Unless the story is completely fabricated, I don't see an angle here. If anything, the slant of the article is pro-DEI, which is...not what I would expect from American propaganda in 2025.
I would imagine the devil's in the details.
Who's assessing the artifacts to make that determination?
It's really not that complicated. If a typical organization is presented with two equally-qualified candidates, one of whom is a minority (of any kind, not just a racial minority), the organization will hire the non-minority candidate nearly every time. DEI policies exist to combat that sort of institutional bigotry.
For me, it's hard to top the Paramount+ ad from a few years ago that gave us this:
It was great. I had a ball doing that. And I mean, again, during the “Star Trek” world, it’s lovely people, and it was nothing but pleasure, and it was a dream wish fulfillment for me to be able to be in “Star Trek.” I play a very interesting, complicated guy, bad guy, I suppose. I’m a bad guy. Yeah, I guess I’m a bad guy. But yeah, so I dunno what more I can say about that without giving too much away.
I’m in more than one episode. I have a little arc through this season. I reappear and become more problematic as the show goes on.
I think the only path forward is for journalists to get serious about defining and protecting their job. No government is going to step in to do it because of the optics, but many sectors have colleges that define and enforce standards of behaviour.
It's time for journalists to step up and do the same.
I don’t doubt that this is true on balance
I know the questions keep coming up (and it's totally fair play), but...I don't have the impression that it's had any sort of impact on the electorate. Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't doubt that this is true on balance, but the Danielle Smith jokes practically write themselves...
I guess it's possible that it was a Liberal plant, but it has big "man vandalizes own house" energy.
view more: next ›
I reject the framing of DEI as a "right buzzword." Don't let them co-opt it.