Distraction & Omission
Corporate media coverage of a new Florida bill
Back when I started this Substack I told readers I’d give them a glimpse into “how the sausage is made” in the world of journalism. But honestly, a lot of established media outlets in this nation are doing a pretty good job of showing you themselves these days.
An excellent example is the narrative around the Parental Rights in Education bill that was recently passed in Florida. It’s gotten a lot of very emotional coverage recently, but the best thing to do before we explore any news stories about it is to read the bill ourselves. Here’s the summary and, from the “Bill Text” tab in that summary, here’s the PDF of the actual bill itself. It’s seven pages long but there are big margins and a lot of redundancy, so it’s not tough to read at all.
After reading the bill yourself, you may decide you agree with all or part of it, or you may decide you disagree with all or part of it. There is no right answer here – everyone is 100% entitled to his or her opinions (and the purpose of this blog, remember, is not to pass judgement; it’s simply to dissect news. More on this at the end of the piece*).
But the most fascinating thing about the way corporate media outlets have covered this particular story is the way they have chosen to brand it. I’m willing to bet most of you know it not as the Parental Rights in Education Bill (again - its real name), but as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, per these corporate outlets (and more): ABC News, The Guardian, CBS News, Forbes, and NBC News.
If you’ve read this blog long enough, you know by now that corporate media outlets regularly use, en masse, catchy phrases to describe complex issues – “baseless,” “insurrection,” “The Big Lie…” etc.
“Don’t Say Gay” is the same kind of terminology, intended to oversimplify a complex issue and attach a negative stigma to it. The ultimate goal, of course, is to encourage news consumers to react emotionally instead of thoughtfully.
What’s interesting about this story, though, is that - although the bill is seven pages and 162 lines long - the only part of it that corporate media outlets seem to be focusing on is one sentence, 4 ½ lines long, which says this:
“3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third
parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur
in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-
appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
Never mind that there is no mention of banning the word “gay” or any other word in this section or the whole bill. There is a banning of teaching about “sexual orientation or gender identity…” but that pertains solely to Kindergarten through third graders. Not high schoolers or even pre-teens. Not ALL Florida kids. Just 5 – 8-year-olds.
((*Florida’s Governor, Ron DeSantis, very directly addressed these same issues as well during a recent news conference, when a reporter called the bill the “Don’t Say Gay” bill; here’s a video clip of his response from Twitter.))
Misleading titles are one thing, but even the “reporting” surrounding this story oftentimes vastly oversimplifies the issues as well. Check out this CNN piece regarding the Disney corporation’s response to the bill. This line in particular, from that story, completely omits the ages of the school kids this bill targets:
“In response to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would ban educators from discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms, Chapeksaid Mondaythat he and Disney’s leadership “unequivocally stand” with LGBTQ+ employees.”
Again, anyone reading the CNN story who isn’t wise to the media’s usual tricks might think the writer means the bill would ban ALL educators “from discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity” in ALL classrooms. If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, though, you hopefully read that sentence, noticed that it gives no specific factual information and immediately asked yourself WHICH educators and WHICH classrooms this bill affects.
After decades doing this myself, I’ve learned that anyone who leaves out specific factual information in a “news” story is usually trying to cover up something they’d prefer you not know. Your guess is as good as mine on what exactly they’re trying to hide in this case, and why – all I know is the use of this technique in “journalism” is a red flag.
Two other telltale signs that this piece is more propaganda than news?
There are zero links in this story to the official summary and text of the bill. Why wouldn’t CNN want you to see the actual bill?
CNN chose to put a screenshot of two comedians - Saturday Night Live cast members, pretending to be newscasters - at the head of the story instead of a photo of any real person involved in the creation or passing of this bill. This is bizarre on many levels and does not lend an air of credibility to the story.
On top of all that, this specific CNN story is distracting readers from the core issue at hand, Brave-New World-style (ie: via information overload). Yes, I know the Disney CEO was asked to address the bill recently, but keep your eye on the ball and remember this (since you just read the bill yourself): Disney is not mentioned in the bill at all, or even part of it on any level. Disney is not a state educator. Disney is a theme park that happens to be located in the same state where the bill about education was signed.
As is often the case, the most interesting thing about the corporate media coverage in general on this story is what those outlets are NOT telling you. Yes, the part about prohibiting gender and sex instruction for K-3rd graders is part of this bill, but the overwhelming majority – roughly 98% of it (158.5 out of 162 lines) – is focused not at all on gender identity or sex ed, but on parental rights regarding what happens to their children at school. Examples? This bill:
“reinforce[s] the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children in a specified manner”
Forbids “prohibiting a parent from accessing certain records”
Prohibits “a school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about specified information or that encourage … a student to withhold form a parent such information”
Prohibits “school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student’s mental, emotional, or physical well-being”
Requires “school districts to notify parents of healthcare services and provide parents the opportunity to consent or decline such services”
… the list goes on. Again, read it for yourself to see more, then ask yourself one question: Is what corporate media’s promoting, via the “Don’t Say Gay” narrative, an accurate and full portrayal of what this Florida bill intends to accomplish? If not, then what they’re peddling is not really news.
One last thought: A lot of us - myself included - have been afraid to broach stories like this over the past 10-15 years, for fear of being branded a bigot. But I think that speaks to a larger problem with our society today. We need, in a respectful way, to be able to discuss the way news is presented to us without being accused of having some sort of hidden hostility or agenda against the subject matter of the story.
Every time we allow others to conflate our motivations, we lose a little bit more of our freedom to speak and have meaningful discussions. I didn’t spend a lot of time in my early life thinking about what being a citizen of this country means to me, but as I see the liberties I took for granted growing up threatened by the very industry that should be supporting them, I feel standing up now is way less scary than standing up will be in the future, if things are allowed to continue the way they’ve been.
TRUCKIN’ UPDATE:
The People’s Convoy I wrote about two weeks ago has raised $1.68 million, has grown to roughly 33 miles in length and has been circling the DC beltway twice a day for several days, now. Here’s a very informative explainer from the Epoch Times about what the truckers want and why they’re refusing to leave (just watch the first 7 or so minutes).
Corporate media seems to be largely ignoring this story, but - as noted last post - it’s happening nonetheless… which makes it news - whether corporate media thinks it is or not.
General Update:
After writing this Substack for 1.5 years, I’m getting ready to wrap it up. I’ll publish one more newsletter on March 25th, and leave everything I’ve written online as a resource, but I’ve covered just about everything I’ve wanted to cover, and hopefully helped people understand a little bit more about what’s been happening in the news industry for as long as I can remember.
Maybe I’ll find someone who will publish it all as a booklet someday! Maybe I’ll start up a totally new Substack about something completely different (a freelancer at heart, I’m a big fan of changing things up in pretty major ways every once in a while to keep life interesting)!
Either way, more on that in two weeks - just wanted to give you all a heads-up :)
Lisa