Sanewashing: how Media Normalizes the Absurd
Table of Contents
The 2024 US presidential election brought a new term into the lexicon of media criticism: sanewashing. This phenomenon, described as “attempting to downplay a person or idea’s radicality to make it more palatable to the general public,” is increasingly concerning as it blurs the lines between objective reporting and the normalization of perhaps harmful rhetoric. The impact extends beyond politics, influencing how we understand complex and frequently enough disturbing events.
Sanewashing isn’t simply about downplaying radicalism; its about making the nonsensical appear reasonable. it’s the subtle shift in framing that allows outrageous statements or actions to be presented as merely…different. This can be a conscious effort, or a byproduct of the inherent pressures within the news industry.
Consider the challenge of covering lengthy, rambling speeches. The sheer volume of information, frequently enough filled with tangents and inconsistencies, makes concise reporting difficult. While adjectives like “crude,” “angry,” “vitriolic,” “meandering,” and “chaotic” might accurately describe the delivery, they frequently enough overshadow the actual content. the full impact of a speech, with its “pile-up of outrageous tangents and quasi-comedic asides,” is lost in the process of simplification.
This isn’t limited to political speeches. Complex international events, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, present similar challenges. The sheer scale of suffering and the multifaceted nature of the conflict make it nearly impractical to capture every horrifying detail in a single news report. The result? A potential sanitization of the reality, inadvertently minimizing the severity of the situation.
This inherent bias toward rationality within the media is a double-edged sword. News outlets strive to explain the world, even the inexplicable. They aim to be demystification agents, providing clarity and understanding. However, this can lead to “both sides-ism,” a false balance that gives equal weight to opposing viewpoints, even when one is demonstrably more accurate or morally sound. this,in turn,can contribute to the very confusion the media aims to alleviate.
The consequences of sanewashing are meaningful. When extreme views are consistently presented in a sanitized manner,it can lead to a sense of gaslighting,where individuals feel their perceptions of reality are being manipulated.The constant exposure to normalized absurdity can erode trust in institutions and create a climate of misinformation and polarization. Recognizing and critically analyzing sanewashing is crucial for maintaining a well-informed and engaged citizenry.
The line between objective reporting and editorial commentary has become increasingly blurred,particularly when covering influential figures who frequently blur the lines themselves. Recent events surrounding Elon Musk’s commentary on UK affairs perfectly illustrate this challenge for news organizations.
Musk’s recent pronouncements have ranged from urging King Charles to dissolve Parliament – a suggestion reminiscent of the 1830s – to declaring a government minister ”deserves to be in prison,” and then abruptly reversing his opinion on Nigel Farage’s leadership capabilities. All this within a single weekend.
The BBC’s push notification about Musk’s call for Farage’s replacement as leader of the Reform party sparked immediate criticism. Accusations of amplifying Musk’s influence flooded social media. While some might argue that the notification itself was problematic, the question remains: should such significant interventions from the world’s wealthiest man, and a potential future player in the Trump administration, be ignored?
The focus should perhaps shift from the notification’s existence to its wording.The BBC’s decision to quote Musk’s assessment that Farage “doesn’t have what it takes,” without explicitly labeling Musk’s comments as interference, is where the criticism truly lies. A more direct approach might have been warranted.
This situation highlights a broader issue: the difficulty news organizations face in maintaining impartiality while covering increasingly erratic and influential figures. The temptation to label such behavior as “crazy,” “bonkers,” or “unhinged” is understandable, but the potential for misinterpretations and accusations of bias necessitates a more measured approach.
The challenge lies in discerning where factual reporting ends and editorializing begins. While customary news outlets strive for a formal, restrained tone, they risk being accused of “normalizing” abnormal behavior or providing a platform for extremism if they don’t explicitly call out problematic actions.
The reality is that the political landscape in 2024 is anything but normal. News organizations must constantly remind their audiences of this fact, while simultaneously navigating the complexities of responsible reporting in an era of unprecedented social media influence.
Ultimately, the “out-of-control billionaire has some nerve” aspect of these situations often goes unsaid. Perhaps our expectations of media neutrality need recalibration in this new era of unpredictable political discourse.
Md
In the age of social media and 24-hour news cycles, the line between reporting facts and normalizing extremism can often blur. This has given rise to the term “sanewashing,” a phenomenon in which extreme viewpoints are downplayed or presented in a more palatable manner, possibly diminishing their true impact and consequences. To better understand this complex issue, we sat down with Dr. Amelia Harding,a Professor of Media Studies at Columbia University and a leading expert on political rhetoric and media influence.
The Shift from Objective Reporting: What is Sanewashing?
Dr. Harding: Sanewashing is a risky trend in media. it’s about minimizing the radical nature of certain ideas or behaviors, often by framing them within a context that makes them seem more acceptable or even reasonable. It can be subtle, like using euphemisms or avoiding harsh language, or more overt, like giving equal weight to opposing viewpoints without acknowledging the inherent dangers of one side.
The Media’s Dilemma: Reporting vs. Normalizing
Dr. Harding: There’s a inherent tension in journalism. On one hand, journalists strive for objectivity and clear dialog. On the other hand, they grapple with the responsibility of not inadvertently legitimizing harmful rhetoric. It’s a balancing act, and mistakes can happen.
Sometimes, the pressure to simplify complex issues leads to oversimplification, smoothing out the rough edges and potentially glossing over the danger.
Recognizing the Impact: The Consequences of Sanewashing
Dr. Harding:
The risks are significant. When extreme views are constantly presented in a sanitized manner, it creates a sense of normalcy, desensitizing the public to potentially dangerous ideologies. This can lead to a distorted understanding of reality and erode trust in institutions.
Think about it – if hate speech or misinformation is consistently presented without its true context, it becomes easier for people to dismiss or even internalize it.
Combating Sanewashing: The Way Forward
Dr. Harding: It’s crucial to promote media literacy and critical thinking skills.Encourage people to question sources,to look beyond headlines,and to delve deeper into the nuances of complex issues.
Journalists also have a responsibility to be more transparent about their framing choices and to actively combat the normalization of extremism. This might involve using stronger language, providing more context, and actively debunking false narratives.
