When we consider why there are misleading reports in the media: denying an atrocity committed by a favourite world leader and damning another via selective 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 and right wing of the political spectrum. These political interests are not pure in their agenda, rendering such partisanship in many cases as fake, even if they use genuine political platforms for specific purposes.
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 issues 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 corporate sponsored, extreme partisanship and platforms given to fringe groups and ideas. There are groups in society, often which don’t have the political leverage on their own to influence, who are heavily aided by media alliance, but what is in it for the media, when certain groups are against the corporatism behind the media? It becomes more concerning if the political or corporate counterparts of institutions and the media then inform government policy and influence governments. This political sponsorship needs to be tackled as part of democratic institutional integrity, as many examples have highlighted what can go wrong when particular interests drive policy or oversee governance in any way. Especially when these groups try to retain their interests through division via allying themselves with and giving airtime to reactionary groups which are used to delegitimise and attack normal conservative mores and reasonable progressive values.
Another concerning thing which aligns itself with this reality, is that whilst only still a minority, some 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, albeit not always successfully if true academic rigour eliminates it. When it comes to social sciences, 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 and sustained political motivations. Which has been in existence now for decades, merely in the fringes of academia. These fringes are only empowered of course by the media and by institutions of power, as they are only fringes. In some instances this is tackled by other groups highlighting any fringe views which goes against more progressive or reasonable values, which still in a minority, many academics also promote, alomg with student bodies. It should be noted that perhaps the most prominent academic wings of university, particularly at student level, do reflect progressive values, and as such a kind of battle between universalised progressive values at student level, with many academics championing these focuses, and reactionary academics (posing as leftist, often more radical) who through disingenuous framing of facts and extreme partisanship undermine the legitimacy of progressive movements if they are linked to by the media. Fortunately, many in society are not too interested in these fringe groups focuses, but their attempts to undermine things are extreme, and having strong and disproportionate footholds in social media and even some mainstream media, makes this easier. Which highlights the dishonest nature of some media, in trying to present as mainstream or progressive, as is particularly seen in British media, one of the most corrupt in the western world.
Examples of these fringe groups can be seen among Radical-feminists, of whom many offshoots have been identified correctly as hate groups, who deliberately attempt to erode more prominent liberal feminism, or mainstream feminism which has made huge successes in gender equality in recent years and has renewed feminism in the last decade. Media focuses give some airtime to these fringe groups, but also however try to de-legitimise liberal or mainstream feminism by promoting the more extreme examples of it, often seen in institutions, and not characteristic of the mainstream, in order to present it as extreme, as radical-feminists and misogynist groups also try to do. This is also the case with many cultural studies, in which for decades, social and political scientists have favoured a more revolutionary or Marxist approach to understanding history. Whilst some of these focuses might indeed be warranted, owing to the nature of western chauvinism and denial of atrocities by the west, the more radical or revolutionary approaches are what are supported by institutions, and the media, which often in many cases influences politics. The injustice of this reactionary politicised hegemony within these areas of the media and within institutions and politics when more extreme or reactive in dialogue, also creates anger by other sections of society, particularly towards institutions highly disconnected from the public.
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 have either provoked or manipulated them deliberately, whilst playing into the hands of real extremists. 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 this. 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 purposes, as is most commonly the case. Often presenting themselves as underdog representatives of progressive people, in the same way as many reactive groups promote themselves as grassroots when often supported by institutions, government and corporations through the media. Not therefore is it limited just to profit, overlooking a society which is stratified, but there is a political counterpart to promote specific values which give the impression of attacking powerful whilst only enabling this profit for special interests to continue. There is a mutual benefit between fringe groups and much of the media. Both profit from the same destruction of society, for both profit and ideology, both of which do not cater to most people.
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. Reactive revolutionary values are a threat to the elites as well as society so it would seem illogical for this to be sponsored, except for the fact that fringe views only serve as a distraction and attack on real progress which does undermine supremacy or monopoly for some elites, whereas it genuinely takes economic and other crisis for fringe views to ever seriously enter public opinion to a considerable level. With that said, elites have often predicted things wrongly and have liaised with groups which ultimately threatened them. Their sheer stupidity and arrogance could cause major issues for society that they didn’t predict. However the real threat is the real solution and no actual threat to anyone except fringe hate groups. Significant economic change, and equality across he globe can put an end to these groups who are only above water in any capacity due to preying on people disaffected often materially or as a consequence of the domino affect of material concerns across the globe. Most people prefer individual happiness to any irrelevant ideal, as long as no too greater brutality exists in ones life.
Despite the solution being around the corner, we now we also 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, even if many platforms have banned the most extreme versions of these hate groups, rightly. Some media however, 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, however with more crises occurring, more are becoming susceptible to more radical and fringe reactivity, which preys upon peoples confusion, which itself is often unintelligent but runs on emotion based recruiting, and disingenuous scholarship.
Alongside 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 a threat if people are not astute enough to recognise the threat and danger they pose, which can be witnessed by their assault on reasonable and mainstream progressive values in the last few years. From 2015- 2016 a rise in progressive values was seen which levelled into the beginning of the Trump era, despite attacks from the right. More recently however, he tactics of the right, and these fringe groups who may even consider themselves ‘left’ has been polluting mindsets through social media and causing doubt. 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 other bigoted reactivity. Who in many cases disguise their stances as reasonable, and smear that which they oppose as being radical or authoritarian instead, when of course they themselves are authoritarian, as a deliberate means of deception and manipulation.
Surely in a world where women have equal life choices (as they do in the west), racism has been tackled and exposed except in cultural chauvinism as well as systemic socio-economic issues and parts of Prisons and Law enforcement which does need addressing generally, imperialist exploitation and colonial exploitation exposed, 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, which is often what occurs. The solutions, enabling progressive movements to flourish already exist, and not listening to fringe ideas and conspiracy theories in either social media or the mainstream media is the best way to allow these movements to exist and take over, to steer society on the path it has been on as for the last decade, without interruption from extremists trying to undermine this for ideological reasons, or special interests trying to stop this for financial reasons. The solution is simple, which is not to engage with the hate and distraction and perverse political ideologies, and pursue the higher ideals of humanism, of progressive movements alongside sustainable development such as plant-based conversion and ending decimation of the natural world.