Connect with us

Media

Opinion | How the media is whitewashing white supremacy – TheSpec.com

Published

 on


It is not an overstatement to suggest that now, more than ever, we have become aware of the racism which has and continues to infect our society.

Whether the systemic racism that has severely limited opportunities or the unhealthy incarceration statistics, Indigenous peoples in our own country have been at the butt end of discrimination since Cartier sailed up the river. In many ways, Canada’s increasing consciousness of this unacceptable practice in our own society owes a debt of gratitude to Donald Trump.

There is little doubt left in anyone who is not thought-challenged that the election of Trump in 2016 enabled so-called white supremacists and other racists to emerge from the fringes and shadows of public consciousness and the American experiment. It is so self-evident that it is now too commonplace to come to this conclusion. Four years of his divisive and conflict-ridden rhetoric, his demonizing anyone that was “The Other” and his refusal to condemn the upsurge in White tribal extremism both validated and empowered a rabid constituency. A constituency that had been previously too “out there” to be taken seriously was now given permission by the inciter-in-chief to give “voice” to their loss of identify and the gradual death of their “culture” and a father-knows-best white America. The Others — the job stealers, the non-Christians, the rainbow of skin colours, the gun-controllers, the “socialists” — had now become the whipping post for every conceivable white grievance.

In typical neighbourly fashion Canada too became a larger stage for this upsurge and the spotlight shone on a growing number of individual and systemic acts of racism against communities of colour and Indigenous peoples.

So what is the purpose in all of this regurgitation of what is now commonly known? It is to ask a simple question. Why has the mainstream media become inadvertently complicit in authenticating the very idea of white supremacy and white supremacists? Why use the phrases at all? Why not call it a racist movement populated for the most part by racists? In the words of an analogy, why call it an earthmoving device when the word “shovel” will do?

Are the media afraid of being sued? Does the media lack proof of the veracity of the racist moniker? Are they worried their owners and readers are predominantly white and will take offence? Why the default preference for this constant phraseology — “white supremacists?” Why is the media adding fabric softener to this banal phrase and not substituting the more apt and accurate word “racists?”

Words matter. They can create, inspire, comfort, hurt and obfuscate. Without becoming too academic let’s consider two definitions. To retain a sense of objectivity and not render ourselves captive to an American source for the definition of these terms, let’s turn to an online, go-to reference Canadians usually use to define terms — The Oxford Languages Dictionary.

A white supremacist is: a person who believes that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups.

Now let’s sashay over to the word racist. According to the same source, a racist is: a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

A distinction without a difference? Six of one, half dozen of the other? Or is this a subtle but deliberate whitewash — so to speak, “a cautious attempt to obscure disagreeable or incriminating facts” about a movement. The conclusion? Call them what they are and change the phraseology to white racists.

Confronting racism in Canada is a sufficiently difficult and unpleasant task without first having to remove the thick blankets of gloss and lustre engendered by a media that panders to gentility instead of brutal truths? Preferring milquetoast to bile terminology in this instance is not an option nor is it helpful in combatting this virulent disease. A racist is a racist is a racist. White supremacy is the veneer!

Loading…

Loading…Loading…Loading…Loading…Loading…

Beverly Sabourin, retired as the vice-provost of Aboriginal Initiatives at Lakehead University, and is a member of the Pic Mobert Ojibwe. Peter Globensky is a former senior policy adviser on Indigenous affairs in the office of the prime minister and retired as CEO of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. They are the principal officers of BASA, an Indigenous consulting firm working in the fields of environment, education, strategic planning and advocacy. They invite your comments at basa1@shaw.ca.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Britney Spears calls recent documentaries about her ‘hypocritical’

Published

 on

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Pop singer Britney Spears spoke out on Tuesday about recent documentaries about her life and career, calling them “hypocritical” because they rehash her personal problems while criticizing the media for reporting them the first time.

Walt Disney Co’s FX network and The New York Times released “Framing Britney Spears” in February. The documentary examined the singer’s meteoric rise to fame as a teenager, the ensuing media scrutiny and her widely publicized breakdown.And this month, the BBC released “The Battle for Britney: Fans, Cash and a Conservatorship” in Britain. It will debut in the United States and Canada starting May 11 via the BBC Select streaming service.

In an Instagram post, Spears did not name either documentary but said “so many documentaries about me this year with other people’s takes on my life.”

“These documentaries are so hypocritical … they criticize the media and then do the same thing,” she added.

In March, Spears said she cried for two weeks after watching part of “Framing Britney Spears”.

The BBC said in a statement on Tuesday that its documentary “explores the complexities surrounding conservatorship with care and sensitivity.”

“It does not take sides and features a wide range of contributors,” the statement added.

A New York Times spokesperson declined to comment.

Spears, who shot to fame in 1998 with the hit “Baby One More Time,” is in a court battle seeking to replace her father as her conservator. He was appointed to the role in 2008 after she was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment.

Her fans have shown their support on social media under the hashtags #We’reSorryBritney and #FreeBritney. Spears is scheduled to speak to a Los Angeles court in June.

In her Instagram post, which included a video of herself dancing, Spears said that “although I’ve had some pretty tough times in my life … I’ve had waaaayyyy more amazing times in my life and unfortunately my friends … I think the world is more interested in the negative.”

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine; Editing by David Gregorio)

Continue Reading

Media

Grammy organizers change rules after allegations of corruption

Published

 on

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The organizers of music’s Grammy Awards on Friday announced an end to the so-called “secret” committees that have led to allegations that the highest honors in the industry are open to rigging.

The Recording Academy said that nominations for the next Grammy Awards in January 2022 will be selected by all of its more than 11,000 voting members, instead of by committees of 15-30 industry experts whose names were not revealed.

The Academy was slammed last year when Canadian artist The Weeknd got zero Grammy nominations, even though his critically acclaimed album “After Hours” was one of the biggest sellers of 2020.

The Weeknd, in a Twitter post last November, said “The Grammys remain corrupt. You owe me, my fans and the industry transparency.”

The Recording Academy said in a statement on Friday that the changes were significant and were made “to ensure that the Grammy Awards rules and guidelines are transparent and equitable.”

Allegations that the Grammy nominations process is tainted were made in a legal complaint filed in early 2019 by the former chief executive of the Recording Academy, Deborah Dugan.

At the time, the Academy dismissed as “categorically false, misleading and wrong” Dugan’s claims that its members pushed artists they have relationships with. Dugan was later fired.

American pop star Halsey, also shut out of the 2021 Grammys, last year called the nominations process “elusive” and said she was “hoping for more transparency or reform.”

Former One Direction singer Zayn Malik called in March for an end to “secret committees.”

“I’m keeping the pressure on & fighting for transparency & inclusion. We need to make sure we are honoring and celebrating ‘creative excellence’ of ALL,” Malik tweeted hours ahead of the 2021 Grammy Awards ceremony.

The Recording Academy on Friday also said it was adding two new Grammy categories – for best global music performance, and best Latin urban music album – bringing to 86 the total number of Grammy Awards each year.

 

(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by David Gregorio)

Continue Reading

Media

Movie theaters face uncertain future

Published

 on

By Lisa Richwine

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Maryo Mogannam snuck into the Empire theater in San Francisco with his older cousins to watch “Animal House” when he was 14. He watched most of the James Bond movies at the historic art house and took his wife there on some of their first dates.

The cinema, which had been showing movies since the silent film era, served notice in February that it was permanently closing because of the impact of COVID-19. The marquee is now blank, and cardboard and paper cover the box office window.

“It’s kind of like losing a friend,” said Mogannam, now 57, who owns a retail shipping outlet near the theater, which had been renamed the CineArts at the Empire.

As vaccinated Americans emerge from their homes, they also may find their neighborhood theater is not there to greet them.

An eight-cinema chain in New England said it will not reopen. The same fate hit a Houston art house beloved by director Richard Linklater and, in a shock to Hollywood, more than 300 screens run by Los Angeles-based Pacific Theatres. That includes the Cinerama Dome, a landmark that hosted several red-carpet movie premieres.

Following a year of closures, theaters face deferred rent bills plus media companies’ focus on drawing customers to streaming services. Up to one-fourth of the roughly 40,000 screens in the United States could disappear in the next few years, Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter said.

The National Association of Theatre Owners rejects that estimate, spokesman Patrick Corcoran said, noting that similar dire warnings accompanying the advent of television and the switch to digital screens never came to pass.

Hollywood filmmakers want cinemas to thrive.

“It’s the only place where the art dominates,” said “Avatar” director James Cameron. “When you watch something on streaming, the other people in the room with you are welcome to interject, to pause to go to the bathroom, to text.”

At theaters, “we literally make a pact with ourselves to go and spend two to three hours in a focused enjoyment of the art.”

“For 300 people to laugh and cry at the same time, strangers, not just your family in your house, that’s a very powerful thing,” said Chloe Zhao, Oscar-nominated director of best picture nominee “Nomadland.”

At the Academy Awards on Sunday, the movie industry will “make a case for why cinema matters,” producer Stacey Sher said. While acknowledging the hardship of the pandemic, “we also have to fight for cinema and our love of it and the way it has gotten us through things,” she said.

About 58% of theaters have reopened in the United States and Canada, most restricted to 50% capacity or less. The biggest operators – AMC, Cinemark and Cineworld – make up roughly half the overall market.

Industry leaders project optimism, forecasting a big rebound after restrictions ease and studios unleash new blockbusters.

Coming attractions include a new Bond adventure, the ninth “Fast & Furious” film, a “Top Gun” sequel and several Marvel superhero movies.

“Avatar 2,” Cameron’s follow-up to the highest-grossing film of all time, is set to debut in December 2022. Some box office analysts predict 2022 ticket sales will hit a record.

Supporters point to late March release “Godzilla vs. Kong,” which brought in roughly $48.5 million at U.S. and Canadian box offices over its first five days, even though audiences could stream it on HBO Max.

“That was a big win for the entire industry,” said Rich Daughtridge, president and chief executive of Warehouse Cinemas in Frederick, Maryland.

But near- and long-term challenges loom, particularly for smaller cinemas.

Theaters are negotiating with landlords over back rent. A federal aid program was delayed due to technical problems.

Plus, media companies are bringing movies to homes sooner. Executives say streaming is their priority, pouring billions into programming made to watch in living rooms as they compete with Netflix Inc.

Most at risk are theaters with one or two screens, Wedbush Securities’ Pachter said. He said his best guess is between 5,000 and 10,000 screens could go permanently dark in coming years.

“I think we’ll see a gradual decline in the number of screens,” Pachter said, “just like we’ve seen a gradual decline in the number of mom-and-pop grocery stores and bookstores.”

 

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine; Additional reporting by Rollo Ross in Los Angeles, Alicia Powell in New York and Nathan Frandino in San Francisco; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Continue Reading

Trending