A front page diary describes how “Fox promotes domestic terrorist's manifesto to defend, amplify Trump.” Another is titled “Hours after 'denouncing' racism, Trump amplifies views of two other white supremacists.” As a former wordsmith with amplification echoing in my head, I worry that we’re inadvertently amplifying hate speech by calling it a “manifesto.”
A manifesto is a treatise meant to be taken seriously by serious people. As such, a manifesto is interesting to a wide audience, however propaganda-laden it may be. For instance, even hard-core capitalists are drawn to Marx’s Communist Manifesto, if only to rebut it. When we describe hateful writing as a "manifesto," we amplify and glorify it.
Consider this a plea to label hateful screeds as, well, hateful screeds. Or racist rants. Word choice matters!
And let media outlets know they’re complicit in amplifying hateful words when they refer to a “manifesto.” It’s a pernicious way of whitewashing hate speech, like calling racist speech “racially-tinged.” The media must not legitimize hate speech written by racist terrorists by applying the term “manifesto” to it!