Matt Walsh: Dishonest Media’s Obsession With Stoking Racial Division On Full Display

Meh. It was on twitter basically and stuff like the Mirror and Daily News, but I never heard of it either. Recap seems to be it made news cuz during the dispute she yelled for help like she was in danger and pretended to cry was the consensus. It go a lot of views. Her story was she was "jumped". I didnt see it on CNN or the AP nor do I see the story when I search CNN.

 

There are discussions which might change a radical and absurd opinion. This isn't one of them. It presupposes the OP has an open mind.

 

Whether it's true or not isn't my point. He makes a living putting out stories designed to do nothing but make readers outraged. It's an unhealthy way for someone to consume their news. But enjoy.

 

The Twitter bio is obviously tongue in cheek.

I've listened to enough of his show to know that he's not a White Supremacist or a White Nationalist. For God sakes, he works for one of the biggest targets of White Supremacists in the country. He just has a standard for racism that applies equally both ways. Since we have an entire media apparatus eager to report on White on Black applications of racism, which are often-times fishing attempts or scanty cases that were either complete hoaxes, do not include evidence of racism, involved the Black person actually being in the wrong, or some combination of the three... he feels the need to report on the reverse to contextualize the reality. When the media is only giving you one side of the story, you're not getting the facts in context, you're getting a narrative.

And his strategy, which I understand a lot of Democrats don't like isn't playing defense.

You're generally one of the fairest left-leaning posters here, but I think you're being really unfair to him. I don't think he's a big unifier but he doesn't try to be, he's just a hard advocate for his side, and he's definitely not a White Nationalist or White Supremacist.

 

That is basically all cable news... and even the golden boys over at the New York Times do the same thing to a lesser degree.

At least he's honest about being biased.

 

Again, his niche is countering your MSNBCs, your Young Turks, your Huffington Posts.

His game isn't being square in the middle, but he doesn't have to be. I think it's more important to be right (as in correct) than in the middle.

If there is no counter to those left-wing media groups, you're left with a society moving more towards that direction because the standard of "normal" has shifted.

 

Yep it is.

Part of his message is not feeling the need to explain himself to people like you when it's pretty apparent it's supposed to be a joke.

When they attack your character, play offense not defense. The second you start playing defense, apologizing especially when you've done nothing wrong, you've already lost.

 

Dude, you're a self-proclaimed Marxist with Homer Simpson as your profile pic. You're the last person who should be lecturing people on whether their brain is functioning straight.

 

I mean, if I were to imagine the sort of things a self-described "theocratic fascist" said or did, it would pretty much be Matt Walsh. Like, he'd be perfectly home in Francoist Spain.

 

I guess the truth is now fascism.

Not surprising.

 

Whatever issues I have with my brain, it doesnt take a genius to question why someone concerned about "stoking racism" is also saying that another racially charged crime needs to be amplified by the media. Its incoherent. Perhaps its coherent to you, but to me that isnt a sign of a high functioning brain. Now if he'd said cover actual news instead of trying to achieve some sort of perfect amount of racial animus in media, then I wouldnt say such things.

 

It demonstrates that the media is about narrative not facts. Either report these cases proportionally or consistently, or don't at all. Otherwise you either have a skewed perception of the meaning of racism, or you care about narrative over facts in context.

That's his point, and I think that's an easy point to understand.

 

Fascists make their own truth, its what they do. It drives the libs mad, which I assume is part of the appeal.

 

Kind of like "what is a woman?"

Who do you guys trust,
1. The guys who believe the man with a penis calling himself a woman saying we need to "normalize the bulge" is in fact a woman.
2. Or the guy who points out that men and women have biological differences and your sex is based on what's between your legs, not what's between your ears.

 

His point seems to be he wants racially charged news coverage, just in a way that confirms his own racial views. Me, I'd like a media that didnt cover provocative stories intended to inflame and titilate, not a media that achieves some sort of imagined partisan balance in its prurience and agitation.

 

Do you think trust is built on believing/saying the right things? I don't.

 

You know what I'm fine with ending on that note. You can have the last word.