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, the reasons for denying climate change, or indeed omitting certain scientific details concerning climate change for instance (whilst championing the climate change cause), it becomes clear that large sections of the media are driven by particular political or economic interests; vested corporate interests. Both on the left wing, centre and right wing of the political spectrum. This political ideology is often not pure in its agenda, and is naturally marred in its being overseen by special interests, rendering such partisanship disingenuous. 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, as determined by vested political interests across the 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 poignant in regard to the further fringes of political reporting, this process is undermined by corporate sponsored extreme partisanship and distortion of fact. Distorted by the picking and choosing what content to focus upon, whether it fits a particular ideological narrative. It becomes more concerning if the drivers or corporate sponsors of both 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 has 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 academic institutions, and institutions broadly, but particularly within universities, also adhere to certain politicised attitudes and views. Universities, like the press, are supposed to be places of objective perception, not driven by some propagandist politicised interests, to police and control or alter society, but merely to objectively perceive, study and report on, not to attempt to alter under the banner of supposed academic legitimacy, or a culture of influence in the academic or university arena. Of course in general any such attempts are minimal in overall impact, however genuine and significant attempts are made by some professors and students at universities, to act as academic wings to particular political interests. Whereas in some circumstances corporate sponsorship may directly guide particular research, such as within medicine and science, when it comes to social research, gender or race studies, political science, sociology, and even some parts of history, there are and have been prominent political interests, and organised activism which tries to influence society through largely disingenuous means of propagating politicised dialogue or deconstruct existing norms and popular consensus within society.
The injustice of politicised monopoly within universities and other institutions 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 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 whipped up student protestors in universities, as fake examples of progressive social movements, whipped up by elitist sponsors for the purpose of eroding stability as opposed to challenging anything authentically needing challenging. 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 extreme right-wing politics which may seek to denigrate Muslims, immigrants, veganism, climate change, or the advancement of humane systems or concern for 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, seemingly as ideologically driven and deceptive as many academic institutions, and even more so, and in line with reactive fringe, full time student demonstrators. Such newspapers often will recruit and filter journalists, writers, editors who simply reflect a particular political view, often not which is genuinely progressive, but 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) left wing newspapers- which even go to the extent of asking for public donations to keep running, which for some this may be genuine. As if they’re guardians of the people. 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 such journalists from newspapers like the Guardian as ‘’Vichy Journalists’’, Those who are not forced or under any duress to report any stories, but who as journalists actively collaborate with a specific ideological culture, such journalists are recruited given their seemingly sub-culturally and independently driven collaboration certain ideologies, often presenting themselves as underdog representatives of progressive people. This is a particularly vitriolic commentary given Pilger’s extremely pro socialist leanings, but can be equally applied regardless from any political perspective given that most of these commentators largely adhere to radical left wing, and often anarchic, sometimes anarchic right wing sentiments. Not therefore is it limited just to profit, overlooking a society which is stratified, but there are often irrational and confused ideological convictions that are used to support this profit as a general consequence of social destruction.
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 seemingly supporting them, and sometimes even sponsored by them. This is by using carefully filtered journalists often handpicked due to having requisite psychological ailments and emotion fuelled impediments.
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 deep seated insecurities, resentments, or inferiority complexes, often strong ego drives for acceptance and ruthless aggression to address this. 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 peoples pain and lack of responsibility. 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 and ego acting people, existent as social media commentators. Some of whom work for magazines and other media also . Despite this, some media, particularly television media, does simply try to reflect more mainstream views within grassroots society, and in many cases is largely apolitical – unlike most other 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, supported by special interests, and some views created which counteract this, and which critique many of the official narratives coming from media bodies.
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 dangerous 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 even ideas such as plant-based diets, animal rights and environmental concerns, and so are also needing to be criticised. 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) despite some far right fringes seeking to denigrate this, racism is virtually not existent in the west (except for many archaic institutions in the US and some other western countries like France – but certainly not in politics in most western countries), 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, as part of the bidding of transnational elites themselves, knowingly or unwittingly. Whilst many in society may be frustratingly complacent for issues such as animal rights and environmental protection, real action is about promoting a likelihood of change, through focusing on the horrors existent in these industries and converting society economically through supply and demand of industry. 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.