Putin: Redrawing Borders, Rewriting History | The Listening Post

Feb 26, 2022 • As news of Russia's invasion of Ukraine floods the airwaves, and with the prospect of a wider conflict brewing in Eastern Europe between Russia and the NATO alliance, we are dispensing with our usual format.

Trump: Is Fox News Turning Its Back on US President? | The Listening Post (Full)

Boris Johnson: Playing the Clown for the Media Circus? | The Listening Post (Full)

The Media Momentum for War with Iran | The Listening Post (Full)

Julian Assange: Within Washington's Grasp? | The Listening Post (Full)

Under arrest: The Future of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks | The Listening Post (Full)

Saudi Arabia Post-Khashoggi: Business as Usual? | The Listening Post (Full)

How the US Media Became the 'Enemy of the People' | The Listening Post

Jair Bolsonaro: A Wrecking Ball for Brazil's Media? | The Listening Post | Full

Jamal Khashoggi, Mohammed bin Salman and the Media | The Listening Post

British Tabloids on Brexit: Eurosceptics or Eurohaters? | The Listening Post (Full)

Grappling with the Far-right on the UK's Airwaves | The Listening Post

Reform in Saudi Arabia: Image versus Reality | The Listening Post

Red Lines, Military Strikes: Media Coverage of Syrian War – The Listening Post

Saad Hariri, Saudi Power Play and the Media – The Listening Post (Full)

Saudi Arabia's Purge: A Quest for Media Control? - The Listening Post

Covering the North Korean Threat - The Listening Post

The Listening Post - Charlottesville, Trump and the Media

When hundreds of far-right protesters gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia last week, it was ostensibly to protect the planned removal of a Confederate monument. They were also out to assert themselves on the public stage, in front of the news cameras.

Given that the Robert E. Lee monument in question harkens back to the era of slavery in the US, a potent message was being sent. They were met with force that didn't come from the police. And when a car ploughed into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters, killing one and injuring many more, the recriminations were swift.

One of the so-called news sites that has been incubating far-right culture - a favourite of white supremacists, The Daily Stormer, was dumped by its online hosts for its toxic take on what happened in Charlottesville.

But that will hardly shake the confidence of the movement, not with the mixed, coded messaging coming out of President Donald Trump's White House.

Some of the president's comments had voices in the white power movement rejoicing.

"The response of Trump to say that 'we're seeing hatred on many sides' is really conspicuous and I think that people on the right are saying 'We got away with it,' says Shuja Haider, editor of Viewpoint Magazine.

Trump waited another 48 hours to condemn racism.

"Everyone heard that silence as an unwillingness to call out white supremacy and Nazism by name," explains Andrew Marantz, contributing editor for The New Yorker. "I think that the neo-Nazis heard it that way. I think that the far left heard it that way. I think Republican senators heard it that way."

Like many politicians, Donald Trump leaves much open to interpretation.

And for all his bluntness, all the hectic, late-night tweeting, Trump is more skilled at using coded messaging - what's known as dog whistling. It all started with his campaign slogan "Make America Great Again", which is seen by some as a rallying cry for a return to a different America, a whiter one.

"Dog whistle politics is just that. An attempt to convey racialised sentiments without using actual racialised language," says Osamudia James, a law professor at the University of Miami.

"One of the reasons these coded dog whistles are so effective is because while they reach the extremists that they're targeted towards, they kind of escape detection by most people," adds Haidar.

The showdown in Charlottesville took many Americans by surprise. But should it have?

Is Al Jazeera at the Heart of the GCC Crisis? -– The Listening Post

Giving the Far Right a Voice - The Listening Post

At the heart of what is termed an open society is the idea that if all views get a fair hearing, and a platform is provided for debate, then individuals can decide for themselves what to believe and society can reach some sort of consensus. Is that really the case? Or does giving these movements a media platform grant them a degree of legitimacy that tells viewers that intolerant, racist or otherwise bigoted views are potentially of equal value to their opposite.