Thank you for asking, because we have some strong opinions - not just about this particular documentary, but about any media coverage of fascists that relies on the participation of anti-fascists.

Like we always say, anti-fascism is a big tent in which people with all kinds of different political perspectives unite in their opposition to fascism.  But one of the main tenets of anti-fascism is the position of “No Platform For Fascists.”  This means that we don’t believe anyone is obligated to provide fascists with the means to amplify or broadcast their filth; we don’t think anyone should; and we will do whatever we can to deny the fash platforms from which to do that, whether that means shutting down venues to hold their hate rallies or blocking their access to social media channels or denying them mass media coverage.  

The media, however, is always willing to give free coverage and publicity to fascists, because those stories are guaranteed draw a big audience.  A lot of people in the media tell themselves this is ok because they’ll “make the fascists look bad.”  If that was true - that 99% of the audience consuming media coverage of fascists thinks it makes them look bad - why are fascists still so willing to participate?  Because for every 99 people that think the media coverage makes the fascists look like the scum they are, one person will be impressed by them, and seek them out to join them.  When it’s something like a Netflix doc which will be made available to 140 million subscribers, that means a potentially fash-sympathetic global audience of 1.4 million will get to see it and hear about fascist leaders and organizations they may not have heard of before.  No movement would turn down an opportunity like that. 

The trick is that the media don’t want to appear to be defacto publicists and promoters of fascism, so they need a countering viewpoint to “balance” their piece by showing “both sides.”  That’s where people like Daryl Lamont Jenkins come in.

Jenkins, who “co-stars” along with white supremacist Richard Spencer  in Alt-Right, has been doing anti-fascist work for decades now but what troubles us is his relentless pursuit of opportunities to provide the fascists he’s supposed to be in opposition to with media platforms to spout off their bullshit to much larger audiences than they would otherwise be able to. The Netflix doc Alt-Right is the perfect example of this: it’s the first time that white supremacists like Richard Spencer or Gavin McInnis or David Duke or Jared Taylor get to have their views and opinions broadcast via Netflix into 140 million homes.  This was undeniably the biggest media coup for American Rennaissance - Taylor’s obscure club for racist crackpots, for example.  And that was all made possible by Jenkins’ willingness to participate in a documentary where fascists get more screen time and more opportunities to explain their fucked-up beliefs than anti-fascists do.  

The truth is that white supremacists, nazis, and other extreme right bigots rely on the media to grow their movement.  If you want a clear example of this, think about the Soldiers of Odin: they were an obscure group of maybe a dozen Finnish Islamophobes that liked to cosplay bikers and walk around the streets of Helsinki, threatening racialized people.  They would have remained just that tiny & insignificant were it not for the international media coverage they received.  Because of that coverage, they went from a dozen bigoted losers to an international movement with chapters in many different countries.  We know from a source that at least one chapter was using a Vice documentary about them as a recruiting tool - you can’t really find a clearer example of media coverage designed to make a hate group look bad actually helping that group grow exponentially. 

Think about it: if Jenkins & other anti-fascists refused to participate in Alt Right, then the documentary would’ve been 90 minutes of nothing but fash propaganda.  No one would air that and it probably wouldn’t even be made.  The media needs anti-fascists to participate in these projects to make them seem objective by showing “both sides.”  Which in and of itself is hugely problematic, because it equates genocidal, violent bigotry as simply “the other side,” of a debate, like that’s just as valid to support as opposition to race hate and mass murder.  

Jenkins has taken a lot of heat over the years for being so willing to act as the “other side” cover for media stories about fascists.  His defense of his actions boils down to “it’s good for anti-fascism because it means our message will reach a lot more people and that’s more important than whatever help it gives to fascists.”  We think he’s dead wrong about that.  If Jenkins was right, we would have expected a noticeable uptick in antifa support after Alt Right premiered - bigger turnouts at anti-fascist actions, a noticeable increase in support for projects like The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund, etc.  Alt Right has been out for about six weeks now and there has no detectable increase in support for anti-fascism.  

We believe that principled anti-fascists refuse to cooperate with any journalists or filmmakers on projects that also provide fascists with an opportunity to amplify their reach via access to a platform they wouldn’t have otherwise.  We believe that collaboration with media projects that amplify the voices and opinions of fascists = providing them with a platform, which is the exact opposite of anti-fascism.