| In these times, where "news" can absolutely be "pulled out of their butts", I do think it's important to consider the partiality of any author. Even things that can be fact-checked may not tell the entire story - e.g. reporting the results of a study while neglecting to mention other studies that found differing results. In this case, the NYT article cited by the PostMillenial article was much more well-balanced with opinions included of multiple French political parties, and if someone wants to read more on this, they should read that article. They should not read the PostMillenial article, which only mentioned what the French far-right (Le Front National) party & similar political leanings mentioned and they neglected to mention they were only including those points of view. For an even more concrete example: From the PM: > Nathalie Heinich, a French sociologist told The Times, "It was a series of incidents that was extremely traumatic to our community and that all fell under what is called cancel culture," said. From the NYT: > “I was pleasantly astonished,’’ said Nathalie Heinich, a sociologist who last month helped create an organization against “decolonialism and identity politics.’’ Made up of established figures, many retired, the group has issued warnings about American-inspired social theories in major publications like Le Point and Le Figaro. > For Ms. Heinich, last year’s developments came on top of activism that brought foreign disputes over cultural appropriation and blackface to French universities. At the Sorbonne, activists prevented the staging of a play by Aeschylus to protest the wearing of masks and dark makeup by white actors; elsewhere, some well-known speakers were disinvited following student pressure. > “It was a series of incidents that was extremely traumatic to our community and that all fell under what is called cancel culture,’’ Ms. Heinich said. Do you see what I mean? |