Mediaboss Marketing

The recent Dr. Seuss kerfuffle is a valuable case study in the classic four-step method by which the left conducts itself in the American culture wars. It goes like this:

First, someone on the left stages a provocative assault on a cultural artifact or cultural norm, usually as an outgrowth of a fashionable idea from within the leftist coalition.

The move then generates a shocked reaction from the right, which had nothing to do with the initial promulgation of the controversy.

At this point, the left uses the counter-reaction it provoked to accuse the right of pursuing a culture war against the left.

Finally, the right finds itself accused not only of trying to divide us and polarize the country and the culture but of being crazy for taking the initial provocation seriously.

Consider how the Dr. Seuss kulturkampf came to be. In late February, Loudon County Public Schools, the third-largest system in Virginia, announced it would no longer include Dr. Seuss and his works among those it celebrated on Read Across America Day this month.

Some of his books were said to contain strong racial overtones, according to recent research.

This was notable for many reasons. For one thing, Read Across America Day was conceived two decades ago as a kind of birthday celebration of Dr. Seuss who was considered the gateway druggist for American literacy and therefore a vital force in promoting one of the great common goods of a democratic society.

For another, Dr. Seuss was an icon of leftist values and ideas. A cartoonist for a radical New York City daily called PM in his younger days, Theodor Geisel later published paeans to environmentalism (The Lorax) and anti-nuclear propaganda that drew a then-fashionable-on-the-left moral equivalence between America and the Soviet Union (The Butter Battle Book).

His contributions to leftist cant availed his legacy naught. A few days later, the Biden White House dropped all mention of Dr. Seuss from its commemoration of Read Across America Day as well.

This was followed in short order by the public announcement by the business that manages Dr. Seuss literary works that a decision had been made the previous year to cease sales of six of his writings because these books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.

Geisel has left no heirs, and so there is no one to defend his name or reputation from whatever commercial forces are seeking to profit from his work by erasing creations that no longer pass muster with the cultural commissars of our moment.

Note that there wasnt a single Republican or conservative voice involved here. This was entirely taking place as an action item among the woke, who were seeking to advance the cause of diversity through the retroactive finding of political and racial incorrectness.

Despite the fact that Dr. Seuss was no friend of the right, shocked articles began to appear in conservative quarters about the cancellation of his work. Thats when the gaslighting began.

No, said Reuters in a fact check, Dr. Seuss wasnt being banned by Loudon County! Any such claim was missing context! But cancellation and banning are not the same thing and in any case, while Loudon County might not have banned the books, Dr. Seuss Enterprises itself certainly was doing exactly that.

Right-wing critics are already whining that the company caved to the woke mob, wrote Washington Post book critic Ron Charles, who scoffed at this conservative whining, even as he oozed his lubricious pleasure at the wonders of censorship. We will have to get rid of other things, too, he wrote ominously, in a manner that suggests he would have made a wonderful ideological functionary in Stalins Kremlin.

When Fox News and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tried to make hay out of the matter, they came under withering assault from fellow voices in the media and politics about how they were focusing on silliness rather than the real problems afflicting America.

Liberals were outraged by former President Donald Trumps tall tales about crowd size and fake news, but when it comes to controlling the culture, Trump is an amateur in the gaslighting business compared with them.

jpodhoretz@gmail.com

Here is the original post:
The left has perfected the art of gaslighting in the culture wars - New York Post

When Lotte de Beers new production of Verdis Aida recently premiered at the Paris Opera not to a full house, but to an audience online she was just relieved it was happening.

This might have been my hardest project ever, de Beer said in a video interview. We had crisis after crisis after crisis.

The development of her staging, which is streaming on Arte.tv through Aug. 20, came amid a labor dispute at the Paris Opera that was quickly followed by a full pandemic shutdown and an earlier than expected transfer of power in the companys leadership. She was working with multiple casts at once, including star singers like the tenor Jonas Kaufmann, whose busy schedules made them less than ideally available for rehearsals. And the production had to be continually adapted to coronavirus restrictions.

And then there is the ideological quagmire into which this Aida was born. The Paris Opera, like many other institutions, has during the past year been forced, even by its own employees, to come to terms with its poor track record of racial representation, as well as practices like blackface and Orientalist caricature.

Planning for the new Aida predated Neefs tenure, but it fits squarely in this moment of the Paris Operas history. Verdis 1871 tragedy, a love story set in a time of war between ancient Egypt and Ethiopia, is often given the treatment of a Cleopatra-like costume drama. But de Beer, who will become the director of the Vienna Volksoper next year, has offered a version so unusual that its Aida, the soprano Sondra Radvanovsky, pleaded on Instagram before opening night for her fans to open your minds to something completely different.

De Beers production is set in the 19th century, around the time of the operas premiere. Yet that sounds more specific than it comes across in practice. Her staging exists in a flexible, metaphor-heavy space that acts, by turns, as a colonial museum of ancient artifacts and natural history, including a prominently displayed skull that recalls pseudoscientific justifications of white supremacy; a frantic stage of tableaux vivants inspired by double-edged images of Western superiority, like Americans raising the flag on Iwo Jima; and the chilling depths of the Suez Canal, which opened two years before Aida.

With an occasionally chaotic blend of aesthetics a winking embrace of kitsch, Bunraku-style puppetry, and designs by the artist Virginia Chihota, who is based in Ethiopia de Beer examines the works Orientalist undertones and legacy in a world of changing sensibilities.

Acknowledging that her approach eschews literal interpretation at almost every turn, de Beer said: I do understand that if youre expecting a one-to-one Aida, where she is an Ethiopian slave and he is an Egyptian army leader, youre not getting exactly what you expected. And yeah, what can I say about that?

In fact, she had plenty to say about the ideas behind her production and what it means to love an art form with a problematic past. Here are edited excerpts from the conversation.

How was your production influenced by its casting of mostly white singers?

I think they first did the casting, and then they asked a couple of directors, who all said no. So in a late phase for a house like this, I was asked.

Its a challenge. Its a piece that I love, but also a piece that Im critical of. It was clear that race needed to be discussed, but couldnt be discussed by way of casting. I also knew that I wanted a non-Western and preferably African view, which is why I asked Virginia Chihota to be, as a visual artist, my partner in making this show. I didnt just want to use her visuals; I wanted her take on the piece.

And what did you come up with?

I wanted to portray the piece on two levels. I wanted to give the story inside the piece, which is a very strong story: It has a political line; its about war; its about patriotism; its about loyalty; its about status and the loss of status. But its also a love story.

I also knew I wanted to portray the story of the piece itself. The music is beautiful; I love it. But it has borrowed a lot of other culturess musics and turned them into Orientalist clichs in brilliant ways, but its problematic seen from our times. And its premiere coincided with the opening of the Suez Canal, which itself was a colonial tool.

I thought it would be interesting to create the metaphor of the colonial art museum where looted art objects are being exhibited, because right now in France, thats a big discussion going on: Do we give these artifacts back? Who do they belong to?

Your ambivalence about Aida could apply to a lot of operas.

You fall in love with these characters feel with them, cry with them, die with them. But on a certain level, you can detach from that and think about these pieces and the representation of the characters. What I hope is that its like reading your own diary 10 years after youve written it, and you can look at yourself and go: My God, what a crazy teenager I was, but of course this turned me into who I am.

These operas are part of our history, part of what makes us who we are both in the completely positive and the completely negative senses. I think if we can embrace both and acknowledge both, that might actually teach us something about our future.

How would you feel as an audience member at a more traditional Aida?

For me its boring, but its also offensive. I think if we continue in that way, we give people such good ammunition to say: Why are we sponsoring these big opera houses?

The irony, of course, is that a production like yours makes some people ask that same question.

Quite a lot, Ive noticed. I have to say that the negative reviews didnt affect me as much as some negative reviews have affected me in the past, because its been almost an ideological argument. Those are also people who really love this art form. And I will soon be leading my own opera house, where Im sure a large part of the audience might think that way. Its my job to reach out to them and take their worries seriously.

Its a matter of mind-set, because opera is music theater. Music, you dont need to update; it is an abstract language. If you hear music that was composed 400 years ago, it communicates in the same way to your soul. But theater is about ideas, texts, jokes. Its about interpersonal relationships. And those change. Thats why the spoken theater tradition is very different from the music tradition. And in opera, those will always rub up against each other. Thats why I love it.

Originally posted here:
A New Aida Lands in the Middle of Frances Culture Wars - The New York Times

After Megxit, Morgxit. Yesterday, Piers Morganwhose longstanding animus toward Meghan Markle has reached a deranged fever pitch since she and her husband, Prince Harry, sat for an explosive interview with Oprah Winfreystormed off the set of Good Morning Britain, a breakfast show that he co-hosted on ITV (the same network, incidentally, that broadcast the Oprah interview in the UK). He had been challenged on air by a colleague, Alex Beresford, who suggested to Morgan that he dislikes Meghan because she snubbed him socially. Has she said anything about you since she cut you off? Beresford asked. I dont think she has, but yet you continue to trash her. At that, Morgan stood up and walked out. Sorry, he said, cant do this. Beresford shook his head. This is absolutely diabolical behavior, he said. Im sorry, but Piers spouts off on a regular basis and we all have to sit there and listen. Susanna Reid, Morgans co-host (who has also regularly sparred with him on air), cut in for a break. It wasnt yet 7am.

Initially, Morgan wasnt gone for long. He came back to conclude his argument with Beresford; later, he hosted an interview with Thomas Markle, Meghans estranged father, that watching journalists variously called uncomfortable and sickeningly gratuitous. By the end of the day, however, Morgan would be gone for good. ITV announced, in a terse statement, that Morgan had permanently quit Good Morning Britain, and that the network had accepted his decision. It offered no further details, but Carolyn McCall, ITVs CEO, had moved earlier, on an earnings call, to distance herself from comments Morgan had made about Meghans mental health. (Meghan told Oprah that she had suicidal thoughts while she was a working member of the royal family; Morgan said on Monday, I dont believe a word she says. I wouldnt believe her if she read me a weather report.) Mind, a mental-health charity that has worked with ITV, had disavowed Morgans remarks; Meghan reportedly lodged a formal complaint with the broadcaster, and thousands of viewers complained to Ofcom, Britains media regulator, which confirmed yesterday that it was investigating. This morning, Reid addressed Morgans absence on air. She was unable to muster many kind words, beyond acknowledging that Morgan had devoted fans. Piers and I have disagreed on many things, and that dynamic was one of the things that viewers loved about the program. He was without doubt an outspoken, challenging, opinionated, disruptive broadcaster, she said. Shows go on, and so on we go.

ICYMI: What the pandemic means for paywalls

Last night, Morgan broke his silence in a tweet that he hashtagged #TrustYourGut. This morning, he amped up the defiancebragging about yesterdays ratings, tweeting a Winston Churchill quote about free speech, doubling down on his Meghan skepticism, and saying, Im off to spend more time with my opinions. He was off, it turned out, to share more of his opinions with reporters outside his home. If I have to fall on my sword for expressing an honestly-held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge she came out with in that interview, so be it, he said, over the clicking of cameras. Although the woke crowd will think that theyve canceled me, I think they will be rather disappointed when I re-emerge. Already, Morgans comrades in Britains (and Americas) anti-woke brigades have come rushing to his defense. When every single person on your TV screens or on the radio is identikit, dull as ditchwater, toeing the line, and spouting the same acceptable opinions every single day so that the Twitter mobs dont demand they are canceled, well, the thought police wont stop there, the right-wing broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer said on talk radio this morning. Theyll come for you next.

If this all sounds a bit Fox News-y to you, you wouldnt be the only one. In recent years, liberal commentators have fretted that a US-style culture war is gaining ground on the British righta dynamic fueled by Brexit, and its attendant nativist politics of xenophobia and chest-thumping national pride, that has since manifested in ever-more contrived rows whose particulars remain thoroughly British (the flag, patriotic anthems, national heritage) but whose totems and lexicon (statues, campus free speech, wokeness) increasingly feel Americanized. The governing Conservative Party has mainlined the politics of social grievance as its voter base has started to cross traditional class lines. On the media front, Fox News has entered the conversation: two new channels that are in the process of being set upone by Rupert Murdoch, the other by rivals including Andrew Neil, a veteran conservative journalist with longstanding ties both to the BBC and the Murdoch empireare banking on the growing popularity of brash anti-liberal commentary, and have already earned the moniker of British Foxes. No sooner had Morgan quit yesterday than he had been linked with both ventures.

The danger a British Fox could pose should not be dismissed out of hand; we need only look to the US to see that. But its far from clear that the American language of grievanceand the cancel culture wars, in particularreally resonate in the same way in the UK. And, most pertinently, Britain does not need to import this language at all. The Brits practically invented modern, media-driven outrage, albeit in print, not on screen; Murdoch was a menace in the UK long before Fox was a glint in his eye. Morgan cut his teeth at Murdoch tabloids, and went on to edit one of them. Britain, of course, exported Morgan to the US; he hosted a primetime show on CNN from 2011 through 2014, when the network literally canceled him, due to poor ratings. He is not, whatever he may say, being metaphorically canceled nowat least, not by anyone other than himself. If anything is true of the British media industry, it is that rich, white motormouths with tedious views about free speech and the royal family will never want for a professional home. As Amol Rajan, the BBCs media editor, wrote yesterday, Morgans job at Good Morning Britain may have fallen victim to the culture war, but thats different from saying Morgan himself is a victim of it; in some ways he has been a beneficiary. In many ways.

Meanwhile, a much more important conversationabout systemic racism in British society and the media, more narrowlyhas been overshadowed by Morgans theatrics. In the Oprah interview, Meghan and Harry called out racism in Britains press; the countrys Society of Editors declared categorically, in response, that the UK media is not bigoted, which itself prompted a backlash from well over a hundred British journalists of color, as well as from the editors of The Guardian, the Financial Times, and HuffPost UK, who called the statement proof of an industry in denial. Yesterday morning, Morgan stuck around long enough to hear Beresford, who identifies as mixed race, attest to the covert and overt racism he has experienced at work. I wish I had the privilege to sit on the fence, Beresford said afterward, but in order for me to do that I would have to strip myself of my identity and thats not something I can do. Royal feuds and cancel culture nonsense are not the only dynamics that straddle the Atlantic.

Below, more on the British media and the interview:

Other notable stories:

ICYMI: As protests grow in Myanmar, so do crackdowns on the press

Read the original here:
Racism, the culture wars, and the self-cancellation of Piers Morgan - Columbia Journalism Review

Americas culture wars are an export the rest of the world doesnt thank you for especially we Britons, whoare now saddled with a living embodiment of those wars in the figure of Meghan Markle.

By sending her our way, American culture has fired a woke missile right into the heart of the British establishment. Shesa one-woman family destroyer, only in this case, the family in question happens to form one of Europes most venerable and ancient institutions.

For years, Markle has had virtually no relationship with any of her own family.It seems that she wants to ensure that her husband, Prince Harry, similarly has no relations with his. She has sought to sever his blood ties through the medium of Oprah Winfrey.

During their interview, Markle showed herself to be a far better actress than her minor TV career might ever have suggested.In her two-hour special, she posed, preened, emoted and made constant unsubstantiated claims.Worst was her claim that someone in the family had asked Harry what he thought their first-born might look like.This was immediately asserted by both Meghan and Oprah to be an example of racism.

Was it?I very much doubt it.If one of the royals had said anything actually racist, then Markle would have used it to get another wheelbarrow of cash in another of her high-profile attempts to avoid the limelight.As it was, she relied on innuendo.

The royal question could have been most likely was an entirely innocent inquiry, made in what we used to call private (the Duchess will have to look up that word).Prince Harry is ginger-haired.It is conceivable that a family member asked whether he thought the baby would have ginger hair. Given that the babys mother is black, the questioner likely wondered, might the baby come out as non-pasty-white?That is the most likely human explanation.

Did the unnamed royal-family member express disgust at the idea of a mixed-race baby?Of course not.Which is why all Markle offered were teary-eyed non-specifics. Later, she implied that her son wasnt given the title Prince because of his race. In fact, a great-grandson of the Queen is never titled Prince, unless he is the son of the heir to the throne, which Archie isnt.

But Markle in her mansion implied that she never heard anything so racist orwicked. Ignorant as swans and as malevolent to boot, the millionaire Markle simply emoted to the billionaire Oprah about how uniquely unfortunate and bullied she is.And so the oldest institution in Britain, the monarchy, is now on the defensive, with Buckingham Palace having to release a statement expressing concern.

Sothe Queen and her 99-year-old husband, who fought the Nazis in World War II, have to watch their grandsons nightmare of a wife try to destroy everything they have worked for through these bogus 21st-century racism accusations.

And things are getting worse.The atmosphere in Britain is toxic.Toxic like everything that Markle touches.To even say that you doubt Markle is to risk the whole stupid spirit of our age come crashing down upon you.

One of Markles claims to Oprah was that she had mental-health problems brought on by marrying into the royal family.Her hardships?She didnt know she had to curtsy when meeting the Queen.She also didnt know that the British tabloids wouldnt fawn over her.Had she even heard of the royal family before directing herself straight at the unsuspecting Prince Harry?Of course she had.Cansomeone as wily as Markle not even use Google?

Still, express doubt over any of this and you risk losing everything.Piers Morgan not generally my cup of tea was one of the very few Brits who expressed doubt over Markles account.The result?Markle complained to his bosses, who promptly defenestrated Morgans career.

To deny that the British monarchy is racist, when it presides over one of the most diverse group of nations on earth, the Commonwealth, is to attract the same ire.

Well, to hell with these divisive, race-baiting, self-pitying, self-advancing furies.And to hell with those who demand that we all say only one thing and look at the world through only one lens.We have the right to doubt a Duchess. You Americans do, too. Indeed, your nation was founded upon that right.

Douglas Murray is the author, most recently, of The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, now out in paperback.

Twitter: @DouglasKMurray

Visit link:
Meghan Markle is a US culture-war missile aimed at the heart of Britain and Europe - New York Post

The question of gender identity is perhaps the most explosive issue of the culture war. While all right-thinking people must vigorously oppose discrimination against trans people, what is striking is just how quickly some of the most radical claims of the trans movement have spread.

The mantra that "trans women are women"expresses a view that was fringe only five or six years ago. But despite no changes to the law, it is an assumption that has seeped into a whole host of institutions, including schools, the police, prisons and medical services.

Womens prisons have hosted trans prisoners on the basis of their identified gender alone. Police have arrested members of the public for the non-existent crime of "misgendering". Schools are encouraged teach pupils that gender exists in your brain and is independent of your biolgical sex. Some NHS Trusts have adopted gender-neutral language for their maternity services. "Chestfeeding", "human milk" and "birthing parent"are suggested as alternatives to "breastfeeding","breast milk"and "mother".Even conservative institutions like the Church of England and the Tory Party want to be on "the right side of history"when it comes to trans issues. And then, of course, theres the ONS tacitly encouraging self-identification.

Whether the people running these institutions personally buy into gender self-identification is an open question. The cost of raising critical questions is so enormous, and many who might have doubts might understandably opt for a quiet life. Gender-critical feminists like the campaigners challenging the ONS run the risk of losing their jobs, being censored on social media, and, in some cases, being arrested for expressing views which were once taken for granted.

The lesson is this: you might think you can sit out of the culture wars. But it wont be long before the culture wars come for you.

Fraser Myers is assistant editor of Spiked

See the rest here:
Sex, gender and the Census: how the culture wars affect us all - Telegraph.co.uk