Archive for the ‘Ann Coulter’ Category

American Jews know anti-Semitism is a problem on the right. Why are Jewish organizations increasingly letting it slide? – JTA News

BERKELEY, Calif. (JTA) There are the makings of a rebellion brewing in the mainstream American Jewish community.

Its not a Jexodus, the rights quixotic dream that Jews will migrate en masse to the Republican Party.

It is a potential rebellion of the median Jew: pro-Israel, pro-two states and perfectly comfortable sitting among the 71 percent of Jews who voted for Hillary Clinton. The sort of Jew who isconcerned aboutleft-wing anti-Semitism on college campuses,but knows well enough to be more concerned aboutdeadly right-wing anti-Semitism.

The issue is simple: The Republican Party, from Donald Trump on down, has a huge anti-Semitism problem. Yet too many American Jewish organizations, which purport to represent the Jewish mainstream, are tiptoeing around it.

When pressed absolutely up against the wall, they might issue a timid plea to speak more carefully a mild rebuke that still usually comes wrapped in an insulating layer of gratitude for pro-Israel gestures.

Most Jews are not fools. We know there is a connection between the scare-mongering aboutSoros globalistsand cultural Marxists andcosmopolitan elites rhetoric that has become the conservative movements primary tool of political mobilization and the surge in anti-Semitic harassment, marginalization and violence that has plagued Jews in recent years.

Were tired of our own establishment organizations talking a big game about fighting anti-Semitism wherever it lies, only to supplicate themselves to a man and a party who has regularly and consistently trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes in pursuit of a political vision radically antagonistic to the values of American Jews.

The latest group to abdicate its duty? The American Jewish Committee.

Eyes fell on the AJC again this week afterPresident Trump, in remarks to the Israeli American Council, suggested that Jews arent nice people, would vote for him primarily to protect our own wealth and are disloyal to Israel. He even threw in an anti-Native American racial slur for good measure.

The AJC, which justinaugurated a social media campaign to Translate Hate,should have been especially attuned to what was happening here.

Trump has repeatedly hit on all of these anti-Semitic themes before. Hes complained thatJews wont back him because he doesnt want your money. Hes told American Jews that Israel is your country.

In many ways, Trumps IAC speech perfectly encapsulated the emerging conservative consensus about American Jews: Were disloyal to America in favor of our actual country, Israel, to which were also disloyal. Ann Coulter, at least, heard the message loud and clear:

Yet instead of a robust condemnation of yet another anti-Semitic indulgence from the president of the United States, the AJCs reply stood out from the rest of the Jewish community for adopting a tone that can only be described as groveling:

Well gosh, Id hate if Donald Trump hit a mine on the road to appealing to Jewish voters. He might get hurt!

Somehow a statement that purports to condemn Trumps anti-Semitism seemed to express more concern about Trumps well-being than that of the Jews. More than a few observers contrasted the wishy-washy response given to Trump with the AJCs considerably more robust reply to Rep. Ilhan Omars Benjamins remark:

The AJCs approach to Omar was not prefaced with sincere appreciation for her political accomplishments, nor couched in language that suggested they were primarily concerned with her well-being. She gets unadulterated scorn, and the AJC will never, ever let her forget it.

Apologists contend that kid gloves are warranted for the president because he and his party are pro-Israel unwavering, as the AJC gratuitously put it at the opening of its gentle admonishment.

The message? Being pro-Israel (or at least pro-Likud) isa get-out-of-anti-Semitism-free card. Groups like the AJC are sending the message that the correct positions on Israel will suffice to forgive any amount of anti-Semitism in America.

And Republicans have felt entitled to play that card, again and again, to wash away increasingly more brazen anti-Semitic indulgences.

Invite a Holocaust denier to the State of the Union, as Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., did?

Dont worry, hes a champion of Israel!

Say the Republican Party is controlled by the Jewish lobby, as former Minnesota congressman (and Trump-endorsed GOP Senate candidate) Jason Lewis did?

Its fine these are not my views about American support for Israel, period.

Even where other Jewish organizations have clearly and robustly condemned Republican anti-Semitism,the media (both Jewish and non-Jewish) routinely fails to follow up. There are no dogged demands for comment, no monthlong storylines about the GOPs anti-Semitism crisis.

Repeated instances of conservative anti-Semitic rhetoric are routinely glossed over and effectively forgiven even asRepublicans defiantly refuse to apologize for them. They spit in the face of the American Jewish majority, then have the chutzpah to call themselves defenders of the Jews and theyre allowed to get away with it largely without question.

Bari Weiss famously justified putting more intense focus onleft-wing anti-Semitismbecause it is supposedly more insidious than the right-wing variety: harder to spot, more easily integrated into reputable political, academic or media circles.

Yet we do not lack for organizing or editorials against left-wing anti-Semitism. If there is a form of anti-Semitism that has truly resisted consistent registration on the public radar, it is mainstream right-wing anti-Semitism.

On the mainstream right, we see conspiracy theories aboutJews buying Congressor trafficking migrants or orchestrating impeachment allowed to run rampant in the highest levels of government and in the most influential sectors of the media. And when they do predictably explode intovandalism, harassment or violence, few dare hold accountable the mainstream actors from political officials to Fox News mouthpieces who so eagerly served up the toxic stew.

Whats bizarre is thatthe AJCs own polling decisively demonstrates how far it has deviated from American Jewish priorities. This year, 78 percent of American Jews told the AJC that anti-Semitism on the extreme right represents a very or moderately serious threat, compared to 36 percent for the extreme left.

When it comes to attributing blame to political parties, the numbers are just as stark. Asked to assign responsibility for current levels of anti-Semitism on a 1-10 scale, Jews gave Republicans a median score of 7 compared to a 3 for Democrats.

When the political apparatuses of the American right from the president to Congress to Fox News repeatedly and regularly transmit anti-Semitic conspiracies of the worst sort, injecting them into American political discourse and normalizing them as a feature of American public life, it is not innocent. It needs a clarion response. We are screaming for the communal institutions that represent us to reflect this reality to reflect our reality when representing us on a political stage.

In fact, just this summer, the AJC expressed outrage at President Trumps comments today criticizing American Jews who support and vote for Democratic candidates, calling it shockingly divisive and unbecoming of the occupant of the highest elected office, and the comments inappropriate, unwelcome, and downright dangerous. What has changed since then? How is it that Trump can double-down on his anti-Semitism and get an effective green light on it?

The AJC needs to think very carefully about its future if it continues along this path. What is the use ofan organization that describes itself as the Jewish State Department if it stops reflecting the interests and preferences of most Jews? Increasingly Jews mainstream Jews are asking ourselves that very question.

In the meantime, American Jews will continue to fight anti-Semitism vigorously and unsparingly wherever it manifests. No distractions. No free passes. No timidity.

If the American Jewish Committee is interested in actually representing the American Jewish community, it should stand by us.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

See the original post:
American Jews know anti-Semitism is a problem on the right. Why are Jewish organizations increasingly letting it slide? - JTA News

Tucker Carlson Hosts White Supremacist on Show – Patheos

Tucker Carlson, who is beloved by white supremacists, hosted a political candidate on his show this week who also appears to be a white supremacist. Pete DAbrosca is running for a seat in Congress and has been widely praised by the most extreme right-wing figures and organizations, including InfoWars and VDARE.

Fox News Tucker Carlson recently hosted Pete DAbrosca, a congressional candidate who has ties to white nationalism and has supported the bigoted, anti-immigrant campaign of a group known as groypers, who are trolling conservative public events with anti-Semitic dog whistles and other hateful rhetoric.

Since DAbrosca announced his congressional bid and anti-immigrant platform over the summer, hes been lauded by far-right personalities and publications including Ann Coulter and the white nationalist publication VDare and appeared on the conspiracy theory outlet Infowars (which he had also appeared on before). In that most recent appearance, he agreed with the host that Democrats get elected through illegal voting and defended the leader of the groypers, a far-right media figure, Holocaust denier, and pro-segregation activist named Nick Fuentes who hosts America First on YouTube

Lets be blunt and call a spade a spade: Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist. He tries to cover it with veneer of mainstream conservatism, but it comes shining through far too often to be deniable.

Read the rest here:
Tucker Carlson Hosts White Supremacist on Show - Patheos

Drudge Report has hemorrhaged 28% of its traffic in four months – NOQ Report

What was once essentially impossible now seems to be happening right before our eyes. Drudge Report, the news aggregator that dominated the internet for two decades, has been losing traffic for five consecutive monthswith November marking a 28% reduction in traffic in just the last four.

Most attribute the loss of over 27 million monthly visitors since a peak in July to the anti-Trump shift the site has taken. Once a staunch Trump supporter, the sudden shift in narrative has caused speculation that Matt Drudge has quietly sold the site. Further speculation along the same lines points to Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian parties as having taken over the site with a very secretive deal in place, though these rumors are unconfirmed. (Editors Note: As the author states, these are unconfirmed rumors, as in nothing backing them whatsoever. I allowed inclusion of this point only because theres no evidence that theyre not true. Drudge has been acting strangely enough that even though its unlikely, its still plausible.)

During the 2016 election cycle, Drudge Report was an early and unflinching supporter of candidate Trump. All the way until shortly after the election, the front page constantly promoted candidate Trump while dogging on his GOP competitors during the primaries and Hillary Clinton during the general election. But things have changed. The site now highlights negative press and seemingly links only to left-leaning mainstream media publications for takes on anything pertaining to the White House.

One rumor floated is that Drudge has been unhappy with the Presidents inability to build the wall. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter is another former Trump sycophant who turned against the President over illegal immigration. Like Drudge, Coulters influence has been waning in conservative circles. There have been strong Drudge Report alternatives popping up recently to replace Drudge for Trump supporters.

Whatever has gotten into Drudge, its not helping his bottom line (unless the rumors are true and its DEFINITELY helping his bottom line). More importantly, its no longer a benefit for America to have Drudge Report persist with its influence.

Editors Note #2: Of all the conspiracy theories surrounding Drudge, one important note to add anecdotally is that the few times Ive visited the site recently, I havent seen a change in style. This is important to understand because Matt Drudges style has always been unique in the way he handles headlines, picks stories, and roots for the Patriots. Ive always been able to tell when it was him directly versus someone working for him who crafts headlines, and nothing in that regard has changed. I believe Drudge is still in control. He just hates President Trump now for some reason.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

Here is the original post:
Drudge Report has hemorrhaged 28% of its traffic in four months - NOQ Report

What too many get wrong about civility – News from southeastern Connecticut – theday.com

Civility gets a bad rap these days.

One need look no further than our head of state for confirmation, but it could be argued that Donald Trump is no more capable of civility than he is of humility, justice, good faith, wise counsel or any other virtue we'd wish our leaders to have. The rest of us we can be better.

What disconcerts is that some of the finer minds and political talents of the younger generations in particular but not exclusively have formed a distorted impression about what it means to engage in a civil manner.

If not corrected, that will be the country's loss. Because young adults are often the most passionately bold in their beliefs and possess the conviction and time to lead substantial change, before the obligations careers and family take over their lives.

But people are rejecting the notion of civility. They wrongly believe it's the same thing as meekness, or at best moderation and politeness. That a civil person is docile and genteel to a point of ineffectiveness.

However, its root is the Latin "civilitas," which denotes that which pertains to citizenship, politics and government. This sense needs to be reclaimed, I think, and civility ought to describe the attitudes and comportment that promote our best public values, the constructive aims we hold dear.

Unfortunately, we're seeing more and more behavior that accomplishes the opposite.

Maryland's former governor Martin O'Malley provided a classic example on Thanksgiving eve. He reportedly launched a tirade at Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, when the two ran into each other in a Washington pub.

O'Malley reportedly challenged Cuccinelli to justify the Trump administration's practice of separating immigrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border and warehousing them in chain-link cages. Fair point and an honest reply certainly would have been illuminating but it was lost amid the drama. At one point, O'Malley asked Cuccinelli if he wanted to throw a punch, according to reporting by the Washington Post.

A few days prior, first lady Melania Trump was jeered and booed by teenagers in Baltimore. The students were reportedly reacting to the president's rude and unprovoked slandering of their city as "a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess" where "no human being" would want to live. Trump's remarks, in turn, were meant to insult Rep. Elijah Cummings, since deceased, who had criticized Trump.

The heckling carried on for a good portion of the first lady's short speech. The students never settled down while she tried to pitch a message to "be best."

They failed. Their beef is with the president, not the first lady. It would have been far more productive if they'd held signs asking her to press her husband to "be best."

Civility requires that we avoid precisely the behaviors in which Trump indulges: name-calling, slurs and childish derision. However, it doesn't require us to suppress our emotions, even anger.

College campuses, in particular, have become the scenes of the national civility crisis. Groups on the left and right battle it out in a familiar pattern. Right-wing student group invites incendiary right-wing speaker; left-wing students set out to shut it down, by any means necessary. An all-too-typical example is the appearance of conservative writer Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley, in late November. Coulter's the author of, among other books, "Adios America! The Left's Plan to Turn our Country into a Third World Hellhole." The title tells you all you need to know about her and about the intentions of those who invited her. Anyone who seriously wanted to have a productive conversation about immigration even a very pointed and critical one would never invite Coulter as the speaker. She's a provocateur, not an honest scholar or thinker of any discernible public spirit. She's somebody you invite to campus to start a rumble.

And, as expected, more than 2,000 people protested, and there were a handful of arrests. Luckily there was no violence. To the university chancellor's credit, Berkeley had undergone a yearlong dialogue on free speech, including seminars on respectful dialogue, itself a response to campus disturbances over right-wing speakers in 2017.

The point of civility is not to keep the boat steady. Rather, the point is to reprove those who champion error and injustice unsparingly with words in reasoned debate. That can be discomfiting enough! The duty of civility is to articulate the highest and best values in civic life. It doesn't have to be nice, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve throwing a punch.

Mary Sanchez writes political commentary for the Tribune Content Agency.

Continued here:
What too many get wrong about civility - News from southeastern Connecticut - theday.com

"Bombshell" Wants Us To See The Women Of Fox News As Heroes – BuzzFeed News

Hilary B Gayle

From left: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, and Margot Robbie in Bombshell.

Bombshell, the new Jay Roach movie about the women of Fox News who took down chair Roger Ailes, unveils its story almost like a procedural. If youve been following the news the past couple of years, you probably know the outcome. In 2016, Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson sued Ailes for sexual harassment, setting off a chain reaction of other womens accusations including, most prominently, Megyn Kellys which culminated with his ouster from the network he helped build.

The movie focuses on the lead-up to those events, following Carlson and Kelly as they decide to build the case against Ailes and as they maneuver through the media and career fallout that came from their allegations.

The film is one of the more stylish entries in the burgeoning genre of explainer movies that, in breaking down Big, Serious Topics, become awards season darlings. Bombshell is already getting Oscar buzz; its loaded with major star power: Nicole Kidman plays Carlson, Charlize Theron stars as Kelly, and Margot Robbie is a fictionalized (and, spoiler alert, queer) Fox producer among the lower ranks.

By failing to bring race into its analysis, Bombshell falls into the same simplistic empowerment narrative.

Its also being received as a kind of #MeToo movie about women finding their voice in the Trump era and calling out institutions that ignore or outright support abuse and harassment. That this film depicting the realities of harassment was even made is noteworthy, and Theron, who is also a producer on the film, recently spoke about some of the difficulties in pursuing the project after some of the films initial backers pulled out. In some ways, the film complicates the lean-in womens empowerment narratives that permeate Hollywood and the media, especially through its representation of Kelly and the fictional producer. But by failing to bring race into its analysis, it falls into the same simplistic empowerment narrative, though now with a queer twist.

Bombshell is rare for a big production in that its focused on gender and power in a corporation, but it doesnt really provide a more nuanced contextualization of the stakes around Carlsons and Kellys stories. Instead, the movie ends up being, in some ways, an infomercial for their postFox News incarnations while also promoting the idea of a kinder, gentler Fox News without Ailes at the helm.

Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson.

In her essay The Cult of the Difficult Woman, critic Jia Tolentino writes about a certain strain of pop culture analysis predicated on the re-writing of celebrity lives as feminist texts. This framework uses women celebrities as tools for exploring questions of gender and sexism, without addressing, for one thing, the complicated ways that celebrities arent just regular people. And in defending women celebrities from the sexist trope of unlikability, the framework ends up ignoring other vectors of power, namely class and race.

With its emphasis on Megyn Kellys and Gretchen Carlsons stories, Bombshell initially seems like a movie version of that celebrity feminist analysis. The Megyn Kelly we meet here is decidedly not the one who deployed her prosecutorial skills on her show The Kelly File to stoke racist conspiracy theories or lecture viewers about the whiteness of Jesus and Santa. Instead, she is presented, in her own words, as a tell-it-like-it-is journalist who puts powerful people in the hot seat, and faces sexism because of it.

Presumably, representing the networks racial politics would be too controversial and make the protagonists too unlikable for the broad moviegoing audience.

This is how the movie frames her big moment sparring with Trump during the now-infamous presidential debate that turned her into a Vanity Fair cover story symbol of lean-in empowerment. (Her subsequent memoir, Settle for More, pushed this empowerment narrative even further.) Kellys decision to ask Trump about his treatment of women is portrayed less as a journalistic standard and more as a brave bucking of her networks and Ailes own sexism and support for Trump.

As with Kelly, the Gretchen Carlson we meet in the film is not the habitual peddler of racist conspiracy theories and anti-gay and anti-trans talking points. Instead, Carlson is an ideological maverick who faces pushback from Ailes for advocating for (some) gun control, and for appearing makeup-less on an episode about empowering young women. Nobody wants to watch a middle-aged woman sweat her way through menopause, Ailes admonishes her.

As the film lays out its story, it narratively emphasizes the importance of Kelly and Carlsons breaking with the sexism of conservative media orthodoxy, as if this means that they were ideologically independent-minded, rather than also complicit with that orthodoxy.

In the explainer movie mold, Bombshell frames the story so that its not just about individual celebrities but about sexism and the institution of Fox News in the Trump era. In the opening scenes, Kelly whom Theron portrays brilliantly, capturing everything from Kellys confident gait to the husky undertones of her voice speaks directly to viewers as she takes us through the different floors of the Fox building, including the floor where the Murdochs (owners of Fox) operate and the floor where Roger Ailes (the chair and CEO) holds court. In this way, institutional forces become embodied in particular power players whom we are meant to understand arent always in alignment. Yet what forces are represented as causing the misalignments are telling.

The movie defines Trumps, Ailes, and Fox News politics as problematic exclusively through gender, rather than also contextualizing gender within the networks racial politics. In fact, the film only attempts to bring in race in passing, as background information. For instance, Ailes involvement in the racist Willie Horton ads from George H.W. Bushs 1988 campaign, which promoted racist fears about black men as rapists of white women, is only mentioned quickly (without any explanation, assuming the audience will know what its code for) in the explainer-y intro of him.

The types of power dynamics the explainer movie foregrounds in the narrative (sexism against white women) and what it considers background information (racial politics) speaks to how it manufactures the imagined mainstream and white audience identification. Presumably, representing the networks racial politics would be too controversial and make the protagonists too unlikable for the broad moviegoing audience.

Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie, left) and Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) in Bombshell.

Bombshell isnt just about Carlsons or Kellys stories. In order to be a more universal, 2019-style story, the movie knows it cant just focus on two rich, powerful straight white celebrities. So the narrative includes a third character, a fictional composite aspiring producer Kayla (Margot Robbie). As a neophyte associate producer (and, as we later learn, a queer woman), she helps expand the films depiction of power, both in terms of its identity palette and in giving a view from someone of a lower status. But in many ways, its use of white queerness does help us better understand the films limitations regarding race and identity.

To its credit, the film attempts to use Kayla to show that leaning in doesnt follow predictable alliances. Gretchen Carlson in many ways the films most unambiguous hero attempts to make Kayla part of her team, pitching her on a kind of sisterhood to get to the top together. Kayla declines, opting to join Bill OReillys team, in a moment that implies shes leaning into, even selling out to, the more powerful person to ensure her way to the top.

On OReillys team, Kayla meets Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon), a show producer who is also a (not entirely open) lesbian and liberal Hillary supporter, and they begin an affair. The movies introduction of white queerness into the identity mix is important. Because just as the film sidesteps Carlsons and Kellys problematic racist moments, it arguably uses the figure of the white queer to soft-pedal the networks questionable racial politics. Its Carr, the white gay producer, who matter-of-factly breaks down the nuances of OReillys racial politics supports the wall, but against mass deportation to Kayla.

Similarly, its through Kayla and Carr that we are introduced to Kellys white Santa moment. In an interview with the New York Times, Theron mentioned the inclusion of the white Santa moment as one of the ways the film didnt shy away from Kellys complexities. Tellingly, though, it isnt a significant part of the films actual narrative its just included when Kayla watches a YouTube clip with Carr. We dont love Megyn Kelly because she thinks Santas white, Kayla explains later, we love her because she says it. In this way, she parrots the allegedly nonideological, tell-it-like-it-is narrative that allowed for Kellys mainstream media rehabilitation.

The films depiction of harassment and the fallout from it is an important reality that many women experience, and that, until #MeToo, rarely found its way into the mainstream cultural conversation. But its necessary to question the ways Bombshell uses white femininity and queerness to create audience identification.

Carlson is an unambiguous hero in part because she is seen as refusing to sell out to Fox News politics, which is only possible because her racial and trans politics arent represented in the film. Bombshell suggests Carlson is fired because she refuses to toe the companys sexist party line. She tells her lawyers that Ailes has made comments like Youre sexy but youre too much work and to get ahead you have to give a little head. Not incidentally, during her meeting with her lawyers, they bring up that she graduated summa cum laude from Stanford to emphasize her toughness in the battle ahead, credentials seemingly meant to remind viewers that shes more impressive than shes given credit for. (Rather than suggesting, for instance, how her elite education might have aligned her with the networks, and broader medias, class politics.)

Carlson is an unambiguous hero in part because she is seen as refusing to sell out to Fox News politics, which is only possible because her racial and trans politics arent represented in the film.

You will be muzzled, Gretchen, her lawyer warns Carlson in the final scenes. Maybe, she says, suggesting shed ultimately break through that muzzle, while also presenting her as the heroic voice that made Bombshell possible.

Kayla, who is harassed quite graphically and invasively by Ailes in one of the films most sensitively rendered scenes, tries to confide in Carr as soon as it happens, but Carr asks her not to involve her; she cant help, because shes a lesbian at Fox News. Kayla hesitates coming forward, and after Carlson goes public, she calls Carr for advice while on a date with a man, but their conversation becomes about Kayla not being openly gay (in contrast to Carr).

We are meant to sympathize with the predicament of these queer white women because of the precariousness of their position at the network. The implication is that because Carr is a Hillary liberal, shes in some ways outside the networks racial power structure; yet the film could have complicated their worldview by using the narrative to question the way that their whiteness (and willingness to overlook racism) is what allows them to be at the network in the first place.

Kelly, meanwhile, goes back and forth on whether she should reveal that Ailes harassed her a decade earlier. Its a difficult decision because Ailes ultimately promoted her, she points out, and because when Shepard Smith came out, Ailes told him he didnt care where he put his pecker. Kelly feels like her own advancement and Ailes tolerance of a white gay man make Ailes not quite a monster in her eyes. Again, the film makes tolerance of white queerness a kind of litmus test for acceptability.

Both Kayla and Kelly ultimately decide to talk to the lawyers, helping lead to Ailes firing, and the framing of the aftermath is important. After Ailes firing, the Murdochs are depicted calling Trump after his win, even though they were once against him. This suggests a potentially dark worldview that nothing has really changed. Kayla comes forward and leaves the network.

But in terms of the world of the network, perhaps the most important moment after Ailes leaves is when producer Carr puts a framed picture of her and her college girlfriend which she had hidden earlier back on her desk. Its a melodramatic moment, implying that the Fox News family now has room for her and is now a potentially gentler, kinder place with Ailes out of the picture.

Every narrative has to create a moral universe, and in order to locate power in this film, its important to think about who represents the establishment and why. For Kayla, Carlson and Kelly represent the conservative establishment.

When Kelly is dealing with her post-Trump interview fallout, her husband says, Honey, get real, you are the establishment. He seems to be referring to the fact that Fox News has become part of the mainstream media. After her first post-debate interview, Kellys husband also tells her that she went too soft on Trump, and Kelly admits she needs to keep access to keep up their lifestyle. Most importantly, though, neither Kellys husband nor Kayla mean that Carlson or Kelly are the establishment as powerful white women in media. They are establishment in vague terms of class and media positioning, but can never be overtly represented as the establishment as powerful white women because then the films message would get too complicated.

To be legible as a mainstream movie, Bombshell has to participate in the kinds of narratives promoted by Fox News and mainstream media itself. Namely, that the distinction of liberal versus conservative, framed through debates about white feminism or homonormative gay rights, are somehow the most important political distinctions. This ignores the fact that, for instance, the overemphasis on those distinctions is itself a reduction of political possibilities, or the way that classism and racism in media cut across such distinctions.

To be legible as a mainstream movie, Bombshell has to participate in the kinds of narratives promoted by Fox News and mainstream media itself.

There is a kind of running theme in the film that you cant leave Fox News because youre tainted by association (both Carr and Kelly float that idea). The movie emphasizes the blowback Megyn Kelly receives after the Trump debate, including Trump calling her a bimbo, without also addressing the ways that moment also helped her secure a prominent spot in mainstream media. (Instead, theres even a melodramatic scene asking us to sympathize with her as a mother, when her children are scared by a paparazzo at their hotel. There are later similar scenes of Carlson as a mother.)

Ultimately, the events depicted in the film helped Carlson reinvent herself as something of an authority on harassment, speaking at Women at the Top: Womens Empowerment conferences, getting a Justice for Women television deal with Lifetime network, and even calling the tour for her memoir, Getting Real, Be Fierce. Kelly became a hero of lean-in empowerment with her own network morning show, landing a very lucrative deal with NBC after she left Fox News, where she pursued #MeToo stories.

Despite lacking any morning show hosting experience, the immediacy with which Kelly was hired by NBC might have been a way of appealing to the time slots white minivan majority audience after the election. The fact that longtime network fixture Tamron Hall was passed over in the process is another reminder of the politics about race and gender in the media that Bombshell fails to acknowledge. (Kelly was later fired over a blackface controversy.)

We live in a moment when the complicated intersections between whiteness and gender are made evident by the fact that a majority of white women voted for Trump. But this film is still premised on the idea that conservative white femininity is something of an anomaly and against womens interests, rather than in the interests of plenty of white women.

It would be more interesting if the film had helped explain rather than participate in the medias normalization of radical, right-wing white women with racist, anti-gay, and anti-feminist views. This has a long history, from the era of Phyllis Schlafly (the subject of another current show) and Anita Bryant (subject of a forthcoming biopic), through that of Ann Coulter and Tomi Lahren. There is almost an affirmative action spot for such women on cable news and morning shows including Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Meghan McCain on The View. There is no counterpart, for instance, of radical, left-wing women of color pundits or media figures given that kind of welcoming treatment by mainstream media.

In focusing on the sensational media mechanics and legal machinations of the Carlson and Kelly stories, the film successfully turns questions of power and harassment into a stylish Hollywood procedural-as-thriller. But its selective story about gender and its refusal to complicate its racial perspective missed an opportunity to provide a more nuanced analysis about how power works.

Bombshell was originally titled Fair and Balanced, which is, arguably, a more honest description of the kind of Hollywood-friendly liberal recuperation of Fox News culture that its actually portraying. But its new, suggestive title, playing on the double meaning of news scandal and blonde femininity, has helped sell the movie as a powerful, zeitgeist-y story about women speaking truth to power. The fact that it might become the #MeToo movie of 2019 might be a more salient critique of the class and racial politics of Hollywoods versions of womens empowerment than anything the film depicts.

Read this article:
"Bombshell" Wants Us To See The Women Of Fox News As Heroes - BuzzFeed News