Ever since I first learned to read, I have been fascinated with writing. I have always loved how talented writers can whisk us away to a time in history, worlds that exist only in our minds, or even to current events happening far away. It feels like magic.
But as with any magic, there is white magic and there is dark magic. And writing dishonestly to manipulate people is the darkest magic of all, more dangerous and evil than any physical weapon, and far more destructive.
Which brings me to journalism. Or rather, the disfigurement of journalism that characterizes so much of our media (like Tolkien described Orcs as a twisted mockery of the beautiful Elves).
This weekend, in its ongoing effort to push the sexualization and manipulation of children, the American Library Association (ALA) sent out the tweet below, linking to an article in the New Jersey Monitor from Dana DiFilippo. DiFilippo is not an opinion columnist, she is not paid to promote an agenda (or shouldn't be), she allegedly is a 'senior reporter.' But I want to examine this article to show just all of the ways that DiFilippo deceptively manipulates language to not present facts, as a reporter should do, but to gaslight the issue of inappropriate books in school libraries.
“We already live in a system where a parent has the ability to limit what their child does or doesn’t read...A small number of people, if they had their way, would dictate what the rest of us and our children could choose to read. And that’s un-American.” https://t.co/BItUM3t0Iv
— American Library Association (@ALALibrary) February 16, 2024
Of course, the ALA got wrecked in the replies and the quote tweets for this dishonesty, but I want to focus on the article, which many people in New Jersey may read, but may not be on Twitter to see the pushback against the dishonest article.
Recommended
It starts with the very headline: 'New bill targeting book censorship at libraries leads to partisan clash.'
Guess which word is missing -- deliberately -- from that headline? 'School.' By omitting that word, DiFilippo obscures that the 'clash' right now is very narrow in focus, simply what books parents want to be in New Jersey schools where their children attend. Instead, she broadens to a misleading, fictional scope where ALL libraries, and librarians, are under attack from conservatives with pitchforks and torches.
Obviously, the word 'censorship' in the headline is problematic too, which leads us to the first two graphs in the article:
People who want to ban books have called librarian Martha Hickson a pornographer, a pedophile, and a groomer of children.
They’ve so vilely trolled her on social media that she struggles with anxiety, insomnia, and hair loss. They even reported her to local police and prosecutors, accusing her of breaking obscenity laws.
No one, not a single person, has called for any books to be 'banned' or 'censored.' DiFilippo uses these words to demonize one side of the issue before even discussing the bill under consideration.
That doesn't really read like honest reporting to me.
And, of course, there is poor Martha Hickson. Just an innocent librarian, right? How dare people 'harass her.' Once again, DiFilippo leaves out the key word: school. Hickson is a SCHOOL librarian.
You'll also notice how, in portraying Hickson as the victim here, she does not substantiate any of these assertions of harassment or abuse. We are just supposed to accept them as fact. Again, not journalism.
DiFilippo proceeds to a quote from Hickson, affirming her innocence (and an absurd claim of credentialism):
'Let’s get this straight: I’m a librarian. Probably the most — until about three years ago — boring, benign profession most people could think of, and for reasons I cannot fully comprehend, we have become public enemy number one, all because we professionally curate, with our master’s degree-level training, collections of books and library materials that represent the needs and interests of the community we serve.'
Why is everyone attacking her? What could the reason be? DiFilippo provides no counter-quote, no contextual information, just the words of a virtuous soul who is being persecuted by the cruel right.
Finally, DiFilippo delves into the New Jersey bill itself, dubbed the 'Freedom to Read Act' (as though anyone was threatening to take that freedom away, but that is on the Democrat legislators who created it, not on DiFilippo).
She again returns to the 'book banning' deception, citing that as the motivation for the introduction of the bill.
Zwicker and Ruiz introduced the proposal late last month amid a record-breaking rise in book-banning attempts nationally. It’s a cause Zwicker championed in the last legislative session, too, with a bill that would have prohibited libraries from censoring books and withheld state funding from those that did so.
As proof of the 'nationwide book banning,' she cites -- via a hyperlink -- the ALA itself. Because THAT'S an honest substantiation. DiFilippo cites the ALA, the ALA, in turn, cites DiFilippo. See how that works? It is an incestuous circle that is far too common between alleged reporters and the institutions they want to support.
The article then cites provisions of the bill itself, and while the contents of the bill are not my focus today, those are very problematic too, including enabling school librarians to be able to sue for (VERY poorly limited or defined) 'harassment.' The full contents of the bill can be found here.
DiFilippo then moves on to report a couple of responses to the bill from Republican legislators. This is a trick. Meant to provide the illusion of reporting 'both sides' of the issue, DiFilippo does not spend any time on the substance of the Republican objections, she mainly just reports how 'conservative groups' have called the bill the 'Freedom To Groom Act.'
See? The people on the other side are just name-callers. We shouldn't pay any attention to them.
The next part is where DiFilippo attempts to 'other' conservatives who object to pornography in schools.
The Washington Post found last year that many book challenges around the country were launched by the same small group of people, many of whom had no ties to the communities and schools where they sought to censor materials.
[I want to pause the quote briefly here to ask DiFilippo if only people who live in a community where there has been, say, a school shooting are allowed to comment on violence in that community. I'm not expecting her to answer, but somehow, I doubt she has ever posited such a ridiculous claim.]
One critic who told legislators he would testify against the bill is Dan Kleinman, a Texas-based blogger who last year launched the World Library Association as an alternative to the American Library Association, which has led the charge nationally against banning books. Zwicker said neutralizing that meddling minority of out-of-towners is one of his goals.
There is a hilarious refrain in the movie 'Hot Fuzz,' where the local townspeople (who are murdering anyone who even mildly disrupts their tranquil village) say over and over again, 'He's not even FROM HERE,' in reference to anyone who hasn't lived in the village their entire lives. In the movie, the line is great for laughs -- mainly because it's not an argument at all, just a way to silence any opposition.
But DiFilippo does the same thing in her article, which is not funny at all. Kleinman is from Texas. So, he can't comment on New Jersey school libraries, you see?
Moreover, DiFilippo dismisses him as simply a 'blogger' and a 'meddling minority.'
Kleinman himself responded to this on Twitter:
Parents are waking up. @ALALibrary tweets woke nonsense again. DOZENS like @JGunlock @TheTonus reply how ALA indoctrinates school kids! I’m in that article btw called a “meddling minority”—that unwittingly applies to ALA!!
— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® (@SexHarassed) February 17, 2024
WINNING 🏆#parenting #moms #dads #njsen #njpol #tlchat pic.twitter.com/Cs7rkNazkg
He even sarcastically added 'meddling minority' to his Twitter bio. LOL. That's well played.
Is Kleinman just a 'blogger'? Hardly. Yes, he has a blog called Safe Libraries, where he details the innumerable cases of school libraries putting inappropriate, pornographic materials on shelves where children can access them. He also happens to be the executive director of the World Library Association, an organization founded to be an alternative to the ALA. And many school districts are leaving the ALA and looking for an alternative.
Funny how DiFilippo never mentions that part of his resume.
She just dismisses Kleinman as an outsider with a blog. She doesn't even attempt to get his reaction. There are no quotes from Kleinman in the article, which is weird since she cites him. If you are reporting a story and mention someone by name, shouldn't you at least try to get a comment from him? And if he refuses, mention that he refused?
Guess not. Instead, DiFilippo just cites one of the Democrat sponsors of the bill, Andrew Zwicker, and uses it to associate Kleinman with the word 'un-American.'
'We already live in a system where a parent has the ability to limit what their child does or doesn’t read. But we should never live in a system where someone else gets to choose what your child gets to read. A small number of people, if they had their way, would dictate what the rest of us and our children could choose to read. And that’s un-American.'
This is not just unprofessional of DiFilippo, it is downright unethical. And she continues her demonization of anyone in opposition to inappropriate books in schools.
Republican legislators also have introduced several book bills, including one that would require districts to post a list of all school library materials online and another that would require school districts to make textbooks and school materials available for inspection by parents and guardians.
Librarians around New Jersey remain steadfast in standing against critics.
Wait. How is showing parents and guardians the books that are in their children's schools a BAD thing? Yet, that is exactly how DiFilippo paints it (instead of examining those Republican bills), following these statements up with a deliberately positioned quote:
'We’re seeing challenges that — I’m 54 years old — I haven’t seen in my life,' said Brett Bonfield, executive director of the New Jersey Library Association.
Bonfield said book challenges in the past tended to be dealt with 'in conversations.' People trusted librarians, and concerns typically got addressed by the library adding books that reflected different or more nuanced viewpoints, rather than removing materials, he added.
Once again, the librarians are the victims. Never mind that parents who have TRIED to have such 'conversations' in recent years have been silenced by school boards and even targeted by the Department of Justice.
DiFilippo concludes the article with a disingenuous statement by Hickson:
'Is there material that contains some sexual content in a high school library? Yes, there is,' Hickson said. 'That is because there are human beings aged 14 to 18 who Mother Nature has endowed with an interest in sex. It’s how the human race replenishes itself and Mother Nature has activated the hormones during adolescence. They have a natural interest in the topic and they deserve to receive accurate, factual information about it. Actual factual information about human sexual behavior is not pornography.'
See? Sex is just how the human race replenishes itself. Hickson is only putting factual information in her school library. And if that's Hickson's opinion, that's fine, as problematic as the entire statement is.
But DiFilippo is (allegedly) the journalist here. Why no pushback on some of the aspects of Hickson's statement?
For instance, she could have asked Hickson how the contents of 'Gender Queer' -- which is the book in the article's header image -- relates to the human race replenishing itself.
Yes, but why not work with parents to limit a child’s access to sexual content? This shouldn’t be controversial. Let’s look inside the book you mention…is this okay for kids? Come on. You’re not the good guy here. pic.twitter.com/8MXZUcmjF8
— Julie Gunlock (@JGunlock) February 17, 2024
Funny, your thumbnail is the cover and not the inside of the book.
— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) February 16, 2024
The reason those images are not included in the article is because DiFilippo didn't want them to be (and probably because the New Jersey Monitor's standards and practices would not have permitted it). Because it IS pornography. It is NOT appropriate for children. And it has nothing to do with Mother Nature.
But DiFilippo wants to hide that fact.
As I wrote initially, most of the replies to the original ALA tweet centered around the subject matter of the content of the books in schools and called out the ALA for promoting the content. But in my opinion, not enough people paid attention to the person who created the article that enabled ALA to send out its tweet.
The manipulation of language, the skewing of the facts, the instillation of activist opinion disguised as reporting ... these are hallmarks of how far the American media has fallen into the 'dark magic' of language and writing. And while this article from DiFilippo is just a small example, it is worth it (to me, at least) to break it all down and show how the manipulation is happening and how institutions and media now have a cooperative, even collusive relationship, as opposed to an adversarial one, which -- in case reporters have forgotten -- is supposed to be the entire raison d'etre of news journalism.
One point is clear: we could use many words to describe what Dana DiFilippo does for a living, but one word we will never use to describe her is 'journalist.'
