The article deals with issues related to the apparent crisis of the ideology of political correctness in relation to the media landscape of Western countries (including the media, the public sphere and the Internet). Nesrin Malik, a Guardian columnist, has covered many of the cultural and political controversies that have emerged in the United States and Britain over the past fifty years, including debates about Islamophobia and the cultural aspects of Brexit.
Many wonder if political correctness prevents the media from telling the truth. “Political correctness” has become a term used to instill in the public imagination that there is a deep gulf between the “common people” and the “liberal elite” who seek to control the speech and thoughts of ordinary people. Political correctness became more widely used on the American left in the 1960s and 1970s, most likely as an ironic borrowing from Mao’s famous 1957 speech, which was translated into English under the title “On Good Governance.” the term “political correctness” has become the common currency in the lexicon of conservative social and political opponents of progressive teaching methods and curricular changes in high schools and universities in the United States    Politics, behavior and language codes that a speaker or writer regarded as an imposition of liberal orthodoxy were described and criticized as “politically correct”.
Liberal commentators argue that conservatives and reactionaries who use politically correct terminology do so to divert the political discussion from addressing the substantive nature of social discrimination such as race, social class, gender, and legal inequality for people conservatives don’t think belong. The social mainstream from which the problem has shifted. “Blame” can be largely blamed on the conservative media’s use of the term as a reference for attacking the left. As a result, right-wing think tanks and conservatives have begun to use the term as a form of attack in the media and academia. Others point to the early 1990s, when conservatives used the term in a derogatory way to attack liberal legislation.
By the late 1980s, Jeff Chang, a hip-hop journalist and critic who has written extensively on race and social justice, recalls that Bay Area activists known to Jeff Chang used the word “politically correct” in jest, a cultist’s way of rejecting another sectarian line. The idea of being “politically correct,” having the most morally honest opinion on difficult issues and the least offensive language in which to formulate it, the most morally correct opinion on difficult topics, caught on in the 1990s, before outsiders armed themselves against the community from which they came. emanated – just like the idea of ”destroying” someone today.
As long as the media waives the right to define and formulate specific questions, and not others, they allow the use of language and allow right-wing politicians, directly or indirectly, to establish the conditions for the legitimacy of discourse. This makes journalists complicit in promoting apparent double standards when it comes to free speech issues. If the press is to engage in this kind of discourse, it must either criticize both sides of the political spectrum for being PCs or remove the term from its lexicon. Few things are more political than language, so a critically thinking press should not allow itself to be used in political disputes.
On the one hand, the decency of the service, which gives journalists the right to present their materials ethically, using political correctness. The way to deal with this is to actually have that argument, rather than assuming that people seeking protection are just trying to censor free speech. There is a legitimate argument that the “freedom” of social media platforms with little but many threats must be balanced by the “freedom” of people to participate in online debates without fear for their lives or safety.
However, the wisdom of NPR’s firing of Juan Williams, and what it says about the future of free speech in general, raises many questions here. At the forefront now is the impact of the Juan Williams case on NPR, and in this regard it would be useful to consider a couple of statements; one indicted made by Williams and another made after he was fired by NPR President Vivian Schiller, NPR President Vivian Schiller. After all, the paragraph of the First Amendment speech is a ban on what the government can do to the media, not what the media can do to itself.
Now these debates are everywhere, and liberal institutions, whether political parties or media organizations, must struggle with how to handle this type of content: what to amplify and what to ignore. Undoubtedly, the biggest difference between discussions of political correctness in the 1990s and today’s cancellation culture is how social media creates access for both public and private actors and puts their dialogue on an equal footing. Meredith Clark believes that one of the reasons cultural erasure has become such a hot national topic is that people in power are not used to responding to marginalized people who, through social media, have a wider reach than ever before. before, access. I’m not tempted to say that just because there isn’t a crisis of nullification culture or a crisis of free speech doesn’t mean that what’s going on inside liberal institutions in terms of restrictions on what people think they can say is, that people think they can get away with it in terms of slightly divergent political positions is not worrisome.
Looking deeper, the mainstream media as a whole bear some responsibility, mainly because more outlets on the left have taken on more balancing weight than their right-wing counterparts.