Dominant journalism might actually make social change more difficult.
But here’s an old idea: what if dominant journalism, by and large and in the long run, is actually a drag on progress? What if dominant journalism, and by that I mean the mainstream press, is actually a conservative force? On this view, it’s a drag on change…
A critical analysis of The Globe and Mail and the National Post and the perpetuation of Islamophobia.
On my view the news media in Canada have, by and large and in the long run, misrepresented the concept of jihad. They have positioned jihad as a form of villainy. In so doing they have portrayed Islam as a peril…
"No one has a right to not be offended" is powerful rhetoric.
When critically considering a given piece of journalism, we might ask ourselves, was it informative? was it engaging? was it helpful? So it’s rather sad that others, when faced with criticism, are inclined to ask simply, was it legal?
