In the era of alternative facts and fake news, new voices in the media have thrown a wrench into U.S. political dialogue.
While it’s concerning enough that facts, scientific data, and journalistic integrity are no longer strong enough to hold their own in debate, I think there’s another aspect of the conversation at large that’s cause for alarm.
The entrance of unorthodox perspectives into the mainstream has effectively put free speech under attack. Donald Trump and his cabinet are the obvious candidates that come to mind.
In his first major press conference since winning the election, Trump aggressively silenced a CNN reporter’s attempt to question him and accused the network of broadcasting fake news. After Trump’s first week as president, NPR had enough content to warrant an article dedicated to addressing a laundry list of his exaggerations and false statements made since being elected.
Not to be outdone, chief strategist Steve Bannon claimed last week that the press was the “opposition party” and that it should “keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.”
Then there are sensations like Tomi Lahren and Milo Yiannapoulos, who seemed to come out of nowhere into prominent perches in the media. Each boasts millions of video views in addition to having major outlets for their opinions like a spot on The Blaze and a college speaking tour.
Trump, Lahren, and Yiannapoulos all embrace the term “free speech” in its most radical form. That is, asserting yourself as an authority figure and using that as grounds to say whatever you want.
These three figures have proven that you don’t need to be professional, experienced, well-read, or adequately informed to gain a massive following willing to adopt your point of view, and even to fight and to vote for it.
The spread of false or misleading information across media platforms is itself problematic, along with attempts to stamp out oppositional messaging. But giving people the opportunity to inject hateful messaging and unsubstantiated claims into mainstream media poses a danger to the integrity of free speech as a democratic tool.
Trying to engage with Lahren’s views showcases the difficult nature of this free speech entanglement.
Knowledgeable but strongly opinionated, Lahren is a tempting target. Her views perpetuate what I think of as a flammable way to address politics, so I’ve found myself wanting her to be taken out of the spotlight to avoid this.
Then I hear what I’m saying.
It’s a catch-22. You’re trapped in a position where you want to silence her –– or anyone who holds a similar position that promotes oppressive, vicious discourse –– yet real faith in democratic institutions means defending such a person’s right to do so, especially when you disagree.
So where does that leave us?
I’ve come to terms with the fact that Trump, Lahren, and Yiannapoulos all have their rights to free speech in spite of my admittedly stark disagreements with their beliefs, and in spite of their distressingly radical views.
My concern stems more from the war on meaning created by the rise of such figures in our national public forum. Meaning itself is what’s at stake here.
We’re already at a point where questions and criticisms posed to authority figures in this war are swatted away and made out to be gnats. And this is why self-serving reasoning is the driving force behind the president’s administration.
Logic has taken a backseat in mainstream discourse. That is, it’s not a prerequisite to have a seat at the table.
Normalizing this kind of populism — in which you don’t need to make sense or prove yourself, and instead just need to get people going — runs the risk of weakening our democracy. A democratic government relies on effective communication.
It’s on us to not let ourselves be elbowed out of the conversation or be spoken over.
Reach writer Mac Hubbard at opinion@dailyuw.com. Twitter: @hubbagumpshrimp