Report on Media Platforming of Extremism and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

An analysis of current media trends reveals a growing practice of providing platforms to extremist viewpoints, particularly those targeting women’s rights and democratic principles. This practice, often framed as promoting “balanced discussion” or “diverse viewpoints,” poses a direct threat to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). By legitimizing ideologies that seek to dismantle fundamental human rights, these media practices undermine the foundations of inclusive and equitable societies.

Erosion of Democratic Institutions and Public Discourse (SDG 16)

The strategy of platforming extremist voices directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 16, which aims to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. Instead of fostering informed public discourse, this approach weakens democratic integrity through several mechanisms:

• Creation of False Equivalence: Extremist ideologies, such as those advocating for the repeal of women’s suffrage or promoting violence against specific groups, are presented as credible viewpoints worthy of debate. This creates a false balance that distorts public perception and undermines evidence-based policymaking.
• Legitimization of Fringe Movements: Media appearances provide extremists with legitimacy and a broader audience. For instance, a CNN segment featuring Christian nationalists who advocate for disenfranchising women resulted in the group celebrating the publicity and using it for promotion, demonstrating how media can inadvertently serve the interests of anti-democratic movements.
• Misrepresentation of Public Opinion: This media strategy creates the illusion that deeply unpopular policies, such as total bans on abortion, have evenly divided public support. This fiction allows a minority to impose its will, bypassing democratic processes and eroding trust in institutions. Lawmakers are increasingly attempting to overturn voter-approved ballot measures, further demonstrating a disregard for democratic outcomes.

Direct Threats to Gender Equality (SDG 5)

The content and framing of these media segments represent a significant regression for SDG 5, which seeks to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. The normalization of misogynistic rhetoric has severe and tangible consequences for gender equality targets.

1. Undermining Political Participation: Treating women’s right to vote as a debatable topic is a direct assault on their role in public life, a core tenet of SDG 5. This normalizes the idea that women’s political agency is conditional.
2. Threatening Bodily Autonomy: The framing of women’s reproductive rights as a mere thought exercise ignores their centrality to health, economic participation, and overall equality. This dehumanization facilitates the passage of legislation that violates women’s fundamental rights.
3. Reinforcing Harmful Stereotypes: A coordinated cultural campaign, amplified by media and online influencers, promotes regressive gender roles. This “pink pill” pipeline encourages young women to forgo education, careers, and personal autonomy, directly opposing the goal of eliminating all forms of discrimination and violence against women.
4. Normalizing Violence Against Women: Pop culture references that trivialize or satirize domestic violence contribute to a climate where violence against women is not taken seriously, hindering progress on eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls in the public and private spheres.

Adverse Impacts on Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

The amplification of extremist views that oppose women’s rights has direct and life-threatening consequences, undermining SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. The attack on reproductive rights is a clear example of this impact.

• Denial of Essential Healthcare: The political climate fostered by this rhetoric leads to legislation that severely restricts access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, a key target of SDG 3.
• Negative Health Outcomes: The consequences of anti-abortion laws, which are legitimized through media debates, include preventable deaths and severe health crises for women, such as septic miscarriages, loss of fertility, and emergency hysterectomies.
• Increased Violence: The normalization of misogyny is linked to real-world violence. High rates of sexual and domestic violence are not abstract statistics but a public health crisis exacerbated by a culture that devalues women’s lives and safety.

Conclusion

The practice of platforming extremists in media is not a benign exercise in free speech but a significant impediment to global development goals. It actively contributes to the erosion of democratic institutions (SDG 16), reverses progress on gender equality (SDG 5), and causes direct harm to women’s health and well-being (SDG 3). By creating a distorted perception of reality where extremist views are mainstreamed, this media trend enables the advancement of policies that are unpopular, undemocratic, and fundamentally opposed to the principles of sustainable development.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues that directly connect to three primary Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 5: Gender Equality: This is the central theme of the article. It discusses the erosion of women’s rights, the rise of misogynistic extremism, violence against women, and threats to their political participation and bodily autonomy. The entire piece is framed around the idea that women’s equality and humanity are being treated as debatable topics.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article explicitly addresses women’s health, particularly sexual and reproductive health. It details the severe health consequences for women due to the loss of abortion rights, such as “septic miscarriages, lost fallopian tubes, and emergency hysterectomies,” linking extremist rhetoric and policy directly to negative health outcomes.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article critiques the role of media institutions in platforming extremism, which undermines democracy. It discusses threats to the democratic process, such as efforts to “overturn pro-choice initiatives that didn’t go their way or rewriting the rules of democracy to block new ones,” and the push to disenfranchise women by repealing their right to vote. It also touches on violence, referencing the “deadly history of anti-abortion violence” and a writer’s call for women to be “executed by hanging.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 5: Gender Equality

1. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The article discusses the rise of ideologies that question women’s equality, promote their return to domestic roles (“happier back in the kitchen”), and advocate for stripping them of fundamental rights like voting, which are clear forms of discrimination.
2. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. The article directly references this target by mentioning a writer who argued for executing women who have abortions, the “deadly history of anti-abortion violence,” and the statistic that “about 75 people in the U.S. were victims of sexual or domestic violence” in a short time frame.
3. Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. This target is threatened by the movements discussed in the article. The interview with “Christian nationalists who want to repeal women’s right to vote” and the fact that Republicans are “‘joked’ about repealing women’s right to vote” are direct attacks on women’s political participation.
4. Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. The article’s core focus on the consequences of the end of Roe and the ongoing political battles over abortion rights directly relates to this target. The text states that “Republicans across the country are either trying to overturn pro-choice initiatives” or block new ones, thereby denying access to reproductive rights.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

1. Target 3.7: By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services. The article details the failure to meet this target by describing the real-world health crises resulting from abortion bans. The mention of “septic miscarriages, lost fallopian tubes, and emergency hysterectomies” illustrates the dangerous lack of access to essential reproductive healthcare.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article connects extremist rhetoric to violence by highlighting a writer who “argued women who have abortions should be executed by hanging” and referencing the “very real and deadly history of anti-abortion violence.”
2. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article argues that democracy is being undermined. It points out that “Missouri Republicans were working to overturn Amendment 3—the abortion rights ballot measure voters passed in November,” showing a direct effort to subvert participatory and representative decision-making.
3. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. The article critiques how media outlets, under the guise of “hosting diverse viewpoints,” are platforming extremists. This practice is presented not as protecting fundamental freedoms but as a “conservative distortion of reality” that legitimizes hate and undermines the safety and freedom of women.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article mentions or implies several qualitative and quantitative indicators that can measure progress:

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Legal frameworks on gender equality (Indicator 5.1.1): The article implies this indicator by discussing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, a major legal framework for women’s rights, and the ongoing efforts by lawmakers to “overturn pro-choice initiatives” and block new ballot measures, indicating a regression in legal protections.
• Prevalence of violence against women (Indicator 5.2.1): A direct, albeit informal, indicator is provided when the author states, “in the nearly three minutes it took Jessie Murph to sing… about 75 people in the U.S. were victims of sexual or domestic violence.” This points to the high frequency of such violence.
• Laws on sexual and reproductive health (Indicator 5.6.2): The entire discussion around the end of Roe and state-level abortion bans serves as a clear indicator of the status of laws and regulations guaranteeing access to reproductive health.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Access to reproductive health care (related to Indicator 3.7.1): While not providing statistics on family planning, the article offers powerful qualitative indicators of failed access to care. The descriptions of “septic miscarriages, lost fallopian tubes, and emergency hysterectomies” are direct measures of the negative health outcomes when reproductive healthcare is denied.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Victims of intentional homicide (Indicator 16.1.1): The call from a writer for women who have abortions to be “executed by hanging” is a direct reference to promoting intentional violence and killing, which this indicator tracks.
• Public perception of inclusive decision-making (related to Indicator 16.7.2): The article implies a massive gap between public will and policy. It cites a poll finding that “81% of Americans don’t want the government involved in abortion at all,” yet lawmakers are passing restrictive laws and overturning voter-approved measures, indicating that decision-making is not responsive to the majority.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: jessica.substack.com