>> Northwest Now is supported, in part, by viewers like you.

Thank you.

>> Tom Layson: While the monuments topple, children's books get unpublished.

The far right screams about political correctness run amok and cancel culture, while spewing hate.

The far left erases history and people and attacks speech, but the question for reasonable people is about how to get it right.

How do we acknowledge our flawed past and fix today's wrongs, while not punishing otherwise decent people beyond redemption and simultaneously stifling discussion?

Tonight, Linda Byron brings us the story of how grieving cancel culture provides a good chunk of the red meat driving local conservative talk radio and the Puyallup tribe's concerns about the totem pole at Fireman's Park in Tacoma.

It is not an authentic artifact, but it is still part of the city's history.

In a divided America, the discussion of cancel culture is our topic on Northwest Now.

[ Music ] I have to tell you, the biggest problem in discussing cancel culture is that every single case is just so different.

Lately, several of Theodor Seuss Geisel's Dr. Seuss books went out of publication.

It was a move initiated by Dr. Seuss Enterprises, but that didn't stop the groaning about cancel culture.

Mr.

Potato Head is now just Potato Head due to concerns about gender identity.

And how about Pepe Le Pew, the lecherous skunks endless attempt to smooch the cat set off a cancel culture debate and, of course, an accompanying meme fast on social media, but this affects people, too.

An up and coming female journalist of color named Alexi McCammond cannot be hired due to tweets from 2011, when she was just 17 years old.

She's apologized many times but may never work again.

She just lost her job as the editor in chief at Teen Vogue before she even started.

Let's be clear, media is a big part of this.

There's nothing that feeds ratings like controversy and feeding a deep sense of grievance and victimhood among viewers or listeners.

Let's also be clear that media of every political persuasion feeds on cancel culture grievance one way or another.

Northwest Now contributor Linda Byron brings us one example from the conservative side of local talk radio.

>> Linda Byron: Jason Rantz is a conservative talk radio host in Seattle, whose scathing commentary on racial injustice protests and riots last summer made him a regular contributor to Fox News.

>> Jason Rantz: They say that they're doing this over the weekend for Breonna Taylor.

Before that it was for indigenous people.

In the coming weeks, it's going to be for George Floyd, but to be clear, they're not really interested in that.

These are radicals, who have an ideological agenda, and they're using those issues for cover, so they can engage in this kind of domestic terror.

>> Linda Byron: Since then, on Fox in freelance columns for Newsweek and on Seattle's KTTH Radio, Rantz is championing another conservative cause, the evils of so-called cancel culture.

>> Jason Rantz: Cancel culture is when we take a look at a move that's usually done, at least right now, by folks on the left driven by their ideology to silence people with whom they disagree.

>> Linda Byron: We met up with Rantz in a Seattle park for a socially distanced interview to ask whether canceling is less about silencing someone and more about holding them accountable.

>> Jason Rantz: I don't view it as being held accountable when you're using contemporary standards to judge content from decades ago, when at the time, it wasn't considered racist or sexist, even though in retrospect, clearly it was.

Depending on the content we're talking about, that's not holding people accountable.

That is silencing content that you simply currently disagree with.

>> Linda Byron: For example, Rantz points to a publisher pulling a spin off of the popular Captain Underpants children's series.

>> Jason Rantz: It's being pulled from libraries, because the publisher has come out, claiming that it, quote, perpetuates passive racism.

Passive racism, so not in your face racism, I guess, not active racism, it's just passively racist.

>> Linda Byron: And there's the decision by Dr. Seuss Enterprises to stop publishing six books from its vast collection because of offensive and hurtful depictions of minorities.

>> Jason Rantz: That's part of a greater movement to simply erase part of artistic history.

In some cases, it's part of, again, a bigger ideological movement to say that we live in a country that has been established upon oppression, systems of oppression, white supremacy.

The argument coming from the left in these cases is that we need to dismantle systems of oppression and then rebuild it in our image.

>> Linda Byron: But shouldn't we be dismantling systems of oppression and evolving beyond a culture of white privilege?

>> Jason Rantz: No one is arguing against calling out instances in which you think there's been some sort of injustice or racist comment made or sexist transphobic comment, whatever it happens to be, call it out.

The difference is stop ganging up on individuals, who are taking mainstream positions on lots of different topics and demanding that a mainstream and reasonable position simply be excommunicated from the conversation.

>> Linda Bryon: Rantz argues, that's dangerous and easily abused by the powerful.

>> Jason Rantz: Imagine the power to censor in the hands of your worst enemy, and that's kind of what it feels like right now, that folks who have power are deciding what kind of content is or is not available.

And they're making these decisions based on their own feelings, not consensus by society.

>> Linda Bryon: While Rantz typically points his finger at liberals, he concedes conservatives cancel, too, and no one gets a pass.

>> Jason Rantz: Canceling when it is completely contrived and it's based on an ideological agenda to silence opposition to one's perspective, I think that is 100% always wrong, whether it's done on the right or whether it's done on the left.

>> Tom Layson: There are also some big questions about art.

When we talk about Woody Allen or Michael Jackson or Picasso or Bill Cosby, they are certainly flawed people, but how do we view their work?

And won't we end up finding flaws in every artist's work?

How about history, do we burn down the infrastructure of genocide or leave buildings and artifacts in place as monuments and grim reminders of what can happen when hate prevails?

But then what about heroic statues or monuments to dictators or racist institutions like the American Confederacy?

I said it off the top, and I'll say it again, each case requires examination, which is why this is such a tough issue.

And remember, this is very much a local story, too, a recent example being the totem pole in Tacoma's Fireman's Park that was commissioned by white people to promote tourism but is also a clear example of cultural appropriation that as Northwest Now contributor Michael Driver shows us, has the Puyallup tribe saying, it's way past time for it to come down.

>> Annette Bryan: What I've heard about this totem pole, it's been here my entire life and then some, and it was the City of Tacoma competing with the City of Seattle way back in the day, trying to get the tallest totem pole in the area.

It's just been here a long time.

>> Connie McCloud: Was carved over 100 years ago by non-native carvers.

They wanted to follow the carving style of Alaskan carving.

>> Annette Bryan: It wasn't done by Puyallup people or with the consent or collaboration with Puyallup people in any way.

It doesn't represent our culture at all in any way, shape, or form, but the other part of the story, and again, this is the City of Tacoma's burden is that it is deteriorating, and I think they just want to acknowledge the tribe, the people that are here to say, how do we decommission something like this?

How do we take down the totem pole?

So, even though we didn't carve it, I think they're being very respectful and honoring what the totem pole has represented all these years, and we are happy to help offer them any kind of guidance that they may need, but it really is their responsibility.

>> Connie McCloud: To have something in our homelands that doesn't represent us is cultural appropriation.

Today, those individuals that carved this poll would not be able to do that in this manner.

I could not go to Alaska and imitate their artwork and bring it home and say that this is Puyallup.

>> Annette Bryan: When I hear the word culture, to me, it is everything.

It is who we are as Puyallup people.

It is what our ancestors did and left for us.

It is how we teach our children our language.

>> Connie McCloud: So, this is a site that our people used as a watch site to protect our villages, and so we should tell that story of why we would've used this site to protect our people.

For me, I never understood it, because a lot of the symbolism doesn't reflect who we are and what I know to be from here.

I would like to have a ceremony and offer prayers to thank the cedar tree for being this pole, being in this place, and thank it for the gift that it has given, because there's -- the cedar trees still has a spirit, and then I think that it should be destroyed, because its work is done.

>> Annette Bryan: We really would like to see something here that represents our ancestors and who we are today and for our future generations to come into this park on their ancestral homelands and see something that is from their culture.

>> Tom Layson: The Fireman's Park totem pole is no longer part of Tacoma's art collection, and the Landmarks Commission may delist it as well.

Now, let's dive deeper into the cancel culture phenomena.

Joining us now is UW political science professor Victor Menaldo.

Is cancel culture toxic to our democracy or is it finally, you can make this argument, some accountability where average people can hold the powerful or the famous or the hateful, even, accountable?

>> Victor Menaldo: On the one hand, maybe it's a good thing.

Let me tell you why.

It could be that, and I think it usually is that there's really good intentions behind what we might call cancel culture, okay?

What is it folks want to do?

They want to chastise and marginalize ideas that are offensive or racist or that question certain democratic values, and that could be a good thing.

Another thing to think about, it could be an extension of free speech, right?

I mean, if somebody says something and then there's a response that tries to shut it down, in a sense, that's a response, and that's part of free speech, too, right?

It could even spark a conversation.

So, in that sense, there's nothing new under the sun.

It's a way of speaking, maybe it's an aggressive way or maybe it's an unconventional way, but it could be a way of going back and forth on something, right?

On the other hand, though, it could become an extreme problem, in that it could be an attempt to impose orthodoxy or discourage dissent or ideas that some folks don't like, inconvenient conclusions, let's say, that are based on [inaudible].

And it could get out of hand in that it could involve what folks call gaslighting.

It could be that if you don't like what somebody says, you purposely distort what they've said to sound much worse or to imply something that they didn't mean to say.

There is sometimes the case that there's a disproportional reaction or a punitive reaction, right?

If someone says something, let's say, that is offensive, the attempt maybe to humiliate that person or fire them or deplatform them, right?

>> Tom Layson: Right, and don't we get into a situation here where we're destroying people?

We're virtue signaling at the expense of somebody's career or their life or their job.

If they've apologized or if they've shown a willingness to grow, it seems like there's an ideological purity piece that goes along with this, that, you know, renders itself vulnerable to thought control and some dictatorships and 1984 type of parallels, too.

I mean, there's a danger in going too far.

>> Victor Menaldo: One myth about cancel culture is that it has something to do with political speech.

It's really about the culture, not about politics, right?

The First Amendment is very strong and protects the free speech in terms of the government's ability to encroach upon what we say, right?

Cancel culture is more about what society is doing, right?

And there is an argument to be made that our culture matters very much for liberalism, small L, civil liberties, democracy and the like, but it could be that it's just, you know, a part, again, of a democratic society.

If that's what people -- if that's where the values are, then that's where the values are, right?

So, I'm not sure.

I'm a bit of agnostic, and the reason for that is, because cancel culture is as old as humanity, right?

It's not only the left that does it.

It's the right.

There are several examples on the right side of the aisle where there have been attempts to cancel folks in the past and in the present.

At the University of Washington, three tenured professors, during the Red Scare during the 50s, were accused of harboring Communist sympathies, and they were fired, and other professors had to make loyalty oaths to the United States and some other ideas.

So, as recently as last week, an editor at the USA Today, her name is Hemal Jhaveri was fired for getting on Twitter and firing off a tweet that was maybe not the the best time accusing the mass shooter in Boulder being an angry white man, when it was a person of Syrian descent.

And folks on the right took her to task, and she was fired.

So, you know, is it a threat to democracy?

I think it can be, but we have to put it in perspective and understand that there's some myths about it first, and then I can get into all the criticisms I might want, but I just want to set the record straight.

It's not new.

It has been going on a long time.

Everybody does it.

It's part of human nature to be upset at things we don't like and push back, right?

The question is-- >> Tom Layson: Now, we have the power of social media.

Now, you know, instead of a rebuke, it's a rebuke that never lets you go, and I think one of the things that you talked, too, about the freedom of speech is, you know, on the other side of this argument, I think people are always throwing around this idea of freedom of speech, not really understanding what it means.

It abridges the government's ability to limit our speech for sure, but it doesn't mean consequence free speech.

You hear that all the time, people saying something, you know, very offensive, and they are like, hey, I have free speech.

The answer is you may have free speech, you don't have freedom from consequences.

You can get fired.

People can reject you.

People might not buy what you're selling.

So, there's, you know, several different shades of this as well.

>> Victor Menaldo: Exactly, and that's part of the fact that culture is always contested, and there's always boundaries to speech that we negotiate, right?

And that's not necessarily about the First Amendment.

That's what we do as a society, and in a democratic society, in a sense, we have the freedom to decide what the bounds are and the like or negotiate, right?

Now, let me though say that I am worried about some of the patterns about a disproportional punitive punishment for things we don't like or people getting fired.

Although it's perfectly legal for a private company to fire an employee at will, for whatever reason, right, unless it's discriminatory or unless it violates the law, and there are certain protected classes in the United States, there are certain things that an employer is limited in doing, but that's not really my concern, right, or that even social media platforms moderate speech.

They're allowed to under Section 230 of the law, which allows them to a lot of leeway and berth, a wide berth in what they decide to do with the users on their platforms, and that's part of the free enterprise system.

That's part of our market economy, and that's perfectly protected under the law as well, right?

But my fear, if you don't mind me telling you, is as an academic and a scientist and social scientist, that there might be some unanticipated consequences of piling on people, being unforgiving and intolerant, and wanting a head on a stake, if we hear something we don't like or that might be offensive or even a heterodox opinion, right, that's not-- >> Tom Layson: Absolutely.

You end up turning that person into a martyr and, I think, drive bad ideas underground, where they get a new kind of sexiness to them.

Instead of openly talking about something because people are so darn afraid of it, now the bad ideas, the toxic communication goes underground, it's spread in chat, and it becomes QAnon.

I think that's one of the threats, too.

>> Victor Menaldo: Exactly, I've written about this, exactly what you're saying but in the past, and I've thought, about, well, you know, you probably -- one of the advantages of free speech and expression, culturally, is that you allow all kinds of ideas to see the day of light, and you're able to challenge them, right, and you're able to hold them accountable in a free exchange back and forth rational deliberation, right, using facts, using logic, using evidence, and appeals to justice, or appeals to higher values, right?

But when you chill speech, because you make people scared that they're going to be fired, these ideas go underground, and they could become much worse.

They could metastasize like a cancer, right?

If you punish thought, if you punish expression that's awkward or that's wrong, you know, every human being is flawed, and nobody says things perfectly.

I'm not saying what I'm thinking perfectly.

You're probably not expressing yourself perfectly.

That's part of being a citizen of a democracy to give each other the benefit of the doubt and to go back and forth.

So, that's one of the disadvantages of a cancel culture run amok, right, where it's not necessarily about, okay, you said something, let me reply in a strong way to hold you accountable.

Now, it's your turn to reply to me, and maybe we've learned something.

That's where I'm afraid that we might not learn anything from each other, and we might, as you said very eloquently, cast ideas underground right in the gutter, and then they don't see the light of day.

And I have other criticisms as well of the cancel culture phenomenon, but what are your thoughts there?

>> Tom Layson: Well, no, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts and trying to weigh this.

It is such a difficult issue, because there are certainly things that I listen to and I see, and I say, man, cancel that cat.

And there are other things where people cannot get up off their knees, they cannot pick themselves up and fix things from mistakes they've made, because they're -- and to use a current analogy, a knee is going to be kept on their neck for a long darn time, and we are, I think, throwing people away who might be able to grow and change in the interest of trying to snuff out messages that do need to be snuffed out.

So, I guess, my question is, is there a way to reject a message and reject someone's thinking without destroying people?

Is -- do you think -- is our society capable of doing that?

>> Victor Menaldo: I think so.

I mean, most folks are well intentioned good people, right?

Most folks want to improve the world.

Most folks do want to have a framework where they can listen to each other and they can give each other the benefit of the doubt.

I think, though, there are perverse incentives sometimes that maybe reward performative actions or where when people get together in a collective, sometimes their worst instincts take over, right?

So, maybe there could be ways to put a break on this, right, and to have people step back and say, you know, maybe I don't agree with what was said, maybe it's offensive.

Maybe these things are bad for a democracy.

Could we find a way not to throw people under the bus but to maybe challenge the ideas but redeem the person, right?

Or maybe the person expressed themselves in a way that was awkward, but if we give them a chance, they can explain themselves better, right?

So, that's just part of democracy, and maybe part of what's going on are some growing pains.

We're renegotiating the space of or the bounds of what is a good idea versus bad, right?

The problem, though, would be if we get stuck in this rut, where we're intolerant and where we punish people too much, and again, that could be wrong, right?

And I'm an optimist, like maybe we'll get past some of this stuff, but that does worry me.

>> Tom Layson: Yeah, and the reason is because if you follow this far enough down the rabbit hole, if this goes all the way to its logical conclusion, if unchecked, both either to the right or to the left, you end up with people in reeducation camps.

You end up with people living basically in dictatorships or school curriculums, the newspaper, conversation at a dinner table is going to be according to your masters, and I'm not suggesting we're anywhere close to that, but I think you can see it from here in the distance possibly.

>> Victor Menaldo: Well, look, that's always a worry that any democracy should have.

Even if it's kind of a paranoid worry, it's a good worry to have, because a democracy is a hard fought accomplishment, and I think it's important for, again, it's not -- no one has a monopoly on cancel culture.

Human beings, I think, instinctually want to silence things they don't like.

I'll include myself, by the way, I'm a human being just like anyone else.

The problem is when it becomes a legitimate way of doing things where a lot of people get together, and then there's a disproportional punishment, right?

That's where it's problematic, but let me say something that you intimated.

My own view, after a lot of research on what makes liberal democracy strong, again, small L liberal meaning civil liberties elections, a very robust civil society, the basis, I think, of democracy, of civic vitality, of our prosperity even is a culture of free expression, a free flow of ideas, even if they're wrong, giving folks the benefit of the doubt, right?

If you think about science, think about the fact that we have these vaccines, amazing vaccines available to help us get through this pandemic.

We have like six or seven right now.

In about a year, they were -- went through their trials, and they were accepted by the FDA or are in the process of doing that.

Now, we're getting ahead of COVID-19 here.

Well, that itself is a result of the inquiry and the approach of the scientific method, which is all about free expression, about experimenting with different ideas, about not being afraid to have different thoughts, right?

Even if they're wrong, maybe there's a process by which these thoughts we could figure out, you know, what's valuable, what's not valuable without necessarily punishing people for having a thought, right?

And so, I think the key to our society, in terms of its vibrancy, in terms of its success, is to have this culture of free expression and free exchange of ideas, and maybe some of the cancel culture stuff is part of that, too.

If an idea is wrong or offensive or racist or whatever, if we could have a healthier way of viewing that, which holds the ideas accountable, but doesn't necessarily punish people for having them, if they're coming from a good place, and for most people, I think, it's coming from a good place.

People are awkwardly trying to express themselves and find a way in this very challenging time to make sense of the world.

You know, it's a complicated, messy place.

>> Tom Layson: Are there messages and people that need to be canceled?

Certainly, yes.

Just because somebody is selling racism or hate doesn't mean others have to buy into it, but weaponizing virtue signaling is destructive, too, because it kills dialogue and therefore kills understanding and progress, if there's some willingness to grow.

Maya Angelou said, do the best you can until you know better, and when you know better, do better.

Don't we need to allow people to do better without ruining their lives?

My bottom line tonight, though, is a reality check.

You know who really likes us at each other's throats?

Our adversaries.

They're building high speed rail, airports, dams, supercomputers, robots, and roads around the world while we're arguing about Mr.

Potato Head.

Consider that, too.

I hope this program got you thinking and talking to watch this program again or to share it with others.

Northwest Now can be found on the web at kbtc.org and be sure to follow us on Twitter at Northwest Now.

Thanks for taking a closer look on this edition of Northwest Now.

Until next time, I'm Tom Layson.

Thanks for watching.

[ Music ]