The Media Should Label Human Rights Advocates and Liberal Leaders in Dictatorships Less Negatively

I have criticized the professional media for being the mouthpieces of every tyrant and terrorist around the globe for decades, often reporting their verbatim quotes, usually without noting that they are not credible or evil. Although the media practice of presenting both sides is to blame, it is not unusual that they present only the dictators’ or terrorists’ side. I have noted how this practice is an overt facet of foreign interference in the politics of free States. Furthermore, whether the media presents both sides or not, the print media, for example, often bases the headlines of stories on the dictators’ or terrorists’ statements, which is a problem because many people only read headlines. And if the media does include anything critical of despots, it usually frames it as an allegation by those whom the media labels the dictators’ “critics” or “foes” or perhaps —at best—by some human rights organization, usually without any further details. But the point of this post particularly is to call out this practice of referring to human rights advocates or liberal (in the sense of being in favor of liberty, not necessarily of favoring left-wing policies) political leaders in negative terms, such as “critics” and “foes.” Although liberal leaders are accurately referred to as “opposition” leaders, or “opponents,” this reference nonetheless refers to them in a negative sense and defines them only in relationship to the dictator, instead of in their own right. Given the problem of the “both sides” media practice, the negative labels for anyone who does not support a dictator exacerbates the media’s complicity in spreading the dictators’ messaging abroad.