When understanding political issues, what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank for example, it is vital to remember that we swim in a world of media-narratives that have little basis in truth. By truth I mean honest, balanced and evidence-based reports of events. Our legacy media automatically produces distorted narratives. Our main media outlets and high-profile politicians, both lobbied by corporations and billionaires, are experts at distorting, framing and omitting information. They are experts at creating skewed and biased narratives. Until we realise this from the outset, at the very beginning of any political conversation, we cannot have coherent, healthy dialogues about world events.
Having been exposed to these distorted narratives for so many years, many people find it difficult to disentangle themselves from them. Maybe it is psychologically easier to go along with what the majority of people are saying. Or what our supposedly trusted news outlets are saying. Maybe it takes a lot of effort to go against the grain. This means that when someone does go against the grain, when someone manages to decondition themselves from such narratives, such a person is labelled radical, extremist, unrealistic. Or they are laughed at and ridiculed.
It should be noted that the main distorted narratives we hear come from those in positions of material power. In other words, corporations and billionaires. This isn't talked about by most people, you won't hear it discussed much on the BBC for example. It won't be directly pointed out and emphasised as much as it should be. The most important issues rarely are. Instead, we are encouraged to focus on superficial issues that have nothing to do with where real power lies, such as what pronouns we should be using or whether a celebrity recently defecated. Throughout history, those in positions of material power will use any means to keep such power. They will never, out of the goodness of their hearts, give power back to ordinary people. It is only through protest, unrest and civil disobedience that ordinary people have ever gained more power.
What irks me more than most things is the way that those in power, and the obsequious journalists who support them, lie and deceive to maintain such power. I wish that they would at least be more open and honest about their ambitions, instead of sneaky, vicious and deceptive. An argument could be made that hierarchies are necessary and that there needs to be some wealth imbalance in society. Let's say this position is true. Then why don't those with inordinate amounts of power admit that they want to keep such power. Why don't they admit that they want to maintain their excessive amounts of money? This is because they are frightened and insecure. They probably know that if the majority of people knew what was really going on, if the majority of people had a truthful understanding of the world, then the majority wouldn't stand for the immense injustice we see around us. Presumably then, those in positions of material power don't care about truth and honesty, even though their spokespeople claim to be truthful.
Those with excessive amounts of money and power lobby politicians and the media. Politicians and high-profile media people are paid handsomely (compared with most of the population at least) and I suppose they don't want to lose their jobs by speaking out of line. On one level this is understandable. But if you have integrity and really care about bettering the world, then you will speak truthfully. There is no decent excuse for consistently lying about important issues.
As a result of all of this, the very premises and framings of political issues are inappropriate and skewed, and will very rarely lead to meaningful dialogues about such issues. An example of this is on Piers Morgan's Uncensored channel. Even though claiming time and again that he is concerned with honesty and truth, Piers Morgan's framing of the massacre in Gaza illustrates how much our minds are affected by distorted narratives. By starting most questions with, "would you condemn Hamas?" Piers implies that Hamas are the primary problem and that the current conflict is a result of their actions on October 7th. By trying to illicit a binary yes/no answer, he is trying to simplify the issue. If you are unwilling to play his game, or to say "yes" to condemning Hamas, the obvious implication is that you are immoral and can't be taken seriously. Perhaps he should start each conversation by saying, "would you condemn Israel for the last 75 years?" This would be a framing which is more evidence-based and appropriate, as the Israeli government is the colonial, occupying force in this situation. Most of the violence falls on them.
To sum up, we need to bear in mind how much our culture and our minds have been shaped by distorted narratives. If we truly care about the unnecessary violence and suffering in the world, we need to speak truthfully as much as possible. We need to keep shining a light on those in positions of material power to combat their ceaseless lies and distortions. We would also do well to always practice compassion and love, in combination with truthfulness.
No comments:
Post a Comment