Just a FEW things you might not know if you
rely on mainstream media (MSM) PART TWO: #ChangeTheMedia
The
problem with the mainstream media (MSM)
On Friday
(7th September), New Labour PM Tony Blair (in a BBC podcast
discussion with Nick Robinson) told us that he is: "not
sure it is possible" for Labour "moderates" to take the party
back from the left.”
To which the leader of the
opposition Jeremy Corbyn MP replied:
"I think Tony should recognise that party membership is now much bigger than it has ever been."
Asked about his predecessor's comments, the Labour Leader added: "I've been in the Labour Party all my life. I am a socialist. I am determined to see a fairer and more equal society."
"That's what the Labour Party exists for. We're there for human rights. We're there for social justice. We're there for the future of the people of this country."
"It's not personal, it's about us as a movement. That's why we were founded. That's why the party is so big. And that's why I'm confident that we are continually challenging this government and we will win a general election."
"It's not personal, it's about us as a movement. That's why we were founded. That's why the party is so big. And that's why I'm confident that we are continually challenging this government and we will win a general election."
Mr Corbyn was speaking whilst at a visit to Abbey Pumping Station in
Leicester to discuss re-nationalising the water industry. Just more evidence of
him getting on with his job, despite a summer of attack from all sides (I’ve written a little about this here:
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.com/2018/08/not-such-silly-season-anxiety-action.html )
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.com/2018/08/not-such-silly-season-anxiety-action.html )
After a full day of Blair coverage (who was also in the news for
receiving millions of pounds in donations from Saudi Arabia https://www.mintpressnews.com/tony-blair-saudi-arabia-millions/248915)
today (Saturday 8th September) Labour Party activists, members
and supporters woke up to reports that Chuka Umunna (a back-bench Labour MP once
tipped as a future leader) is ‘imploring’ the Labour leader to ‘call off
the dogs’ who are trying to ‘drive’ centre-left MPs
out of the Party
Furthermore, Mr Umunna insists:
The Labour party leadership has a responsibility
to ensure not only that the party remains a broad church, but one of tolerance,
respect and comradely conduct. If they do not, and the stories we hear of
bullying, abuse and intimidation online, in branches and in CLP meetings
continue, then people will be forced out of the party and the movement not
through their own choice, but because they no longer feel welcome. The issue of
whether there is a split in the Labour Party or whether members leave, is
therefore ultimately in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party
leadership.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/09/chuka-umunna-labour-split-hands-jeremy-corbyn
Given that people, like me, who support the
current leadership (and the socialist policies espoused by Labour), have been, and continue to
be, called ‘entryists’, ‘hard-left fanatics’, ‘fucking fools’, and more, so
much more –
including of course ‘dogs’ by Mr Umunna himself –
these comments are a tad selective, and hypocritical, to say the least. I
agree with Billy Bragg:
@billybragg: Chuka’s plea for Corbyn to ‘call off the dogs’ is
not only an insult to Labour members but also perpetuates the slur that we
are a ‘cult’, rather than engaged citizens who believe in accountability and
party democracy.
|
What is clear is that the comments by both Blair and Umunna fit the dominant narrative, perpetuated by the MSM, that any criticism of right-leaning MPs (from whichever Party) and journalists who lack balance or curiosity for perspectives/opinions/(and)facts that challenge the perpetual criticism of the Labour Leader (his team and those who support him) is abusive. On the other hand any, and every, criticism of those who lean to the left, many of which are very personal and more than combative, is fair game.
So even though there is clear evidence of MPs both name calling and swearing at constituents and other Labour supporters on social media the myth that all bad behaviour is perpetuated by those on the so-called 'hard left' continues. I am not disputing that some claiming to be Corbyn supporters also engage in such attacks but a) it appears that there is some (at least some) mischief making by non-Corbyn supporters here and b) there are multiple examples of abuse towards pro-Corbyn supporters. Helen Lewis' recent piece in The New Statesman appears, to me at least, to add to the myth that abuse comes from only one group. Lewis also argues:
Calculated offence (and the taking of it) has always been a part of politics. Seventy years ago this summer, Labour’s minister for health Aneurin Bevan stood up in Manchester to give a speech. In it, he described the poverty and hunger of his early life, adding: “That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.”
What was a rare such critical comment … turned into a ‘blizzard of abuse’ towards MPs and journalists …
So even though there is clear evidence of MPs both name calling and swearing at constituents and other Labour supporters on social media the myth that all bad behaviour is perpetuated by those on the so-called 'hard left' continues. I am not disputing that some claiming to be Corbyn supporters also engage in such attacks but a) it appears that there is some (at least some) mischief making by non-Corbyn supporters here and b) there are multiple examples of abuse towards pro-Corbyn supporters. Helen Lewis' recent piece in The New Statesman appears, to me at least, to add to the myth that abuse comes from only one group. Lewis also argues:
Calculated offence (and the taking of it) has always been a part of politics. Seventy years ago this summer, Labour’s minister for health Aneurin Bevan stood up in Manchester to give a speech. In it, he described the poverty and hunger of his early life, adding: “That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.”
What was a rare such critical comment … turned into a ‘blizzard of abuse’ towards MPs and journalists …
Why is everyone always angry on the internet? .
. .
As the amount of information instantly
available at our fingertips has sky-rocketed, we have dealt with the overload
by extending our tribalism from opinion to facts themselves. This is called
“tribal epistemology” – where information is evaluated primarily by asking
whether it supports your tribe’s values, and is being pushed by your tribe’s leaders,
rather than by appealing to a sense of objective truth.…
So how do we make our political conversation
less toxic? How do we stop bad faith preventing us from discussing politics
with people on the other side? How do we stop the current situation, where too
many people don’t run for office, or even join the conversation, because they
don’t want to step into a swamp? Sometimes, I long for the digital equivalent
of Chernobyl’s concrete shell to be built over Twitter, as everyone leaves and
we all agree never to mention what happened there ever again.
In addition to my concern
over what we might call out as bias in reporting abuse I have three other concerns about
this piece. The first is with the issue of so-called journalistic objectivity.
As a social scientist I have learnt that there is no such thing, not in research nor
in journalism, and that it is far better to acknowledge our subjectivity rather
than hide behind objective impossibility (for more see : http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.com/2017/10/bias-truth-trust-what-media-can-learn.htmll). As an aside
here it’s interesting to note that left-leaning commentators are almost always
‘outed’ as a ‘Corbyn supporter’ or ‘left-wing writer’ whereas there is no
similar introduction to those who clearly favour Theresa May and/or right-wing
politicians and Parties. My second additional concern is the lack of attention
by Lewis as to what people are ANGRY about. As Steve Topple pointed out:
@MrTopple:
This entire piece manages
to discuss the levels of toxicity/anger that exist in online/IRL
politics/media, & why they exist - and it manages to do so without
mentioning ONCE the financial crash or the systems of power that are
literally killing people.
|
And a twitter conversation I contributed to (remember to
read from the bottom up):
@gletherby: Ken Loach (2016): ‘If you’re not
angry, what type of person are you?’
#ConsciousCruelty
#ChangeTheMedia
|
@MrTopple: Spot on. The cries of
"BE QUIET AND KNOW YOUR PLACE" by the commentariat have
intensified.
These freeloading, class
carpetbaggers should come knock some doors on my estate.
Try telling it to
people's faces and see how they get on. Yet the 'Corbynistas' are the
cowardly trolls.
|
@TheMendozaWoman:
Every Centrist hack is writing the same column right now, called: “Why is
everyone so angry?!”
I’ll sum it up in one
sentence, so you don’t have to suffer through them:
“Being angry about
injustice is worse than injustice.”
I know, it’s nonsense.
You’re welcome.
|
And see similar by Tom London:
@TomLondon6:
I know
why I’m angry.
For 4
decades the ideology of selfish neoliberalism has been unchallenged in the UK
Since
2010 Austerity has been imposed on the most vulnerable.
When a
politician challenges the status quo he is smeared by the Establishment with
intent to destroy politically.
|
And finally in terms of Lewis' argument is the growing (it seems) clamour to shut down/up the voices of those not in positions of power who have little enough space or opportunity to make their/our concerns heard.
I have almost completely given up watching or listening to the news preferring to get my daily political education through reading (online). Every now and again I try the TV or the radio but this almost always results in my writing a letter of complaint (always dismissed), and/or turning off in disgust. Instead I read and re-read articles and Blogs (and sometimes watch news clips online) about the same issue in various different outputs (MSM and alternative). I also follow people on twitter who are experts – both through life experience and education - and discuss (face-to-face and online) issues and concerns with others. I appreciate that I am, just like everyone else is, guilty of what Lewis (see above) calls ‘tribal epistemology’. But, and this is I think a big but, I accept this and attempt to find out about other(s') positions and perspectives, to read widely and think carefully. I strongly believe that there are some – politicians and journalists – who have such a strong sense of entitlement, such a humongous amount of self-worth that they are unable to ever engage in any self-reflection or critique.
I have almost completely given up watching or listening to the news preferring to get my daily political education through reading (online). Every now and again I try the TV or the radio but this almost always results in my writing a letter of complaint (always dismissed), and/or turning off in disgust. Instead I read and re-read articles and Blogs (and sometimes watch news clips online) about the same issue in various different outputs (MSM and alternative). I also follow people on twitter who are experts – both through life experience and education - and discuss (face-to-face and online) issues and concerns with others. I appreciate that I am, just like everyone else is, guilty of what Lewis (see above) calls ‘tribal epistemology’. But, and this is I think a big but, I accept this and attempt to find out about other(s') positions and perspectives, to read widely and think carefully. I strongly believe that there are some – politicians and journalists – who have such a strong sense of entitlement, such a humongous amount of self-worth that they are unable to ever engage in any self-reflection or critique.
It is perhaps obvious that the main reason I have stopped watching
the news and political programmes live is for self-protection. I have learned that it is much better for
my mental well-being to read around, or follow a twitter discussion, about a
topic/item before listening or watching the 'news', in order to prepare myself;
often for the worst. I know I am not alone in this. This afternoon I was in a shop.
A radio was playing and after a few minutes the BBC news came on. My stomach
clenched with what has become a familiar anxiety. Sure enough the first item
was a report of Chuka Umunna’s speech today. Amongst other things the report
included him saying that not only were ‘centre-left’ politicians at risk
in 'Corbyn’s Labour Party' but so were ‘centre-left’ values, such as ‘anti-racism’.
The implication of course being that those of us supposedly on the ‘hard-left’
are both bullies and racists. I left the shop. . . .
So, for some respite, to calm by tangled nerves, let’s turn to some alternative
perspectives:
@TomLondon6: @bbcnews
you have an obligation to be careful with your language Corbyn and his
supporters are NOT “hard left" - they are “on the left of the party” The
Labour MPs attacking Corbyn are NOT “moderates” - they are “on the right of
the party”
|
ABSOLUTELY.
@seantduffy:
-Launched
a coup against the leader (failed)
-Suggested Labour were unfit for government
during an election (majority massively increased)
-Sought
to form a new party (failed) But Corbyn needs to ‘call off the dogs’...You’re
fooling no one.
|
MAKES SENSE TO ME.
With Blogs in mind I found this recent one by Jonathan Cook very
useful:
Our political language is
rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no
social compact, no consensus. The dissenters understand that the current system
is broken and that we need radical change, while the trusters hold desperately
to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and
minor reforms. . . .We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift [my emphasis]. That is when
the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied.
Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little
time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from
falling. . .
We are now at the point
where the corporate elite can see the cracks are widening but they remain in
denial. They are entering the tantrum phase, screaming and shouting at their
enemies, and readying to implement ever-more repressive measures to maintain
their power.
Cook continues
(again, my emphasis here):
They have rightly
identified social media as the key concern. This is where we – the 99 per cent
– have begun waking each other up. This is where we are
sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are
making mistakes, but learning. We are
heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are
making poor choices, but learning. We are
making unhelpful alliances, but learning.
No one, least of all the
corporate elite, knows precisely where this process might lead, what capacities
we have for political, social and spiritual growth.
And what the elite
don’t own or control, they fear.
Cook's focus on a ‘paradigm shift’ and on the
significance of social media as a place where ‘the many’ can engage with and
challenge the views and the values of ‘the few’ clearly demonstrates the fear
the establishment have of the very many, and growing numbers, of us every day
folk who not only care about, but are also working for a #PoliticsofHope, for #LaboursVisionforBritain.
Alongside the argument that twitter is a ‘hellhole’ and a
‘cesspit’ (a regular claim by some journalists and MPs) another criticism
is that, much of the alternative media and citizen journalism (this piece being an example I humbly suggest) is that is it partisan; biased. I have in this piece both challenged,
and hopefully highlighted, some of the reasons for, the first critique. With
reference to the latter all I can say is ‘well yes of course it is’ as is ALL
media, which if everyone engaged in political and journalistic discussion would only admit, we could perhaps at least, at last, begin a more honest, less hostile, more thoughtful debate. I'm not holding my breath.
A few days ago I read a SKY news-piece quoting experts arguing that a social
media free September could improve one’s mental health
https://news.sky.com/story/go-social-media-cold-turkey-in-scroll-free-september-11486150 I know that is not true for me (and I would guess many others also):
https://news.sky.com/story/go-social-media-cold-turkey-in-scroll-free-september-11486150 I know that is not true for me (and I would guess many others also):
@GrahamScambler: Social media users
urged to give up for a month. That’s all very fine, but I wouldn’t want to
rely on the MSM for news for a month, especially in such volatile times!
|
This piece is part of a series.
For Just a FEW things you might not know if you rely on
mainstream media (MSM) PART ONE: political business as usual #GTTO see http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.com/2018/09/just-few-things-you-might-not-know-if.html
AND Just a FEW things you might not know if you
rely on mainstream media (MSM) PART ONE: political business as usual
#LaboursVisionforBritain (and the world) to follow soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment