“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King Jr
The political Left like to shout about diversity. But do they actually mean it? Or are they talking about some token-yet-meaningless form of diversity? Are they really looking for disguised conformity?
Joe Biden is celebrating that his Cabinet – if he is inaugurated in January – will be the most diverse America has ever seen, as if the colour of someone’s skin or their genitalia make them an excellent Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defence, or Director of National Intelligence. I’m sure they’ll all be on the same page when it comes to the Green New Deal, raising taxes, open borders, radical gender ideology, abortion, and more.
How’s that diversity going?
Martin Luther King Jr would not be happy.
It’s important to remember that roughly 45% of the population vote left, and 45% vote right at every election, with the middle 10% being the ones who ultimately decide who forms government.
In America, various prominent Democrats, media figures and celebrities have actually called for “re-education” for those who voted Republican/Trump over the last four years. Some are saying these people should be banned from voting for the next, say, ten years. Others suggest they should have their work choices severely limited as punishment for supporting the wrong side. That’s half the voters in the country they want to punish for not having “the right views”. This is the sort of “diversity” that Stalin promoted.
How’s that for encouraging diversity?
In Australia, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is continuing his personal grudge fight with Rupert Murdoch (who probably hasn’t noticed Mr Rudd since he left office in 2013). He claims his proposed Royal Commission is into media diversity, but it’s clear that this is not the issue at all.
Recently, on Sky News, the graph below was displayed, showing where the various online media publications sit on the political spectrum. Leaving aside any discussion on, or disagreement with, where these organisations have been placed (and much reasonable discussion could be had), some things stick out very clearly.
Firstly, the spread is very skewed to the left. Of the 25 publications listed, only 5 are on the right of the political spectrum, and none of those are very far to the right. Conversely, of the 20 on the left, 5 of those are extremely far left.
Where’s the political and ideological diversity?
Secondly, the argument that Murdoch media controls too much of the landscape falls apart because of this spread. If in fact, Murdoch’s readership is vastly higher than other companies, it can simply be put down to the fact that – apart from Nine News, arguably – nobody else is offering any competition to the media aimed at the right of the spectrum – roughly half the population, remember. On the contrary, the vast majority of titles are battling for readership within the same smaller space, with 15 brands all targeting the mid-to-centre left. If you genuinely want to boost your engagement with the public, target the right.
Thirdly, Rudd’s “media diversity” inquiry, which is actually a push to destroy the Murdoch press, would effectively remove all media that dared to deviate from the approved narrative of the Left, providing no conservative analysis or discussion, so that the reading public could be “educated” into thinking properly.
How’s that for diversity?
In an ideal world, all news would be delivered neutrally, and opinions and commentary would be evenly spread across the spectrum, providing full and open discussion about the issues. In fact, that is what the publicly-funded ABC is supposed to be doing, but isn’t.
In reality, media publications have a bias, a slant, that may be driven by the owner, the board, the editor, but it will also be reflected in the public engagement earned.
Skin colour alone doesn’t make diversity.
Gender alone doesn’t make diversity.
Sexual orientation alone doesn’t make diversity.
And getting rid of dissenting opinions and ideas – whether its media, or former government officials, or just voters in general, certainly doesn’t make diversity.
This free service - independent, right thinking media - exists because people like you donate a small amount every month.
No government is going to fix the Lying Harlot Media - they're never going to subsidise the news & views people need to hear. And nor should they, because if your media source depends on government subsidies, how could you trust its independence?
The Good Sauce is bringing the best of thinking about important issues, arguments rarely seen elsewhere, into one convenient website with weekly email updates direct to your inbox. But our existence and growth really depends on generous monthly supporters - people like you. Become a Good Sauce supporter today and help us grow to better serve you for the long term.
Grant Vandersee is a former secondary teacher who is now horrified at what is being taught and promoted in schools. A husband and father, political engagement runs in his family with three generations serving in local government. He's been personally involved in party politics for 20 years and is a member of the Liberal National Party. Grant is a staunch advocate for life, family, free speech, individual freedom and religious liberty.