When we consider why there are lies in the media: denying an atrocity committed by a favourite world leader and damning another via concocting evidence, omitting certain scientific details concerning the issue of climate change (whilst championing the climate change cause), it becomes clear that large sections of the media are driven by particular political interests. Both on the left wing, (centre) and right wing of the political spectrum. These political interests are not pure in their agenda, rendering such partisanship sponsored as fake.
The requirement for a civilised society is that the media acts responsibly in this process of partisanship and critiques the institutions in society which inform policy. Where such politicised media exists however, across the politicised media spectrum we confront difficulty in regard to the convoluted nature of media reporting. Are conservative media reports truly allied to conservative views? Are progressive media reports truly allied to progressive politics? This becomes particularly relevant in regard to the further fringes of political reporting. This is where this process is undermined by politically sponsored extreme partisanship and distortion of fact. Distorted by the picking and choosing what content to focus upon, whether it fits a particular political narrative. It becomes more concerning if the drivers or corporate sponsors of institutions and the media then inform government policy and influence governments. This corporate sponsorship needs to be tackled as part as democratic institutional integrity, as many examples have highlighted what can go wrong when particular interests drive policy or oversee governance in any way.
Another concerning thing which aligns itself with this reality, is that many academics also adhere to certain politicised attitudes and views. Genuine attempts are made by some professors at universities, to act as academic wings to political interests. Whereas in some circumstances corporate sponsorship may directly guide particular research, such as within medicine and science. When it comes to sociology, gender or race studies, there are and have been prominent political interests adhered to by groups of academics, which attempt to frame research in line with propagating dialogue in focused on sustained political motivations. Particularly when it comes to cultural and gender studies. In some instances this is tackled by other groups highlighting any notable politics which goes against progressive values.
Fortunately much may be progressive. However with much of politicised sphere in general, within politics and the media. in academia too there is certainly the “fake left” sponsored value base, at odds with grassroots or legitimate progressive values. The injustice of some fake politicised hegemony within these areas when more extreme or reactive in dialogue, also creates anger by other sections of society, particularly towards institutions highly disconnected from the public in its reactive ideologies, often themselves championed by corporate interests.
This creates not just, anger from progressive movements, but also backlashes and deliberately caused bigoted or hate-based responses from other parts of the public, that are swept up and conned by these narratives, which either provoke or manipulate them. The impact this has is dividing society away from genuine progressive values and from reasonable conservative mores, towards reactive, reactionary and anarchic left-wing hostility, and reactive, bigoted and hateful rhetoric opposing this. Both of course are the issue and both are sponsored by special interests.
This was a phenomena existent in the early 20th century, with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and its subsequent spread of insurgence through Europe during and after World War One being bankrolled by some hyper capitalists in Wall St, conjunctive to Germany’s subjugation due to the infliction of unjust mass reparations after the war. This attempt at generating reactive left-wing extremism to erode once highly civilised and peaceful nations with a strong lean to social welfare reform, has the same circumstance and manifestation today with fake examples of social movements, whipped up by elitist sponsors for the purpose of eroding stability. These sponsors who benefit from instability do so by challenging any ideas which threatens their hegemony and their exclusive and insular corporate incentives, as is seen amongst the transnational elites generally. This detracts from highlighting genuine concerns of bigoted politics which may seek to denigrate Muslims, Trans people, immigrants, veganism, or the advancement of humane systems or concern for people, the environment or animals generally.
There is a deliberate convolution on both sides in denigrating the most important aspects of society, from our Christian values and civil protections, to advancing humane systems to allow greater progress, particularly for the natural world, and sustainable (plant based) agriculture without which there will be no humanity to advance.
In a more subtle way are the ways in which significant sections of the media play into this. Whilst much of the media is relatively apolitical, there is certainly examples of extreme bias, particularly in regard to many supposedly serious ‘left-wing’ newspapers, which at times are in line with reactive fringe groups. Such newspapers often will recruit and filter journalists, writers, editors who simply reflect a particular political view and who are willing to adhere to this view as opposed to losing their job. Often this is not what is genuinely progressive (though at times it may be), but a is often a radically reactive form of leftist extremism. There are constant vested interests of not only corporate media bodies but employed journalists and editors themselves in being concerned with narratives that reinforce division, which retain the status quo of capitalist interest against anything which might mitigate the particular special interests of corporations. Which fund often (independent/underdog) left wing newspapers. A natural threat to this is lack of conflict in society, motivating news sources to refer to fringe elements of society to concoct a story.
There is almost a cultural war as well, not just on the premise of material interests, but cultural interests also. John Pilger refers to some journalists from newspapers like the Guardian as ‘’Vichy Journalists’’. Those who are not forced to report any stories (other than many not wanting to lose their jobs so tow a line), but as with some who as journalists actively collaborate with a specific ideological culture, such journalists are recruited given their adherence to ideologies whether politically or for self interested pyurposes, as is most commonly the case. Often presenting themselves as underdog representatives of progressive people. Not therefore is it limited just to profit, overlooking a society which is stratified, but there is a political counterpart to keep narratives in place, to enable this profit for special interests to continue.
It makes sense in one way, for the elites to retain their vested interests, but the irony is that so much of the invested criticism by so called critiquing serious print media and journalists of the very powerful elites, is actually sponsored by them. If the premise is ‘anarchic reactivity and bringing down the so called powerful or the so called privileged’, naturally they will recruit journalists who have insecurities, resentments, or inferiority complexes, who are pliable enough to be adherent to targeting false oppressors. If a media body’s premise is to create an image of egotistical resilience, reactivity and power seeking due to feeling insecure, they similarly will recruit journalists who adhere well to these things.
The ways in which journalists and media bodies do this is essentially through propaganda, not so much in favour of any state interests (though that is also of course a natural part of it) but for special corporate interests which retain both profits and influence by stoking the insecurities and divisions within society, to inflame them or even create them. Interestingly however, in stating this, for many institutions today, from prison systems, some armed forces to media bodies, there is and has been a greater refinement, an impact of many humanising amendments to these structures over the few recent years, such that they pose less of an extreme threat as they once did.
But now we have other regressive movements, aspects of society, including corporations and vested interests, with some aspects of law enforcement, political spheres, and some journalists seeking to return to some of the more reactive, and backward basis’s of interaction, heavily infused with division and reactivity. This is also widely seen as a contingent of large political spheres in social media. Whilst still only in a minority, many radical or extreme groups try to push their agendas which often widely support whether they know it or not, particular special interests which divide society.
Whilst many so called serious or intellectual journalists may be referred to as Vichy Journalists, in the media, there exists, with equally as reactive a culture of wanton collaborators with mainstream reactive journalism, in less than reputable radical commentaries and reactivity, emanating from similarly “pain body” driven people, existent as social media commentators. Despite this, some media, particularly television media, does simply reflect mainstream views within grassroots society, and in many cases is largely apolitical as opposed to most print media. What we also see in the world today, is a broader popular culture which has little interests in the narratives of the reactive few, and some views created which counteract this, and which critique many of the official narratives coming from media bodies whilst also condemning many anti progressive fringe groups.
Despite this, reactive ideologies and special interests and their reactive arms of the sensationalist and so called ‘serious or progressive’ media, are holding on tooth and nail, and pose still a threat if people are not astute enough to recognise the threat and danger they pose, and how to ignore them to counter this. One of the biggest threats of course is engineering sections of the public to stoop to this level of reactive radicalism and populism. Left wing radicalism and populism will denigrate the Church, as well as other religions and many traditional institutions and so need to be ignored and criticised. Right wing populism and other radical fringes today often can hold reactive and hateful or denigrating views towards different groups, such as Muslims, Trans people, Environmental Activists, those seeking social welfare, liberal or modern women. Or they adhere to reactive pro military, pro retribution perspectives as well as denigrating plant-based diets, animal rights and environmental concerns. There are also those however those who do not hold these views, and who do not denigrate these things, yet get criticised merely for being Christian or for being genuinely progressive, by similar sponsors of extreme left wing and far right wing reactivity who masquerade as or have a neo-liberal front.
Surely in a world where women have equal life choices (as they do in the west), racism is virtually not existent in the west (except as part of Prisons and Law enforcement in the US), colonial exploitation is exposed, imperialistic war plundering of countries resources called to be stopped, animal rights advocacy, environmental protection, and humane civil systems, are all geared towards, in which all progressive movements are protected, extremes are not required and only exhibited by those trying to prevent or destroy these movements. If society is able to function on a level which sanely recognises all of these things, the sponsoring of the extremist sides by the elites would be less effective in their impact.