- The far-right has become an influential political force in Europe and America
- There are hundreds of pitfalls and balances to strike and dozens of articles that have already taken flak
- Only by humanizing them...can we understand how these ideologies take hold
- The media cannot ignore the far-right, but it cannot become its tool either
As the far-right became a formative influence on global politics over the last two years, journalists have watched, fascinated and disturbed, as this rising force rails against the media establishment. With that context media outlets (particularly the liberal ones) have had to do some serious soul-searching.
Brexit, Trump, decline of mainstream political parties in Europe, and the rise of alternative media outlets and “fake news” have left the traditional press with hard questions. How did they lose the trust of a huge proportion of society? And more immediately, how can they cover this controversial new far-right without empowering it?
Media pitfalls
There are hundreds of pitfalls and balances to strike and dozens of examples of articles that have already taken flak for failing to get this right. It is a very fine line between humanising a person with extreme beliefs, and turning them into a figure that is too easy to sympathise with. The New York Times’ Richard Fausset discovered this when he interviewed white nationalist Tim Hovater.
Fausset’s piece was slammed for normalizing Hovater too much. The piece emphasized Hovater’s personal quirks - his love of Seinfeld; his chilli recipe - seemingly so fascinated by these normalities that Hovater’s chilling ideology fades into the background.
The balance was missed but that doesn’t mean Fausset was wrong to try and make the point that extremists are people too. Only by humanizing them to a certain degree can we understand how these ideologies take hold. But even in trying to balance their beliefs with their more ordinary side, news outlets run the risk of playing the far-right’s game. Since the Trump campaign, no individual has been more emblematic of this than Richard Spencer.
Nazi sympathies
White supremacist Richard Spencer (Wikimedia Creative Commons)
Spencer, the most extreme prominent “alt-right” figure in America is a white supremacist with overt Nazi sympathies. He has attempted to intellectualise white supremacy, forging a “think-tank” – the blandly named “National Policy Institute”, and freely giving interviews to publications that are bound to be unsympathetic to his views.
Yet in far too many of these interviews, he has been given opportunities he shouldn’t have been allowed to polish his image and get his message across. Some profiles, intended to be damning, inexplicably feature him in quasi-fashion shoots. More troublingly, some of his televised interviews have been terribly conducted, to the point that the interviewer ceded ground and allowed him to propagate his beliefs rather than forcing him to answer difficult questions.
Spencer might be good at getting press and occasionally manipulating journalists. But that is less down to any particular skill on his part and more to the fact he represents the so-called alt-right’s most unashamed extremism. Trickier still for journalists is to cover the degrees of its extremism that run short of Nazism. Some writers have suggested that using the far-right’s different terms and distinguishing its factions is playing into their hands. But to ignore the divisions also has significant dangers, apart from simply being factually incorrect.
Whether these divides within the far-right arise because of real ideological differences, or whether they are cynical exercises in rebranding white nationalism, a lack of coverage allows them to take control of their own image. And by rejecting the existence of differences between, for example, vocal Trump supporters and neo-Nazis, we risk cleaving even deeper partisan divisions than we already have to contend with.
A fine line
Still, there is a fine art to showcasing these differences within the far-right while still challenging the more “moderate” ones. In America, there is now an evident split between the “alt-right” and the “alt-lite”. The former is often thought to be made up of Spencer and his ilk – neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other white nationalists. The “alt-lite” is more difficult to define. Some might like to claim they are not fixated on race, and are merely “cultural conservatives”. Gavin McInnes, the founder of the anti-feminist “Proud Boys” movement told the New Yorker that his movement was about protecting “western values”. He called it “civic nationalism” rather than “white nationalism."
Even if it can disavow itself of the “white nationalism” charge, there is plenty that needs challenging in the Proud Boys beliefs. Still, the lines it draws between itself and white nationalists should not always be taken for granted. In another New Yorker article, McInnes is described talking to a member of his Proud Boys movement, who implies that they should be able to embrace pride in being white.
In the U.K. and in Europe the situation is even messier, with increasingly international alliances forming between different groups.
This week, Al Bawaba reported from an event in which Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defense League, gave a speech on behalf of Martin Sellner, the leader of the Generation Identity movement who had been detained by U.K. authorities before he could enter the country. When Robinson founded the EDL, it framed itself as an exclusively anti-Islam movement, and insisted it was not racist, (although its members language and actions often contradicted this official position).
Sellner’s Generation Identity movement is a somewhat different story. Whilst Generation Identity is cagey with its language, referring to protecting an “ethno-cultural identity” rather than talking about race explicitly, its white nationalist leanings are evident. An undercover journalist for ITV Exposure filmed a Generation Identity activist admitting that group membership has an “ethnic basis” when asked if it was a white nationalist organization.
Hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the "alt-right" march down East Market Street toward Lee Park during the "Unite the Right" rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/AFP/File)
Robinson emphasised before reading Sellner’s speech that he did not necessarily agree with every word, but was merely defending Sellner’s freedoms of expression. Yet there is an evident sense of solidarity developing between these movements. Whilst their differences should not be ignored, the fact is that they see themselves as having a common enemy in liberals and progressives
The more they club together in the face of a common enemy, the more chances there are for ideological exchange, and for the most extreme wings to recruit new members.
And so it is critical that the media keeps these distinctions evident, but without excusing or watering down discriminatory beliefs just because they fall short of Nazism. It’s a very fine mess of lines to tread. But in sum, the challenge must always be present in reporting around it. The media cannot ignore the far-right. But it cannot become its tool either.
The opinions expressed in this article are not necesarily those of Al Bawaba News.
