Media

 

I am confused, once again, by the views of others. Hardly surprising, but I find myself deeply confused about one particular recent other place discussion! About media. In particular about news, well, it seemed like news to me not sure the other parties considered it news or propaganda or lies or something else.

That in itself is not hugely surprising, we should always have a degree of scepticism about 'news'. It is not something new although it is changing. In the past, I am old enough to have a recollection of pre-internet time, we received news from physical newspapers, tv broadcast and radio. All these mediums have been subjected, one way or another, to some bias or manipulation.

During times of war governments will monitor what news is being disseminated and how and will on occasion either manipulate the news or block it. The rationale is definitely one of control, I cannot deny that, but at the same time, it is understandable.

But we are not at war today, well not here in the comfy western world. Despite governments and others wanting to portray the handling of the pandemic as a 'war' and accepting that considerable number of people are dying from the virus directly and indirectly, it is not really a war as such. And the news outlets that most people receive news from are largely in agreement about the basics. The natural biases come from the deeper dives into how the pandemic is being managed, where the huge amounts of money being spent to combat it are going, what the economic impact is and will be into the future. 

These things and more will display a degree of the usual bias which most often comes from a political leaning of the owner or the editor (chosen by the owner) or the editorial team (under the control of the editor) or the reporters (who might report what the like, but what gets published goes through the editorial team). But this news tends to be accurate within the normal accepted understanding and acceptance of what is accurate.

But latterly, well, for a few years now, there are movements that claim that, seemingly, all news is fake news. In an of itself I don't care. We have, after all, lived with sensationalism and outright nonsense since 'news' first came about. For instance I recollect stories in printed 'newspapers' about mice living on the moon or Elvis being spotted in a supermarket decades after his death!

Some people will always believe these stories. Sometimes that'll be hundreds or even thousands. Trump might have taken this to a whole new level with potentially tens of millions believing the news he puts out. I just don't know what it is that people that follow this kind of news want. After all, by most measures, Trump has not improved the lives of his average supporter. He has enriched the wealthiest in the USA through numerous measures and he has disadvantaged and disenfranchised millions through his actions that have and will increasingly impact the poorest in US society!

But where do people get news from if they no longer trust the established media. From social media! There is simply no logical sense to this and ultimately, it will be self defeating and potentially catastrophic. After all, who writes this 'news' on social media? Just because a story on FB or IG or YouTube is shared or liked a few million times does not make it true. It might mean that the premise of the story is believable to those that read it, but that does not make it true. As with all news, the source and rationale need to be identified and understood. 

Not by the organisations that people that like, believe, share these stories already do not trust as that will not work. But the people that do like, believe, share such online stories (or exposés even) kind of have a responsibility to themselves, if nobody else, to at least question and try to understand where and why this news came from. 

And what if they don't. Well, some of the actors behind some of the stories that appear online and that get shared the odd few million times most certainly have an agenda. Some of them are explicit about their agenda. Some of them seek a revolution of the people against the establishment. Well, I can understand that when inequality is continually growing and the wealthiest in society owning and controlling ever more. And not only having more and more but having more than they can ever possibly want or need when there are people, even in the west, that have barely enough to obtain a footing on the bottom level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. So I get that, I don't like it either.

So will the 'people' rise up against the establishment! And do what? Somebody will always be in charge. Even if a society rose up against the establishment and destroyed it, maybe jailed all the politicians and the super rich, somebody will still have to take charge. If not elected, then the most powerful individual or group will take charge. Ultimately this approach ends with a character like Stalin or Mao. I know some people that want this and want to encourage others to smash the current system to achieve this.

And then what. Well, recommend people read history books about Russia under Stalin and China under Mao. Even leaving aside the tens of millions that died under the rule of these leaders, that's not what people should concern themselves with. they need to consider all the things that they might worry about today will be meaningless tomorrow. After all, with all the business and political leaders now in jail, who will lead business and government? The people? Well, that's been tried, in theory. But there was always a leadership and that leadership was unquestionable. 

It has to be unquestionable because otherwise it will potentially succumb to the same fate as the previous leadership. And without questioning then such powers lead without consequence but worse, they lead without feedback. There is no feedback either because it is not permitted or because the people that provide the feedback only provide what is known to be wanted. In Stalin's case, you either reported what he wanted to hear or end up in a gulag or dead.

And remember how the rule of law worked in Stalinist Russia. It was devolved, right down to blocks of apartments where a card carrying party official would deal with all disputes, on occasion a dispute would be sent up to an area commissar to adjudicate. But the level of corruption involved in this kind of 'back of a fag packet' adjudication is terrifying. If you don't think it is, it is simply because you don't understand the full consequences. 

I don't think this is what the average disseminator of stories on social media want, but they need to consider what the do want, why they think they want it and who they think is leading them to believe that and why! Otherwise todays social media sources will be no better than the pamphlets distributed amongst soldiers and peasant classes prior to the Russian Revolution.

I believe the ultimate irony will be, that if there were a worldwide revolution of the poor against the rich, it would be caused, but not led, by social media companies, and post this revolution, these same mediums would be regionalised and/or dismantled or controlled by the new order or a mix of these things. But the social media will no longer contain stories to incite the masses because the actors that wanted them incited in the first place will not permit it. 

Consider for a minute the stranglehold the Chinese state has over the internet. If you criticise the state in China, you end up with a warning, at least, sometimes you end up in jail and if you end up in jail, your life will be made hell, there will be no civil rights or even visitations and you might not even get out alive. Nobody will fight for you for fear of ending up in the cell next door. Sometimes a story percolates into (the untrusted?) Western media, that does no good nowadays as the current Chinese state no longer cares what those outside think, in fact, it mocks us for caring about the individual.

And being rich in China gives you no defence. Ask Jack Ma. Being rich in China is no longer a decadent crime but criticising the state is seen as a power grab and will result in a quick crack down which could result in loss of fortune, loss of control of the business, you or your family incarcerated. Possibly worse! After all, who will come to your rescue when the all powerful state comes to take you away.

So what is it that people want from media? What will they do if they crush the system today only to find the system that will grow out of it is less just but unquestionable! 

Western society is by no means perfect but at least we have a set of mechanisms to change it with legitimacy and within the system. Online news stories spread by unknown actors with unknown motives are not open to change, questioning or understanding... until too late.