Why journalism's patriarchal narrative structures keep distorting our perceptions of realty.

The Economist has a very distorted chart worth noting here:

White nationalism after Christchurch

The new face of terror, much like the old

Violent white nationalists increasingly resemble the jihadists they hate

This is a very stupid chart and a stupider hypothesis, but not for the reasons that you think.

In my 2005 book, Don’t Believe It!: How lies become news, I go over a very important method of dealing with hate crime stories, terror stories, and war stories: erase the ethnicity or race of the players. Just forget them entirely.

Look at the facts. Look at the logic. See if Group or Person A could possibly do this to Group or Person B.

Many times, just by removing ethnic or racial designations, the story completely falls apart.

Because the distorting lens is removed, and the emotional triggers are gone.

Why is this method effective?

Because our own personal biases and prejudices are gone, and we have no idea who is suppose to be the hero or villain. We are looking at actions because we don’t have the hacks of ethnicity to cloud our judgement.

But it goes one step deeper: it kicks away our props and supports and we are forced to judge people as people.

But journalism cannot do this because its entire existence is based in a Patriarchal Narrative where there can be only one good guy, and anyone else is a bad guy.

It cannot deal with Matriarchal realities of intersecting lives. It does not compute. If journalism was a calculator, it would be one that could not do math. It would have just two numbers: 1 and 0.

It would know that 1≠0, and that’s about it.

And 0=bad and 1=good.

That’s a pretty shitty calculator.

So what the Economist is trying to do is present an inaccurate truth of 0 and 1, and that’s not true.

White supremacists were always terrorists. They lynched people who were not like them. There is no “increasing” here. We just cherry-pick certain events and then try to paint a narrative how we should now see these people are bigger bad guys than the ones who are bad guys of a different in-group.

No, they are the same. These are both racist cabals who are violent. The end.

The world is full of violent people. The press wants to somehow knock Trump by proclaiming one violent group is worse than another violent.

No, you have two violent groups. They aren’t just racist, but misogynistic.

So your chart is garbage and so is your hypothesis.

The world was always violent. It always had cabals who terrorize people and cause harm to innocents. There is no narrative. I don’t want to deal with any of them. The Ustashi slaughtered my grandmother’s family just because they were Serbs. The Nazis slaughtered Jews. They both were violent, and both got away with far too much.

And any other group that wants to kill people is a bad group. No worse, no better. If your mandate includes extermination, you suck. The end.

And if journalists were truly “progressive” as all the cool kids try to convince me, they wouldn’t be making racist charts or bringing up race: they would say that there are various clusters of violent people targeting innocent people for slaughter. They would not indulge the excuses. They would name names and put faces to the names. You wouldn’t be employing the faceless techniques of war propaganda.

Because in the end, race doesn’t make you a murderer. It’s your lack of character, ability to see truths, emotional illiteracy, and cowardice.

If we held individuals accountable and didn’t indulge their excuses, they would not be able to hide in numbers. They could not pretend they had a cause, because they don’t.

But that takes breaking away from patriarchal narratives and stop distorting reality just to make silly charts and nonexistent points…