, how unsurprising it is that the Dixie Chicks had to CANCEL some 70 concerts.
It's comical to warn that by inventing cancel culture, the Left will be giving the Right ideas for "backlash". It's more of a forward-lash that's been lashing since before my parents were born.
I'd freely agree that there are way too many moral-scolds calling for heads just now, and it's going to burn out at some point, probably soon. Every movement that has early successes goes too far.
But I'm vastly more upset to learn how thoroughly the military culture "cancels" any military woman reporting criminal acts, and police culture "cancels" any cop reporting internal malfeasance. Talk about "afraid to speak up", journalism has nothing on those two work cultures...
I think I get it, now. Journalism has its own "Blackstone's Ratio". Blackstone said in the 1700s that we should let 10 guilty men go free, rather than one innocent man be punished. We need people to trust the State, they've got to believe the State REALLY bends over backwards to "do no harm", preferring 10 sins of omission to one sin of commission.
The Journalist's Blackstone's Ratio is that unequal situations must be treated with "both sides" journalism, (like "clashed" and "exchanged fire" and "tit-for-tat attacks" in this case) until the ratio is at least 10:1. When Israel began to exceed 10:1 kill ratios two wars ago, the coverage started to change. With this last one, the ratio hit 227:12 for humans and 64:2 for children, the coverage is now changing rapidly.
This essay is basically a demand that coverage remain both-sides-y, in reply to a letter that said "come on, at this ratio, it's just a massive beating by one side, with the other ineffectually flailing at them out of pride".
The journalists here have emitted over 2300 words of lawyerly defense, but most of the population only retains 25-words-or-less on most issues, a little later. (What were the causes of the 2014 conflict? Yeah.)
They aren't going to remember your 2300 words, guys. They're going to remember that it was something like 20:1. And 32:1 for children. Public opinion will shift according to that, not according to your lawyering.
Sure, insult the customers, such golden words will surely win me over, now.
The essay pretends there's a third position, neutral in-between. When two sides are less than 10:1 in killings, you can stand between, and describe the violence as a "fight". But a conflict between Jack Reacher and a 10-year-old is not a "fight", even if Jack picks up a few bruises from the kid.
The essay specifically uses the term "Israeli military capability". The last word would be the core of my criticism.
No, it's the disproportionate USE of the military, the number of dead bodies, that I'm counting. (Capability was the same ratio for forty years when Israel were not media "baddies"; it was the body count that changed things.)
I've been fond of using "Wokestani" in the last few years but "Woko Haram" may just replace it. Gold.
Just wanted to say thank you for not signing that letter. It gives some of us who have lost all trust in main stream media something to hang on to.
Lastly, we will note that this has been yet another week in which Cancel Culture ran amok.
Is anyone surprised that the right has weaponised this?
Yeah, the mere use of that term didn't help my warm feelings here.
The use of "Cancel Culture" implies some new invention (of the Left, of course). After one reads up on "shunning" and "anathematization", you realize it's older than civilization. After one reads up on (1) Charlie Chaplin, (2) Paul Robeson, (3) Billie Holiday and "Strange Fruit", plus of course the Blacklisted "Hollywood 10", you know how common cancellation is, how unsurprising it is that the Dixie Chicks had to CANCEL some 70 concerts.
It's comical to warn that by inventing cancel culture, the Left will be giving the Right ideas for "backlash". It's more of a forward-lash that's been lashing since before my parents were born.
I'd freely agree that there are way too many moral-scolds calling for heads just now, and it's going to burn out at some point, probably soon. Every movement that has early successes goes too far.
But I'm vastly more upset to learn how thoroughly the military culture "cancels" any military woman reporting criminal acts, and police culture "cancels" any cop reporting internal malfeasance. Talk about "afraid to speak up", journalism has nothing on those two work cultures...
I think I get it, now. Journalism has its own "Blackstone's Ratio". Blackstone said in the 1700s that we should let 10 guilty men go free, rather than one innocent man be punished. We need people to trust the State, they've got to believe the State REALLY bends over backwards to "do no harm", preferring 10 sins of omission to one sin of commission.
The Journalist's Blackstone's Ratio is that unequal situations must be treated with "both sides" journalism, (like "clashed" and "exchanged fire" and "tit-for-tat attacks" in this case) until the ratio is at least 10:1. When Israel began to exceed 10:1 kill ratios two wars ago, the coverage started to change. With this last one, the ratio hit 227:12 for humans and 64:2 for children, the coverage is now changing rapidly.
This essay is basically a demand that coverage remain both-sides-y, in reply to a letter that said "come on, at this ratio, it's just a massive beating by one side, with the other ineffectually flailing at them out of pride".
The journalists here have emitted over 2300 words of lawyerly defense, but most of the population only retains 25-words-or-less on most issues, a little later. (What were the causes of the 2014 conflict? Yeah.)
They aren't going to remember your 2300 words, guys. They're going to remember that it was something like 20:1. And 32:1 for children. Public opinion will shift according to that, not according to your lawyering.
This is an insane interpretation of that essay.
Sure, insult the customers, such golden words will surely win me over, now.
The essay pretends there's a third position, neutral in-between. When two sides are less than 10:1 in killings, you can stand between, and describe the violence as a "fight". But a conflict between Jack Reacher and a 10-year-old is not a "fight", even if Jack picks up a few bruises from the kid.
The essay specifically uses the term "Israeli military capability". The last word would be the core of my criticism.
No, it's the disproportionate USE of the military, the number of dead bodies, that I'm counting. (Capability was the same ratio for forty years when Israel were not media "baddies"; it was the body count that changed things.)