The media creates a landscape that structures and greatly influences how we view the world.
Individuals and groups can come up with notions and ideas that have no basis in reality, that are unfounded and invalid. When such notions and ideas circulate widely enough in our media-landscape many, many people start believing them.
It is important that we all properly reflect on how we've come to our views and whether we can back them up.
With ideas there can be degrees of validity; some ideas may be more valid than others depending on how much evidence one has to support them.
We need to think about these things if we want to relinquish the control that media has on us.
Individuals and groups can come up with notions and ideas that have no basis in reality, that are unfounded and invalid. When such notions and ideas circulate widely enough in our media-landscape many, many people start believing them.
It is important that we all properly reflect on how we've come to our views and whether we can back them up.
With ideas there can be degrees of validity; some ideas may be more valid than others depending on how much evidence one has to support them.
We need to think about these things if we want to relinquish the control that media has on us.
British national newspapers - The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Daily Mirror, The Telegraph, The Times, etc. - have a tremendous influence on the thoughts and lives of the British public. They create a landscape in which many ideas and views circulate.
Now one idea I am thinking of that has been very widely circulated is that Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader. Admittedly a minority of our journalists and national newspapers may dispute this. But this is, by and large, the general consensus. It is a view that the conservative campaign actually rests on, for the alternative to Corbyn is Theresa May’s “strong and stable leadership”.
The view that Corbyn is a weak leader always seemed completely unfounded to me. I couldn’t find a scrap of evidence to back it up.
Now one idea I am thinking of that has been very widely circulated is that Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader. Admittedly a minority of our journalists and national newspapers may dispute this. But this is, by and large, the general consensus. It is a view that the conservative campaign actually rests on, for the alternative to Corbyn is Theresa May’s “strong and stable leadership”.
The view that Corbyn is a weak leader always seemed completely unfounded to me. I couldn’t find a scrap of evidence to back it up.
Looking at Corbyn’s past, thoroughly, will show you that he is an individual of unique consistency and integrity. He has taken anti-inequality and anti-establishment stances throughout his career. Despite pressures even from within his own party he has never wavered on his principles. He is one of the few politicians to properly stand up to corporate greed and war and the most elite members of society. In this respect he is not remotely weak.
Many of our national newspapers, which, to iterate, circulate ideas and influence thoughts, are owned by billionaires with deeply vested interests. It is thus safe to say our media-landscape is intensely skewed and uneven, mirroring the dominant interests of those with money and power and the unfair neoliberal system in which we live.
Recently, Corbyn has been accused of being a “terrorist sympathiser” in reference to the IRA. This is because, about 30 years ago, he was present at a number of peace negotiations with members of Sinn Féin. This has become a major issue in the media-landscape, reaching front pages and headlines across the national papers.
However, what has not become nearly as major an issue in the this landscape is the fact that May, a few months ago, met the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The British government has sold and continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia who, as of 2015 to the present, is bombing Yemen. As Mark Curtis has pointed out, "the Saudis have been funding terrorism for decades".
Yet we do not hear, across our national newspapers, that May is a “terrorist sympathiser” doing “dodgy deals” with the Saudis, or that there is “blood on her hands”.
Why was May not grilled by Andrew Neil in reference to Saudi Arabia and the horrific killings in Yemen? Neil spent much of his interview with Corbyn grilling him about the IRA, because this is what the media has deemed an important issue.
Our establishment media (which includes the BBC as well as the billionaire-owned rags), so deeply ingrained in the minds of the public, is thus fundamentally rigged from the very start. This is why independent bloggers and online news sites are so inspiring, significant and commendable.
However, what has not become nearly as major an issue in the this landscape is the fact that May, a few months ago, met the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The British government has sold and continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia who, as of 2015 to the present, is bombing Yemen. As Mark Curtis has pointed out, "the Saudis have been funding terrorism for decades".
Yet we do not hear, across our national newspapers, that May is a “terrorist sympathiser” doing “dodgy deals” with the Saudis, or that there is “blood on her hands”.
Why was May not grilled by Andrew Neil in reference to Saudi Arabia and the horrific killings in Yemen? Neil spent much of his interview with Corbyn grilling him about the IRA, because this is what the media has deemed an important issue.
Our establishment media (which includes the BBC as well as the billionaire-owned rags), so deeply ingrained in the minds of the public, is thus fundamentally rigged from the very start. This is why independent bloggers and online news sites are so inspiring, significant and commendable.
We all need to realise how the popular press operates and we all need to fully reflect on and understand the things we say and the views we hold. There will always be differing opinions and this is okay, but views must always be analysed.
No comments:
Post a Comment