The New Yorker, The Economist and Steve Bannon’s squad of useful idiots: Balkissoon

Find it hard to disagree with her fundamental points (although I have respect for David Frum):

Steve Bannon is going on tour, and venerable institutions are lining up to host him.

This week, the 93-year-old New Yorker and the 175-year-old Economist announced plans to have their editors-in-chief interview Mr. Bannon at separate live events this month. Organizers of the Munk Debates revealed that their first decade will be celebrated by having him debate “the rise of populism” with David Frum at Toronto’s Roy Thomson Hall in November.

Mr. Bannon is on the “pro” side: He’s a flashpoint figure in the populist wave washing over the globe. His past occupations include investment banker, vice-president of Cambridge Analytica, Donald Trump’s chief strategist and co-founder of Breitbart News, a web publication that he personally called “the platform for the alt-right” in 2016.

His White House appointment brought criticisms of anti-Semitism from the Southern Poverty Law Center. His time there included constructing the “travel ban” restricting movement into the United States from seven countries, most of them with majority Muslim populations. Just before his departure, the NAACP labelled him a “well-known white supremacist.”

To observers both inside and outside of the two publications, giving Mr. Bannon a platform was a bad idea.

Notable figures dropped off of both magazine agendas: At press time, The New Yorker had rescinded its invite, The Economist hadn’t and the backlash against Munk was just beginning. Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash said on Twitter that he’d still talk at the Economist event but would ditch his original topic to focus on “the consistent, immoral attacks Bannon has directed against the South Asian American community.”

Mr. Dash also said The Economist’s executives “are either foolishly getting exploited by providing a platform without any accountability, or are complicit in an awful agenda.” Let’s stick with the first idea today: that despite the big brains inside these institutions, they’ve become, in this instance, useful idiots.

The term refers to someone whose hubris prevents them from seeing they’re being used to spread the message of a nefarious actor. That’s always been Mr. Bannon’s goal – in February, he told Bloomberg News that he was never fighting the Democrats in the 2016 election. “The real opposition is the media,” he’s quoted as saying. “And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”

It’s a dark plan, and it’s worked. Supposedly savvy outlets across the globe have been beaten at their own game by far-right propagandists time and again.

Richard Spencer got the left-leaning publication Mother Jones to call him “dapper.” Swedish YouTuber PewDiePie started out with gaming videos, got a Disney contract and evolved into a virulent racist: Although Disney dropped him, he hasn’t lost his popularity. Multipronged attacks by multiple extremists have made it so that journalists – including me – often seem to have no choice between ignoring them until something terrible happens, or helping to introduce their message to a new audience.

I’m not the first to say that the far-right onslaught is shaking the very foundations of journalism. This past May, the New York-based Data Society, which studies how new technologies affect culture, released “The Oxygen of Amplification: Better Practices for Reporting on Extremists, Antagonists and Manipulators.” It’s a detailed, 125-page outline of how pillars including open debate, free speech and balance have been twisted to sneak hate into the mainstream.

Take the belief that a debate of reasonable ideas helps get us out of our echo chambers. No insular bubbles are being popped at these events: Mr. Bannon, Mr. Frum, New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick and his Economist counterpart Zanny Minton Beddoes are all Ivy League graduates. New Yorker tickets start at US$17, but The Economist is charging US$49, and Munk seats go up to $100. If populism is about the working class, it would be good to have them in attendance.

More to the point, racism and xenophobia are not reasonable. They aren’t ideas, but harmful actions, happening now. Ask the Latin American migrants still separated from their children, or the people in Puerto Rico mourning their 3,000 dead while living without basic services almost a year after Hurricane Maria.

A woman was killed at last year’s white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Va., and it was after repeated consultations with Mr. Bannon that Mr. Trump responded. The President eventually blamed “both sides” for the violence – a false equivalency that equates resisting violence with starting it, and manipulates the journalistic tenet of balance.

The world has “debated” hateful ideologies time and again – choose your genocide, and the “never again” declaration that came afterward – and letting them be revisited is, quite frankly, stupid. It’s not an opportunity for intellectual discourse. It’s allowing violence to go unchecked, to sweep up vulnerable people, and to grow.

Mr. Bannon knows it, so why don’t experienced journalists? The answer is ego: the desire to go head-to-head with infamy, the belief that their personal smarts can’t be outsmarted and the inability to admit when one is being used. Pride comes before a fall, and it’s revealing supposedly intelligent people as idiots.

Munk Debates would benefit from more women panellists | Mallick

Heather Mallick on the lack of women at the Munk debates. Striking and pointed:

Trick question. The three Fareeds are one guy whose last name is Zakaria and I now wonder if the reason he never lost his job over repeated plagiarism accusations is that he’s the stock non-white panel guy no one can afford to lose.

The men were all participants in the right-leaning Munk Debates, a creepy stage series run by a guy named Rudyard that is now appearing in book form. Nine book covers from the series, with 34 names, appear in a full-page newspaper ad that no one realized would look odd to the new readers that newspapers want to welcome.

Another trick: only one woman, the wonderful Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is famous for having downsized her U.S. political job because it crushed family life, debated with men. Munk held one debate on women’s rights and, naturally, it was about whether they should have them (had it made men obsolete?). Four women were hired for cat fight purposes. The women’s panel was clearly intended as the Bearded Ladies show at the carnival, and I’m not falling for it.

The debates were on loaded questions about weighty subjects — Obama (is he malign?), state spying (is it making us safer?), the EU (has it failed?) — which were too important to include women debaters. When women speak, it’s usually on “female” subjects, subjective and lightweight.

The classic Munk audience has never heard women speak aloud in public, plainly, the way men do with ease. It would freak them out. I’ve had men accuse me of writing columns simply “to provoke.” One talk show host who has blamed women en masse for refusing to appear on his show — “No man will say, ‘Sorry, can’t do your show tonight, my roots are showing,” he wrote — made the provoke remark to me recently. This man had only noticed in 2014 that his guest lineup was unconscionable.

… If the men of Munk think that a newspaper page full of men’s names, like some kind of proactive war memorial, is proof of “great debates” and “great reading,” I’m saying that women also have “great” things to say about taxation, nuclear weapons, European politics, state surveillance and even China. China has women. Some women are Chinese, imagine that.

The men of Munk will be giddy to hear this. Go nuts, Rudyard! Ask a lady to talk. Ask a Chinese lady. Ask several. I know this is crazy stuff but women are loaded now — call it mad money — and they like to talk and be talked to. Pay them at the same rate.

Women. Talking. This is crazy stuff in 2015 but something tells me the audiences might be ready for it.

Munk Debates would benefit from more women panellists | Toronto Star.