When actors exert power in abstract ways, that is when they begin to hold sway over their target's actions, and even the target's view of itself and its own expectations. The press does this with extraordinary success.
In “The Manufacturing of Consent”, Noam Chomsky writes that the liberal western press is completely controlled by capital, because editors and press barons bow down to the demands of private share holders. Media accuracy and plurality is stifled by those who are from the thin layer of unaccountable cream that lies on top of our unequal society. The press, with their strings pulled by these tycoons, then provides smoke screens for why the economy is slumping, crime is up and tube lines get bombed. The economy is in a bad place because too much money goes to the EU. Crime is up because of an influx of immigrants. The tube lines get bombed because of Islamic extremism. This anti-historical diagnosis to why things happen is extremely dangerous and divisive, and does not examine the specific phenomena in any detail.
The power that the press wields over the identities of the public is incredible. Not even the Catholic Church exerted this amount of control over such huge swathes of people, yet this new dogma is often hailed as a transparent benchmark of the western world. When, at the end of the Cold War, Gorbachev introduced Glasnost into the crumbling USSR, he was hailed as a champion of democracy and the free press. At last, it was said, Russians would receive what they justly deserved - freedom of the press and media plurality. As Margaret Thatcher said, Gorbachev was a man who “she could do business with”. Unfortunately, in 2005 the fearless journalist Anna Politskovkaya was not someone Putin could do business with. She received four bullets at point blank range into her head and chest for her polemics on Russian aggression in Chechnya.
Many of you reading this will say, "well everyone knows that the racist, bigoted news you read in todays press comes from discredited journalists like Melanie Philips and Murdoch-moulded media news channels such as Fox and Sky, Russia merely needs time to separate its media from the state apparatus". This is completely true, but it seems to John Pilger (see link at the bottom of the page) that even the BBC is turning to the tactics of the corporate press (an argument with which I concur greatly).
The respect that the BBC garners lies in its reputation. For many of those in the generation before mine - before the age of the Internet - the BBC was their current affairs bread and butter. However in recent years the BBC has seemed to have lost its credibility and seems more and more answerable to the government. After the Hutton enquiry (which cleared the Labour government of any wrong-doing in the suspicious death of biological weapons expert Richard Kelly and the subsequent purge of possible dissidents within the corporation), the BBC swung to the right. Mark Thompson took over from the no-bullshit Greg Dyke and started to neuter any cutting edge journalistic prowess the BBC had left. To take just two examples; Panorama, a documentary series that used to cut to the very core of the inefficiencies of our government and society, has lost its panache and is currently relegated to analysing tax bureaucracy (see latest showing), and the Daily Politics show is now a platform for slobbering partisan lackeys within the government and the BBC to illustrate their admiration for the red or yellow/blue corner. My grandmother has received more incisive questions on the contents of her homemade cider than any politician has received on this show.
But is it any wonder that the status quo is never truly challenged when the BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, is on over £800k/year, and other such self-proclaimed 'guardians of media plurality' such as Andrew Marr and Fiona Bruce are on similarly stratospheric salaries? It seems Britain is reaching a Berlusconi moment, where political critique is reserved to those who have nothing to gain from turning the establishment on its head.
Nick Rodrigo
John Pilger on the BBC: http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-bbc-is-on-murdoch-s-side
More information on the Hutton Enquiry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry
Interesting article.
ReplyDeleteBut in regards to your suggestion that the British press 'bows down to the demands of private share holders', what then do you make of the BBC's editorial stance on the recent NUS march?
The BBC, which is notably liberated from any possible fiscal responsibility to private share holders has done little to distinguish its coverage from the journalistic narratives of its private sector competitors. Which leads me to believe the matter of misrepresentation is not purely one of economics.
Consider the semiotics of 'infotainment'...
Is it not possible that reducing the complex issues of economics, crime and terrorism into brief headlines, keywords and images is as much part of the production process for the 'smoke screens' to which you are referring.
The reason smashed windows and burning placards are chosen to the represent the student struggle is that these images convey striking meaning in an instant. Delving into the complex causal labyrinth of the economic crisis and the subsequent attack on university funding is a much more prolonged and ratings-repelling process.
Oversimplified meaning in the news media is as much a product of sensationalism and short attention spans as it is the result of the corporate conspiracy you are alluding to.
MB
re the 1st point - I think this is true for shitrags like the standard but otherwise it's a pretty crude argument. I think James Curran's media and democracy: the third way is a more nuanced, insightful and helpful account.
ReplyDeleteRe the BBC, in 1984 (under fire from Thatcher) the beeb adopted a policy of "ratings chasers" to justify its license fee. It sacrificied specialist and regional programming i.e. normative editorial values to "give the people what they want". So while they don't have shareholders per se their editorial values are defined by what they gauge to already be public consensus. Of course this is problematic but in short - don't expect anything radical from them.
David Kelly?
Nice post, cool blog.
So what is causing bombs on the Underground? It is Islamic extremism, what else? What causes it is something else. Oh, and it's PolitsKOVkaya by the way. Somewhat guilty of churnalism yourself?
ReplyDeleteRE Anderson: My fault, I proof-read the article, should have spotted that.
ReplyDeleteRE All: I will ask Nick to respond if he can
RE Anderson, I appreciate you passing a critical eye over my blog post and calling me up on spelling mistakes. If you pay this kind of stringent attention to the 7/7 incidents, and the rising trend of Islamic extremism on the whole, you will come to a conclusion that is not fully presented in the mass media.
ReplyDeleteYes, the abhorrent acts that occurred on 7/7 did stem from Islamic extremism. However this phenomenon (Islamic extremism) did not appear in a vacuum. The root causes for the formation these organizations is not fully explained in the mass media in any detail. There are few generic reasons that are explained. They hate our "freedom", they want Britain to become an Islamic caliphate. This seems to be the general consensus for why these acts of terrorism occur. There are some articles that are very poignant however many don’t scratch beneath the surface as to why a British male who was born and raised on this island, decided to strap explosives to his body and detonate himself on the underground.
There is a plethora of reasons, many of them as valid as the last. I cannot comment on which is correct and which is wrong, but media accounts of such a subject are vastly enriched if it presents all sides. Even if it involves pointing the finger at our government and our society on the whole.
Whether correctly or incorrectly, many Muslims see their faith and their ways of life as under seige. From Jos in Nigeria to Uigharstan (sorry Anderson, don’t have a pocket dictionary on me for that one) in western China, Muslims are persecuted. This much is true. Behind this persecution many see the hand of the British and American governments. The US backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to topple the Islamic courts, Billions of dollars’ worth of weapons go to Israel, which subsequently pulverize Gaza, because they elected the Islam based party, Hamas.
With young British Muslims there also seems to be an identity crisis. In a country that has a rising climate Xenophobia and nationalistic fervour (constantly illustrated in the press) many British Muslims feel they must consolidate their identity in more radical and extreme ways. Some feel angry that there ways are not quintessentially British, this Ostracising from society is perpetuated by the fact that their views are often not represented in our government. Channel Four recently did a very interesting article on this notion which represents contrasting causes to the status quo, for the resorting to violence by Muslims in the UK.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-enemy-within.
This point may be right, it may be wrong, but until all in the British media strives to represent this issue in its entirety the whole story will not be heard.
The first comment is very interesting; perhaps my point was not fully articulated.
Of course the BBC is not answerable to shareholders like other media outlets. Who they do seem to be more and more subtly censored by is the government.
Take the example of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The siege of Gaza was a humanitarian crisis. Whether you a supporter of the Isaraeli state or not, the fact is hundreds of innocent women and children were blown to pieces by the IDF.
UN described it as a humanitarian crisis. Judge Goldstone (himself a staunch zionist and staunch supporter of the state of Israel) stated in his report that Israel had committed war crimes.
With all these facts, the BBC refused to air a Gaza appeal which would have channeled much needed aid into Gaza and would have saved lives. Media responsibility did not extend here because of "impartiality".
Take the example of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The siege of Gaza was a humanitarian crisis. Whether you a supporter of the Isaraeli state or not, the fact is hundreds of innocent women and children were blown to pieces by the IDF.
ReplyDeleteUN described it as a humanitarian crisis. Judge Goldstone (himself a staunch zionist and staunch supporter of the state of Israel) stated in his report that Israel had committed war crimes.
With all these facts, the BBC refused to air a Gaza appeal which would have channeled much needed aid into Gaza and would have saved lives. Media responsibility did not extend here because of "impartiality".
This retreat to media "impartiality" is tragically hysterical, especially from the BBC. The removal of Jewish settlers from land in the Gaza strip in the prelude to the second intifada was lauded by the BBC as a huge sacrifice by Ariel Sharon, and images of frustrated and torn IDF soldiers forcefully removing Jewish settlers was shown on the BBC. This depiction subtly ingrains in the minds of the British public that Israel is doing all it can to reach a peace settlement. However, where is the historical contextualisation? That land was taken from Palestinians thirty years earlier after the Camp David agreements. This depiction of Israeli self sacrifice on the "road map to peace", "last-resort defence" against missile attacks with helicopter gunships and relegation of Palestinian violence as acts of "terrorism" shows a disgusting respect for impartiality.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mcb.org.uk/uploads/MCBSubmissiononIsrael.pdf
Take a look at this for the way the Israeli lobby has affected the medias representation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-42/episode-1.
Most of what I have said in this blog is entirely subjective. "Journalistic prowess in the BBC", for one, is a very subjective statement. However if it is cutting edge to have Tony Blair on the Prime time spot and have Andrew Marr feed ailment to his questionable conscience, then what next? Milosevic and Mugabe back to back on the One show?
If the full scope of the issue is shortened for attention span, then that lies on the shoulders of those in the media to synthesize their representation of the events and issues.
If it is shortened for "ratings" then i guess the media has surrendered its position as the bastion of truth.
But then again, I'm probably a naive idealist....
----->>>>PLEASE READ THIS FIRST<<<<-----
ReplyDeleteRE Anderson, I appreciate you passing a critical eye over my blog post and calling me up on spelling mistakes. If you pay this kind of stringent attention to the 7/7 incidents, and the rising trend of Islamic extremism on the whole, you will come to a conclusion that is not fully presented in the mass media.
Yes, the abhorrent acts that occurred on 7/7 did stem from Islamic extremism. However this phenomenon (Islamic extremism) did not appear in a vacuum. The root causes for the formation these organizations is not fully explained in the mass media in any detail. There are few generic reasons that are explained. They hate our "freedom", they want Britain to become an Islamic caliphate. This seems to be the general consensus for why these acts of terrorism occur. There are some articles that are very poignant however many don’t scratch beneath the surface as to why a British male who was born and raised on this island, decided to strap explosives to his body and detonate himself on the underground.
There is a plethora of reasons, many of them as valid as the last. I cannot comment on which is correct and which is wrong, but media accounts of such a subject are vastly enriched if it presents all sides. Even if it involves pointing the finger at our government and our society on the whole.
Whether correctly or incorrectly, many Muslims see their faith and their ways of life as under seige. From Jos in Nigeria to Uigharstan (sorry Anderson, don’t have a pocket dictionary on me for that one) in western China, Muslims are persecuted. This much is true. Behind this persecution many see the hand of the British and American governments. The US backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to topple the Islamic courts, Billions of dollars’ worth of weapons go to Israel, which subsequently pulverize Gaza, because they elected the Islam based party, Hamas.
With young British Muslims there also seems to be an identity crisis. In a country that has a rising climate Xenophobia and nationalistic fervour (constantly illustrated in the press) many British Muslims feel they must consolidate their identity in more radical and extreme ways. Some feel angry that there ways are not quintessentially British, this Ostracising from society is perpetuated by the fact that their views are often not represented in our government. Channel Four recently did a very interesting article on this notion which represents contrasting causes to the status quo, for the resorting to violence by Muslims in the UK.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-enemy-within.
This point may be right, it may be wrong, but until all in the British media strives to represent this issue in its entirety the whole story will not be heard.
The first comment is very interesting; perhaps my point was not fully articulated.
Of course the BBC is not answerable to shareholders like other media outlets. Who they do seem to be more and more subtly censored by is the government.
From NICK (1/2)...
ReplyDeleteThe first comment is very interesting; perhaps my point was not fully articulated. Of course the BBC is not answerable to shareholders like other media outlets. Who they do seem to be more and more subtly censored by is the government.
RE Anderson, I appreciate you passing a critical eye over my blog post and calling me up on spelling mistakes. If you pay this kind of stringent attention to the 7/7 incidents, and the rising trend of Islamic extremism on the whole, you will come to a conclusion that is not fully presented in the mass media. Yes, the abhorrent acts that occurred on 7/7 did stem from Islamic extremism. However this phenomenon (Islamic extremism) did not appear in a vacuum. The root causes for the formation these organizations is not fully explained in the mass media in any detail. There are few generic reasons that are explained. They hate our "freedom", they want Britain to become an Islamic caliphate. This seems to be the general consensus for why these acts of terrorism occur. There are some articles that are very poignant however many don’t scratch beneath the surface as to why a British male who was born and raised on this island, decided to strap explosives to his body and detonate himself on the underground. There is a plethora of reasons, many of them as valid as the last. I cannot comment on which is correct and which is wrong, but media accounts of such a subject are vastly enriched if it presents all sides. Even if it involves pointing the finger at our government and our society on the whole. Whether correctly or incorrectly, many Muslims see their faith and their ways of life as under seige. From Jos in Nigeria to Uigharstan (sorry Anderson, don’t have a pocket dictionary on me for that one) in western China, Muslims are persecuted. This much is true. Behind this persecution many see the hand of the British and American governments. The US backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to topple the Islamic courts, Billions of dollars’ worth of weapons go to Israel, which subsequently pulverize Gaza, because they elected the Islam based party, Hamas.
From NICK (2/2)
ReplyDeleteWith young British Muslims there also seems to be an identity crisis. In a country that has a rising climate Xenophobia and nationalistic fervour (constantly illustrated in the press) many British Muslims feel they must consolidate their identity in more radical and extreme ways. Some feel angry that there ways are not quintessentially British, this Ostracising from society is perpetuated by the fact that their views are often not represented in our government. Channel Four recently did a very interesting article on this notion which represents contrasting causes to the status quo, for the resorting to violence by Muslims in the UK. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-enemy-within. This point may be right, it may be wrong, but until all in the British media strives to represent this issue in its entirety the whole story will not be heard.
If you feel passionately about the state of this country's media, you should check out this campaign
ReplyDeletehttp://www.38degrees.org.uk/4-days-stop-murdoch
to stop Murdoch increasing his stranglehold on the British media.