CNN Responds To ‘Witch Trials Of J.K. Rowling’ Podcast By Burning The Author At The Digital Stake

Author J.K. Rowling joined host Megan Phelps-Roper for an audio series titled “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” — and CNN published a companion article that was supposed to act as an explainer, but read more like a targeted hit piece.

The audio series delves into Rowling’s experience as an author, and later, as an activist — as her defenses of biological women’s rights and protections have often put her in the crosshairs of the transgender community.

Last year @jk_rowling responded to a letter I wrote her. I’d asked if she’d be part of a conversation seeking to understand her perspective and those of her critics.

The result is a new audio series from @thefp:
THE WITCH TRIALS OF J.K. ROWLING

My essay: https://t.co/nNMyRGpgBy

— Megan Phelps-Roper (@meganphelps) February 14, 2023

CNN’s explainer, which does not include a single “opinion” designation, leads off with the headline, “What to know about J.K. Rowling’s new podcast and history of harmful anti-trans comments.”

The network’s official tweet promoting the article shows a definite slant as well, reading, “The ‘Harry Potter’ author has continued to make anti-transgender comments and promote stories on her Twitter account that discredit trans-inclusive advocacy.”

The "Harry Potter" author has continued to make anti-transgender comments and promote stories on her Twitter account that discredit trans-inclusive advocacy. https://t.co/9Ulfs9c0uK

— CNN (@CNN) February 21, 2023

CNN Associate Writer Scottie Andrew, who authored the piece, opened by accusing Rowling of making “inflammatory comments about transgender people, particularly trans women, using dehumanizing language and baselessly accusing them of harming cisgender women.”

She then included a series of sub-headlines that also clearly sided against Rowling.

“The first episodes mostly don’t mention Rowling’s anti-trans comments”

“Trans people face a dangerous and difficult reality”

“Rowling’s views continue to cause harm”

Andrews included a number of comments Rowling made on Twitter in defense of biological women — and particularly, in defense of ousted think tank employee Maya Forstater, forced out over her opposition to a U.K. government move to allow people to self-select their genders on official papers.

“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?” she tweeted.

Rowling, who was quickly labeled a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), continued to defend biological sex, saying that if it was not real, then the “lived reality of women globally is erased.”

Andrews then attacked Rowling’s claims that many who initially seek gender-affirming medical care ultimately change their minds over time — and claimed that those who did choose to detransition probably did so because of exposure to transphobic views.

“Later that month, Rowling published a lengthy essay defending her views on her website. In it, Rowling explained why she’d been ‘worried about the new trans activism.’ She cited the oft-mentioned but little-researched claim that many people who seek gender-affirming health care eventually regret their decision and want to reverse it, which is known as detransitioning,” Andrews wrote. “It’s rare for a trans person to detransition, and there’s little data to back Rowling’s claims. When people do detransition, it’s often understood to be a product of transphobia and discrimination in their lives.”

The article ended with a recap of the recent controversy over the new video game “Hogwarts Legacy” — which introduces the first trans character to the Harry Potter universe — and a number of trans activists who claimed that buying or playing the game would only further Rowling’s “harmful” views.

California Democrats Move To Ban Uses Of Police K9s, Citing Racism

California Democrats and activists are working to outlaw multiple uses of police K-9s in the state, citing claims of present and historical racism.

Assembly Bill 742, introduced on February 13 by Democratic Assemblymembers Corey Jackson (Perris) and Ash Kalra (San Jose), would end the use of K-9 units for arrest, apprehension, and crowd control. Police dogs would still be permitted in other situations, such as explosives detection and search and rescue missions.

“From the brutal attempts to quell the Civil Rights movement, Black Lives Matter protests, and their day-to-day use in law enforcement, police K-9s remain a gross misuse of force and victimize black and brown people, disproportionately,” Jackson said during a press conference announcing the bill last week. “The need for AB 742 is apparent, not only through a historic perspective but also through the clear racial disparities we see every year.”

In a press release, the assemblyman cited research that said that black and Latino individuals are more likely to be involved in K-9 apprehensions. According to Jackson, 65% of those seriously injured by police dogs in 2021 were “people of color.”

Jackson said using police dogs for matters such as apprehensions of suspects has racist roots back to the days of slavery, noting that AB 742’s role is largely meant to remedy past racial wrongs.

“I’m always looking for ways to atone for the past,” the Democrat said. “How do we get out systemic racism? How do we get out racism in our narratives? And how do we make sure that we erase practices that are currently being done today that were originated and perfected on our ancestors?”

Jackson went as far as to quote black nationalist Malcolm X, saying that “the white man has traded in white sheets for police badges and K9s.”

Unsurprisingly, there’s been much pushback against the bill, particularly from law enforcement. Officials have underscored the critical role K-9s play in keeping law enforcement safe and protecting suspects from potential deadly force; they see the bill as counterproductive to its aim. 

Sheriff Mark Lamb, of Pinal County in Arizona, told OAN last week that he’s “absolutely seen cases where lethal force would have been justified, and was likely going to be used next had the [police] dog not been effective.”

“The dogs are extremely valuable,” Sheriff Lamb continued. “And the fact that they want to take this away seems to be contradicting what they want across this country, which is more and more reform. So, I can’t understand what they’re trying to do.”  

Tonight on Real America!
Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb weighs in on the proposed California bill that would ban K9 units from making arrests with police dogs.@DanNewsManBall #RealAmerica #Conservative #TalkShow #OAN pic.twitter.com/B693dwZCmR

— One America News (@OANN) February 16, 2023

Factions of both the ACLU and the NAACP support AB 742. The measure could be heard in committee as early as next month.