The decision to publish Nick Pell’s article on the ‘alt-right’ was taken on the basis that as part of The Irish Times Opinion and Analysis section it will “inform readers about the issues of the day, offer insights and give them something to think about” as John McManus puts it, responding to readers critical of this decision. On the whole, argues McManus, it is better to inform readers about this than not refer to it at all, making it sound as if no-one in the world is talking about this.
In general the IT is committed to offering a balanced view on all topics and hence it offers a platform to an article ostensibly informing readers. Nick Pell’s piece, according to McManus “at a minimum it decodes a lot of the Alt-right movement’s language and at best it gives a clear indication of its thinking and ideology.” But is this the case? Does Nick Pell’s article inform readers? Arguably not. Rather it may have served as an indication of the ideology of liberal journalism, and its mistaken view of ‘balance’ as offering a platform equally to all.
Tackling first the claim that Nick Pell’s article on ‘alt-right’ - aka old-fashioned racists with a new name - purported to tell readers everything they need to know about it. And what apparently readers need to know is that the alt-right is a ‘young and energetic faction’ of Trump supporters, that ‘fashy’ refers to nothing more dangerous than aesthetics and haircuts, that Milo Yannopoulos, a man banned from Twitter for hate speech, is ‘alt-lite’ as opposed to all those ‘shrill, unpleasant and vaguely totalitarian leftists‘ , ‘aggressive and unpleasant feminists’ and ‘dindu nuffins’. Pepe the Frog, which is listed by the Anti-Defamation League as a hate symbol, is merely a harmless mascot. Richard Spencer, a white supremacist partial to offering Nazi salutes, is just the publisher of Radix.
There is no reference to the deeply racist and misogynist origins of terms such as ‘cuck’, no reference to the hateful attacks of the ‘young and energetic faction’ against journalists, against feminist writers, against Jews and people of colour and against anyone who might object to their ideology. So what is the work that Pell’s article is doing here? It is clear that this is a deeply ideological article that rather than neutrally informing readers it propagates an ideological position of supporting and normalising alt-right. Moreover, it does so in a typically alt-right fashion, with no reference to any arguments, through value-laden adjectives and ‘hilarious’ ‘jokey’ terms that only unpleasant types find unfunny.
So then, if this article is nothing more than alt-right agit prop, what about the IT decision to publish this? Does this really reflect a commitment to balance? This is indeed more telling of the liberal ideological bias than anything else. Balance is meant to showcase two positions on an argument when we really don’t know who is right and who isn’t. Is this the case with the alt-right? Does the IT seriously want to take an agnostic position vis-a-vis a clearly racist, misogynist and frankly a fascist political ideology? Are the readers’ interests served best by such a position?
McManus argues that they do not “subscribe to the notion of denying a platform to people we don’t agree with” alluding to issues of freedom of speech, though he does accept that there are some (unspecified) limits. But freedom of speech is meant to protect those who routinely see their views censored and ignored, not to offer a platform to clearly problematic views inciting hate that in any case receives a lot of undue airtime. Moreover, one has to see the broader picture here: what does offering a platform to alt-right accomplish? Ultimately, it accomplishes the normalisation of an extreme right-wing political ideology that espouses racism, misogyny and white supremacism. In purporting to offer balance and to protect freedom of speech, platforming the alt-right points to an explicit acceptance of it as meriting a place in the public sphere.
And really, the IT should not want to play any part in this.
