As I wrote some years ago, there’s a grave breach of journalistic ethics that flourishes, unpunished and almost entirely unnoticed. It’s the mixing of opinion with reporting that occurs every time a public figure is labelled “far right”.
“Far right” is not a fact: it’s an opinion — and a very nasty one, at that. To label someone “far right” is to smear them by association with some of the worst dictators of the 20th century. Yet, the legacy media do it so routinely that no-one even notices, let alone pulls them up on it.
Take this report on Sweden’s elections:
Sweden’s right wing looked set to oust Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson’s left-wing bloc in Sunday’s general election on strong gains by the far right, clinging to a slim lead with 94 per cent of electoral districts counted.
“Right wing” and “left wing” are broadly descriptive, even if still opinion more than fact. But “far right” is an extreme and heavily biased opinion — yet, it occurs four times in just a 500-word story.
Ms Andersson’s challenger, Ulf Kristersson, of the conservative Moderates and the leader of the right-wing bloc, said while the election results could still change, “I am ready to build a new and strong government”.
The Moderates and two other smaller right-wing parties have for the first time tied up with the anti-immigration and nationalist Sweden Democrats, which looked set to post their best election score yet.
So, one party declares itself “Moderate”, yet the journalist still takes it upon themselves to declare them “right wing”.
How do the Sweden Democrats describe themselves? Its own delegates voted to declare themselves “social conservative party”. The party officially rejects both fascism and Nazism, with which it had been associated in its early days. Its immigration policies are in line with those of Denmark, currently governed by the Social Democrats. Denmark’s policies of repatriating Muslim immigrants began with former PM Inga Stojberg, formerly of the party that literally calls itself “The Left”. SD also supports the generous Swedish welfare state, gay marriage, and emissions reduction.
Now, to the obvious chagrin of some journalists, it’s the second-biggest party in Sweden, with 20.7% of votes.
That makes it the country’s second-biggest party for the first time, overtaking the Moderates, the traditional leaders on the right. The election campaign was dominated by issues close to right-wing voters and especially the far-right, including rising gang shootings, immigration and integration issues.
The Australian
There’s that “f-word” again — and the tacit handwaving-away of the tide of immigrant violence, including skyrocketing rapes, that has overwhelmed Sweden.
But only a “far right” bigot would think that a Swedish woman’s right to walk the streets without getting raped is more important than some hulking Middle-Eastern “teenager”’s right to help themselves to the welfare and women of Sweden.
