As the United States contends with a flood of diverse enemies within and is taunted with troubling frequency by enemies without, the need for truth has never been more critical.
Today in this once-great nation, we see lawless border incursions the scope of which no sovereign nation endures, let alone incentivizes; mindboggling “lawfare” used openly to thwart the will of and tyrannize the people; a cognitively and morally impaired president enriching himself while impoverishing and endangering the country; a deeply rooted Chicken Little ideology that views humans as the arch-enemy of nature; all our power centers in slavish obeisance to bizarre, science-denying sex/”gender"-obsessed cults that feed on the hearts, minds, and bodies of children; and two generations of Americans bereft of intact families, a willingness to strive, the skills necessary to reason, a knowledge of history, and moral compasses necessary to navigate a world full of deceivers. But enough about the forest, let’s look at one single tree.
A recent article by young NBC News “reporter” Matt Lavietes points to and illuminates the dangerous nexus between education and misinformation that threatens the future of America, where leftists seek the unilateral power to decide what constitutes legally bannable mis- and disinformation.
The out and proud homosexual Lavietes has a master’s degree in journalism from the prestigious Georgetown University and self-identifies as objective and unbiased:
A lot of people assume that, because I’m a gay man, I inherently have a bias reporting on these heated “culture war” issues. And that bothers me because, as a reporter — as all reporters should do covering political topics — I surround myself with people from all walks of life. I talk with people from all political perspectives.
When I’m talking to both sides and they’re shouting at each other from opposite sides of the room, I try to bridge that gap any way that I can. I try to approach it from a place of understanding and empathy—and try to lower the temperature, especially when it’s so hot. I take that responsibility very seriously.
Let’s see how successful Lavietes is in unbiased gap-bridging.
In the Jan. 5, 2024 article on the Perry, Iowa school shooter, Lavietes writes,
As authorities and journalists scrambled to uncover information about the shooter who opened fire at an Iowa school on Thursday, far-right figures zeroed in on the likelihood that the assailant was LGBTQ and once again suggested that queer people are more likely to pose a danger to others.
This sentence raises a question: Would Lavietes characterize all those who suggested Matthew Shepard’s murder was an anti-gay hate crime—and continue to suggest that despite convincing evidence to the contrary—as "far-left figures”?
While acknowledging that the shooter’s “social media accounts … appear to display some LGBTQ symbolism, including rainbow and transgender flag emojis and an image of graffiti that says “LOVE YOUR TRANS KIDS,” Lavietes tries to diminish the significance of such information by disparaging the messengers reporting it, calling them “far-right social media personalities and conservative provocateurs” who “were quick to pounce on these revelations.”
Like bloodthirsty beasts of prey with claws unsheathed, far-right provocateurs (i.e., anyone whose moral, philosophical, or political views don’t align with those of Lavietes and our elite institutions of higher education) “pounce” on revelations, as opposed to, ya know, reporting them.
Lavietes included an X post by Donald Trump Jr., who asked, “Per capita is there a more violent group of people anywhere in the world than radicalized trans activists???” But “unbiased” reporter Lavietes didn’t just report the post. He characterized it as well, asserting that Trump “baselessly” wrote the comment.
Lavietes cited Elon Musk too, who posted, “This is happening a lot. Something is deeply wrong.” But gap-bridger Lavietes couldn’t let Musk’s words speak for themselves. Oh no, that risks readers thinking for themselves. Can’t have that. Wouldn’t be prudent.
So instead, Lavietes identified Musk as the owner of X “which is where a bulk of transphobic-riddled speculation about the shooter’s identity was circulating.” Besmirch Musk’s comment by besmirching the social media context in which it was made.
The loaded leftist term "transphobic" enables Lavietes to tarnish those who hold ontological and moral views different from his without actually having to define terms or prove his argument. Just hurl an epithet and move on.
Lavietes is a tricksy rhetorical devil. Like Ellen Page presenting herself as a man, Lavietes presents his piece as a news report when, in reality, it’s an opinion piece.
Lavietes—who, remember, is deeply committed to “lowering the temperature” through “understanding and empathy”—wasn’t done yet. He wrote,
LGBTQ advocates and other critics of the rhetoric slammed the remarks triggered by the Iowa shooting.
“Scapegoating is a very dangerous and old tactic for justifying the extreme marginalization of a specific group,” Gillian Branstter, a communications strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “They’re very eager for other people to be as obsessed with trans people as they are.”
Note the irony: a spokesperson for one of our many far-left organizations purportedly committed to “diversity” and identity politics and which regularly attempt to marginalize whites, males, heterosexuals, and theologically orthodox Christians, frets about identifying the “gender identity” of a murderer. Which is it? Identity matters or it doesn’t?
Note too the irony and tactical subterfuge in calling conservatives “trans”-obsessed for responding to the “trans”-obsessions of leftists who dominate discourse everywhere and marginalize—or worse—anyone who dares to say Lia Thomas is not a woman and men can’t get pregnant. What unmitigated gall of those reactionary neanderthals daring to express an unapproved opinion of the weird sex obsessions of the cool kids.
Lavietes’ reporting is the story. His “unbiased” report, dripping with biased rhetoric, begins by describing social media figures who question the silence of identitarians on the “gender identity” of the Perry, Iowa school shooter as “far-right figures.” And his unbiased report concludes with a list of crimes motivated—Lavietes implies—by anti-LGBTQ animus. Either Lavietes failed to learn even basic lessons in objective reporting from his journalism professors, or such lessons were never taught.
The path the country has trodden to get here is long and torturous with plenty of blame to go around, and there is value in both tracing that path and assigning blame. While we do both, we must stop sending our children to institutions foundational to the havoc and decay we see. That will require jettisoning our prideful vanity regarding degrees from elite institutions like Georgetown, Harvard, and MIT that tossed commitments to truth by the wayside decades ago.
Let's take jackhammers to the education-to-misinformation pipeline.