Libs Immune to Yiannopoulos Fate

Obi-Wan: “Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be the Jedi Anakin Skywalker and 'became' Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.”

Luke: “A certain point of view?”

Obi-Wan: “Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” – Star Wars: Episode VI - “Return of the Jedi” (1983)

In modern America, with the ongoing libertine influence of Howard Stern and Jerry Springer types, very few necessary taboos remain. One that does is pedophilia. Another related prohibition is pederasty: relations between two males when one is a minor. Unfortunately, gay provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos “went there” back on January 4, 2016. The interview was little-known, but the rabidly anti-right MSM has legitimately hoisted him by his own petard with it. The site of his disgrace was the satirical left-leaning Drunken Peasants Podcast with Ben and TJ (“The Amazing Atheist”). Oh, Milo's mistake of flapping gums and wrongheaded sentiments!

Of late, he's learned the price for speaking out against the perfectly reasonable age-of-consent laws. No doubt disgusted, the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) withdrew his invitation to speak. Also last Monday, his book publisher Simon & Schuster abruptly axed his ironically named autobiography “Dangerous”. Likewise, Tuesday, he resigned from his two-year gig as senior editor for Breitbart News. A domino effect of negative consequences undeterred by his hollow claim of “being misunderstood”.

Don't bother parsing the meaning of Yiannopoulos's wacky statements too closely. This Slick Willie scenario echoes Bill Clinton's nonsensical: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is”. In each case, the optics are bad and the message ill-conceived. Yet, the downfall is swift and total only for the conservative. To compare with a contemporary example, has Madonna's career suffered one whit for publicly proclaiming her anarchist desire to “blow up the White House”? Indeed, her lawless call for violence and sedition is certainly on par with his salacious disregard of the laws that protect children. Why do only liberals get a pass for every outrageous thing they say?

Given Yiannopoulos's foot-in-mouth plight, the Material Girl's song lyrics for “Words” (1992) are apropos:

Words, they cut like a knife, cut into my life
I don't want to hear your words
They always attack, please take them all back
If they're yours I don't want anymore

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Journalist, Not Biased Hack

“Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it.” – Lewis Wallace, former “Marketplace” reporter

The above is the title of his essay published on the website, Medium. As this attitude negates Wallace's “impartial” role as a journalist, he was ultimately terminated by his employer.

Recall, the purpose of journalism is to convey current events impartially with facts. Any unbound person—unwilling to exercise fact-based dispassion—can't be a legitimate journalist. Instead, that's a de facto activist: a propagandist with a press pass.

Facts are essential, intractable things. They remain elemental to authentic journalism. Specifically, facts anchor news stories to reality. When correctly utilized, they greatly aid journalistic truth-telling. 'Just the facts, ma'am'—for good reason.

Journalism's traditional tenets don't impede anyone with skill from getting their writerly point across. Wallace finds himself in the unemployment line solely for willfully violating a professional taboo. Demonstrating the rank intolerance he rails against, he writes:

“We need to admit that those who oppose free speech, diversity and kindergarten level fairness are our enemies”.

How is it not fascism to demonize others simply for holding a different political perspective? Is it not hypocritical, and childish, to condemn another in the name of Wallace's militant “fairness”? To paraphrase Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, a bad judge to the law is equivalent to the journalist disregarding objectivity. They are incongruent and cannot coexist in the same sphere.

Without facts, journalism rapidly degrades into valueless, gelatinous goo. Reporting becomes untrustworthy and indistinguishable from fiction. Hence, the Orwellian specter of today's “fake news”. The false is peddled as true: witness the absurd claim of Trump's “threat to invade Mexico”. (He didn't, per CNN he actually offered help.) This Associated Press narrative was mindlessly disseminated far and wide as truth. Is this American journalism or an old fashioned telephone game from Mr. Wallace's kindergarten class?

Beyond the editorial page, neutrality remains a job requirement. Lewis Wallace confused a First Amendment right of self-expression with his professional duty. His employer acted appropriately because he wouldn't (read: another pesky fact for this “victim” to misconstrue and grouse about).

As with everything he advocates, Wallace only has himself to blame. This is the fallout of competing interests—and the healthy expression of a difference of opinion.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002