We live in an increasingly divisive time, one in which the public is bombarded with hyperbolic language designed to demonize political opponents.
There was a time, for instance, when the term “far right” was reserved for describing only those harbouring society’s most despicably extreme views.
These days, the term is thrown about so loosely it could apply to people of faith who think that budgets should be balanced, politicians need to understand monetary policy, immigration levels should be sustainable, and biologically male criminals belong in men’s prisons.
That’s because some news organizations appear to be using the label to caution readers about mainstream individuals and organizations opposed to the progressive verities of the day. Given that the term “far left” is far less frequently applied, it’s difficult for neutral observers to conclude otherwise. Activists, thus, are free to claim increasingly extreme territory on that end of the spectrum without fear of prompting any alarm, let alone sanction, and the spectrum shifts accordingly.
Maybe no one ever told them left-wing extremism killed 100 million people in the 20th century. Or that it is equally capable of inspiring people to attempt assassinations. Who knows?
What we do know is that trusted news sources should avoid the use of subjective and unattributed adjectives in reporting. Or, if they do permit them, insist they be applied equally so that the “right wing” Fraser Institute gets the same treatment as the “left wing” Centre for Policy Alternatives. I prefer journalism that eschews adjectives, but I did once work with opinion writers who thought it was fair to describe Reform Party supporters, for instance, as “brown shirts”—a reference to uniforms worn by German Nazis.
The problem then, as it is now, was that my colleagues had no interest in taking the time to explain to readers why using such a term was appropriate. Nor were they concerned that its overuse might diminish its impact. To them, the parallel between the Reform Party and brown shirts was self-evident.
Fast forward a couple of decades and use of such terminology is, in some cases, no longer restricted to opinion pieces.
The recent elections in France, for example, inspired the following round of headlines in different publications: Marie Le Pen’s Far-Right Party Set to Control France’s Government; Far Right’s Surge in France Lays Bare Deep Divisions; French Voters Propel Far-Right National Rally to Strong Lead; Far Right Wins in First Round of French Elections.
Similar headlines accompanied the 2022 election of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government in Italy. One supposes time will tell, but so far, she seems committed to the democratic process and there’s not a lot of evidence she’s met the Wikipedia definition of “far right,” which is, in part:
As for Ms. Le Pen, she’s certainly conservative, believes that multiculturalism has failed, wants a moratorium on immigration, and is opposed to what she calls the “Islamization” of France. She also appears to have purged her party of racists, including her father. She favours open access to abortion, is opposed to the death penalty, supports the Euro, and rejects the privatization of public utilities and the Post Office. She also appears favourably disposed to democracy and the rule of law.
I expect some believe that Ms. Meloni and Ms. Le Pen do indeed fit Wikipedia’s definition of “far right” and some don’t. But the point is that despite its widespread use, no one seems to know what it means, and those who use it rarely explain why they have chosen to do so. All that does is raise suspicions regarding bias.
The Globe and Mail’s public editor, Sandra E. Martin, recently looked into the matter and was no more successful than I in explaining its use. Apparently the term may be considered less pejorative in Europe, but as Ms. Martin pointed out, “that doesn’t mean journalists have applied the term accurately.”
She uses, as an example, the New York Times’s reference to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as “far right.” As one who once worked with Smith, albeit more than 20 years ago, that seemed overwrought. Ms. Smith has said she is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, for instance, for as long as I have known her, and has encouraged people to immigrate to her province. She is also deeply committed to the democratic process.
All of which goes to show why unattributed subjective adjectives should not be used in news stories without explanation. Little good can come from a practice that unnecessarily diminishes trust and inspires division.
