Staff Reports
In the realm of political commentary, praise should be both genuine and merited, yet there seems to be a parallel reality over at certain mainstream outlets where an overabundance of flattery is the norm, particularly when identity politics comes into play. If a commentator mentions a public figure who fits the narrative of diversity, certain prerequisites must be met before any constructive critique can be aired. This approach not only undermines the authenticity of the praise but also makes one question whether the compliments are sincere or simply a prelude to avoid backlash.
This behavior is especially visible in the treatment of celebrated figures within broadcast media, such as Abby Phillip. While there’s no question she is talented and accomplished, the extent to which commentators are compelled to preface any discussion about her with almost fervent admiration feels more performative than genuine. It’s almost as though these commentators feel they must continually reinforce their respect to shield themselves from potential criticism. This kind of deference seems to reveal more about the speaker’s discomfort with societal expectations than it does about the merit of the individual being discussed.
Such obligatory praising is akin to a verbal security blanket, safeguarding commentators from any potential accusations of bias or insensitivity. This dynamic underscores a troubling aspect of modern discourse: the unspoken rule that any mention of criticism must be preceded by a litany of praise, particularly when the subject is a minority figure. It’s a peculiar tic, revealing a lack of comfort or confidence in one’s ability to provide honest, independent analysis without leaning heavily on virtue signaling.
Yet, when it comes to figures outside the circle of protected identities, this same ritualistic praise vanishes. Prominent conservatives like Ben Shapiro do not receive the same prefatory accolades before criticism is leveled by mainstream platforms. This inconsistency highlights a glaring imbalance in how diverse viewpoints are treated by the media, suggesting that the criteria for biased commentary is unevenly applied.
Ultimately, one must question whether this practice of tailored admiration and critique is conducive to intellectual honesty and genuine dialogue. It diminishes the quality of political discourse, which should instead strive to be consistent and forthright regardless of the identities involved. To foster real progress, media outlets should embrace a balanced approach where praise and criticism are doled out based on merit and actions, not identity-based tropes and fear of societal scorn.
