The Washington Post Actually Watched My Film. What They Said May Shock You
Matt Walsh・2 minutes read
Mainstream media critics refuse to review the film "Am I Racist," but journalist Megan McArdle from The Washington Post provides a positive analysis despite facing backlash for supporting the movie. The divide between left and right perspectives on controversial art and film is highlighted through McArdle's review and the ensuing reactions, showcasing the challenges of discussing sensitive topics in a polarized society.
Insights
- Megan McArdle's review of the film "Am I Racist" is both positive and critical, acknowledging its impact while also pointing out its simplistic nature and urging those on the liberal to progressive side to watch it for understanding.
- The backlash against McArdle's analysis and the movie itself reveals a deep divide between left and right perspectives on art and film, with some accusing her of promoting racism and bigotry, showcasing the challenges of discussing controversial topics in a polarized society.
Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free
Recent questions
What is the controversy surrounding "Am I Racist"?
The film "Am I Racist" has sparked controversy due to mainstream media's refusal to review it, with some critics accusing it of promoting racism from an alt-right perspective.
Related videos
Tom Nicholas
How The Media Promotes Transphobia
mubd1234's Aussie Media Archive
Media Watch - 100th Episode - Series 3, Episode 6, 16 March 1992 - with Stuart Littlemore
The Critical Drinker
Snow White - Redemption Or Deflection?
Kwangsoo Footage
Asian Racism Social Experiment | What Would You Do?
ABC News In-depth
Can Musk the media mogul be tamed? | Media Watch
Summary
00:00
"Media backlash over film review controversy"
- Mainstream media is viewed as corrupt, dishonest, and morally bankrupt, leading to mainstream film critics refusing to review a new film titled "Am I Racist."
- Despite mainstream film critics' reluctance, a few journalists from major publications have acknowledged the movie's existence, with The Washington Post journalist Megan McArdle watching and writing about it positively.
- McArdle's review acknowledges the movie's effectiveness but also deems it simplistic and unfair, urging individuals from the liberal to progressive side to watch it to understand its impact.
- McArdle's analysis of the film highlights its exploitation of human nature, showcasing the manipulation methods used by race hustlers and turning them against them.
- McArdle's readers, however, react negatively to her analysis, expressing offense and betrayal at her review of the movie.
- Comments from readers on The Washington Post website criticize McArdle for supporting and promoting the movie, labeling it as a mockumentary about racism from an alt-right perspective.
- McArdle's analysis is seen as an attempt to justify and normalize racism by some commenters, who accuse her of supporting a project that promotes racism and bigotry.
- The backlash against McArdle's review reveals a cult-like mentality on the left, where individuals object to anyone watching the movie and offering a perspective on it.
- McArdle's analysis and the subsequent comments highlight the divide between left and right perspectives on art and film, with the left feeling a sense of entitlement over the art form.
- The criticism and backlash faced by McArdle and other commentators for engaging with the movie demonstrate the challenges of discussing controversial topics in a polarized society.
14:02
"MLK Monument Renamed in Film Critique"
- A comment on the Washington Post website criticized a film, comparing it to "watching MLK on steroids," prompting the creator to humorously suggest renaming the Martin Luther King Jr Monument to the Matt Walsh Monument in a sequel, highlighting the absurdity of the comment and the cancel culture reactions to the film.
