The press as propaganda
Leighton Woodhouse writes the following, in an article entitled “How the Media Trains Journalists to Lie”:
Before the internet, a politically unpopular story might trigger a flood of nasty letters to the editor, but as long as it didn’t upset any major advertisers, the haters could be safely ignored. Now that it was the readers paying the rent, things were different. A revolt by your readers, if you were a newspaper publisher post-2016, was a direct threat to your bottom line.
But there was a threat even more perilous than that: a revolt by all the young reporters you hired to cater to the millions of outraged new subscribers you had enlisted in the fight against MAGA authoritarianism…
Today, a politically unpopular article or personality can leave a publisher besieged from the outside while facing a revolt from within…
As these changes took place across the digital media industry, Twitter became a disciplinary tool for the journalistic profession. It became the means by which the partisan and ideological vanguardists huddled inside the media’s fortress walls could find their ragtag armies on the outside and wage war together against disfavored colleagues like Weiss and McNeil.
I would add a couple of things. The first is that for most journalists today, even older ones, no one has to coerce them to lie. It is something they consider part of the job description if it furthers the politics they believe are virtuous. The younger ones chose journalism for that very reason – as the author describes. But many – not all, but many – of the older ones that haven’t left the profession are fully onboard. I believe the big turning point for this attitude was Watergate, when journalists felt pride in having brought down a president they hated. That was an awfully long time ago, and the younguns who took the credit are pretty old now.
The second thing I want to add is that there are examples of journalists who left the fold to preserve some sort of integrity, who seem to be doing fine. It takes courage, but not an absolutely extraordinary amount of courage. Bari Weiss, mentioned in the quote above, seems to have landed on her feet. Glenn Greenwald as well. Not to mention Kari Lake, who explains here why she left journalism (the video is from around the time she announced her candidacy for the Arizona governorship):
They lie “if it furthers the politics they believe are virtuous”. This is undeniable, and it reflects a painful truth underscored by Sowell in his fine Intellectuals and Society, in which he argues that so-called “experts” and members of the “intelligentsia” are not only eager for recognition but obsessed with seeing themselves on the “side of the angels” against various evil-doers, as being “on the right side of history”, regardless of the merits of the case which they espouse or the effects of the policies which they enact. The only question is whether most (or all) truly believe the fabrications of their own (obviously, morally superior) side or whether they consider it to be simply an unavoidable part of winning “by any means necessary”.
The utterly dishonest believe themselves to be the epitomes of virtue.
And while they utter seductive bromides such as “saving humanity” or “society” or “the planet”, they are beholden to no one…and are perfectly—avidly—willing to engage in any manner of destruction in order to achieve their goals.
“Good” destruction.
“Necessary” destruction.
“Moral” destruction.
The challenge is not to be fooled by the virtuous rhetoric of the “We’re-only-here-to-help” angels of annihilation.
Related:
‘ Greta Thunberg Calls For “Overthrow Of Whole Capitalist System” ‘—
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/greta-thunberg-calls-overthrow-whole-capitalist-system
“…Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/you-murderous-hypocrites-outrage-ensues-after-atlantic-suggests-amnesty-pandemic
The second thing I want to add is that there are examples of journalists who left the fold to preserve some sort of integrity, who seem to be doing fine. It takes courage, but not an absolutely extraordinary amount of courage.
Substack may be last refuge for real journalism and political commentary from the groupthink and propaganda that now dominates of professional journalism.
Years ago I was naive enough to believe that rise of blogs (and later social media) would bring about an end to persistant lies, give a voice to the voiceless, and bring people together and the like.
As we all know now, what ended up happening instead is social media has driven groups of people farther appart, has been used as a tool to punish and silence dissent, and lies are rampant while the truth is often maligned as misinformation. This has resulted in me reevaluating some of my assumptions about human nature. I once thought that the vast majority of people truly valued personal freedom. I’m no longer so certain of that.
Most ‘journalists’ and all propagandists know that they are telling untruths, which is the definition of a lie. However much they may rationalize their justification, in their heart of hearts they know they are not on the Side of the Angels for angels have no need of lies.
In the afterlife to come, may they reap the reward they so richly deserve. Among them, few actually believe in an afterlife for if they did they could not so enthusiastically and repeatedly lie. Perhaps their reward will be the obliteration they do believe awaits them. Certainly, few deserve it more than they because their crime is not just against the individual but against all of humanity.
Kari Lake’s explanation of why she left the MSM rings very true. She’s a person who thinks for herself and did not have a pair of “golden handcuffs” to keep her in the job. Kudos to her. I think Arizona is very fortunate to have her running for, and probably winning, the governor’s job.
You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there’s
no occasion to.
Humbert Wolfe
I think this is part of a larger problem in which people, mostly professionals, have forgotten why they do the things they do.
Traditionally, one became a lawyer to practice law and participate in the legal system, which is a social good. Traditionally, one became a banker to participate in the financial system, which is a social good. Traditionally, one became a journalist to participate in the free press, which is a social good.
Nowadays, though, professionals subordinate the social good of their professions as a whole to their own personal view of what is good. Hence, lawyers, bankers, journalists, etc. who believe that their role is to achieve a particular political result or a personal sense of justice (which often amounts to little more than a particular political result).
I don’t think they realize that a legal system cannot perform its role in society if it is also the vehicle for lawyers and judges to impose their preferred political results. A financial system cannot perform its role in society if it is also a vehicle for regulators and money managers to enforce their preferred political results. Similarly, the free press cannot perform its role in society if it is also a vehicle for journalists to impose their political views.
As for journalists, I think that they genuinely believe that the role of journalism is to prop up the woke progressive narrative. What fools.
The formula: selective coverage ignoring everything that goes against the narrative, while spinning and weaving the narrative into anything they do cover.
Meanwhile, it’s still Halloween.
I’ve left this somewhere else too, but Walter Kirn is out with a perceptive short substack essay on Twitter and the nature of the modern media.
https://www.commonsense.news/p/free-bird-on-elon-musk-and-twitter?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=81835758&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
“The first is that for most journalists today, even older ones, no one has to coerce them to lie. It is something they consider part of the job description if it furthers the politics they believe are virtuous.”
This has long been true. No one had to coerce Walter Duranty to lie about the Soviets intentionally starving the Ukrainians and unruly kulaks. That, BTW, is what Holodomor means in Ukrainian; genocide by starvation.
Duranty was a true believer, so he was willing to lie to promote Bolshevism. A lot of other leftists were willing to lie and whitewash the horrors of the USSR; George Bernard Shaw the Irish playwright was such a leftist. He famously described the gulag system (never forget it began under Lenin; Stalin simply made it much larger but it was inhumanly brutal and murderous before he took the reins of power) as something of a “luxury vacation.”
Some socialists, such as George Orwell, began to suspect the truth and weren’t taken in. But they were few and far between. Most didn’t renounce the USSR until the whole system collapsed and the wall fell. But then, most still believe in communism, claiming “real communism” has never been tried. What a bunch of liars.
We see the same dynamic in Gaza. Western “journalists” have to give up their passports to ruling Hamas. They work out of offices co-located with Hamas. And they have to have Hamas approve their reporting before publication.
This isn’t even necessary. They’d lie about Israel on behalf of Hamas willingly. To demonstrate just how dedicated leftists are to lying for the cause, particularly “journalists,” recall how European leftists demanded their governments allow military-aged Muslim men from all over the globe as if they’re all Syrian refugees. They marched carrying banners proclaiming, “They’re not dangerous; they’re in danger.”
No, they were predictably dangerous. Rapes across Europe skyrocketed. That’s really not surprising given it’s the overwhelming consensus among “scholars” that women who fail to cover themselves with at least a hijab are prostitutes who are inviting rape.
(Quran, Surah 33:59) “O Prophet, enjoin your wives and your daughters and the believing women, to draw a part of their outer coverings around them. It is likelier that they will be recognized and not molested. Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
This is why no Friday passes when you won’t hear a sermon in a mosque somewhere in Europe condemning European society as decadent and immoral. The prime example being women inviting rape by flaunting their bodies. Of course, you’ll hear the same thing here and everywhere else in the Western world.
In in 2006 the “Grand Mufti” of Australia gave a Ramadan sermon in Sydney in which he expressed his anger that the leaders and members of a Muslim rape gang were given lengthy prison sentences, some over 50 years (they’re all over the Western world, not just in Rotherham. Really, I don’t believe there’s any major city in the UK that doesn’t have Islamic rape gangs and no doubt it’s happening here).
He didn’t think the rapists were primarily to blame. The women were.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/australia.marktran
“Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali delivered his comments in a religious address on adultery to around 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, but they only came to the attention of the wider public when they were published in the Australian paper today.
Sheik Hilali was quoted as saying: ‘If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside … without cover, and the cats come to eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [the headdress worn by some Muslim women], no problem would have occurred.'”
Note that his Muslim audience thought blaming rape victims for being raped is the correct thing to do. Nobody hearing that sermon in that mosque that day thought anything was objectionable about it.
So, that’s the majority Sunni view of uncovered women. If women want to be “recognized” in order not “to be molested” they best cover up. Although you can ask Coptic Christian girls in Egypt if that is any help when Muslim men know a girl isn’t actually Muslim. What’s the Shia view? I think that’s best illustrated by the charges the Iranian government filed against women taking part in various protests against the government over the past several years. As part of their protest, Iranian girls and women publicly remove their hijabs or chadors. That leads to the most serious charge. Incitement to prostitution, which carries a prison term of 17 years.
So it’s unanimous throughout all schools of Shariah. Women damned well remained covered or they deserve what they’re going to get.
But that doesn’t excuse Western “journalists” for lying about the rapes Muslim men are entitled by their religion to commit. They refuse to identify the rapists. One of the more egregious examples involved four Muslim men who made their way to Sweden and applied for asylum. Unbelievably for a Swedish government, they denied the request. The four decided to take a ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki to try their luck in Finland.
While making the transit they gang raped a woman. The press insisted on identifying the four rapists as “Swedish men.” They weren’t Swedish citizens let alone of Swedish descent. They weren’t Swedish residents. They had travel documents from the EU but nothing from Sweden. They had zero connection with Sweden other than being denied asylum. Legally they were stateless. But the press insisted on calling them “Swedish men” because they didn’t want to give the “right” any ammo to use against Sweden’s lawless, mass immigration policies that allows a lawless, hostile population into their country.
To show how bizarre the left has become, there have been numerous reports of women being raped by the very “refugees” the left insists are “not dangerous. They’re in danger.”
Since these volunteers are women of the left themselves, they’ll lie and cover for their actual rapists. Instead they’ll identify their rapists as German, Danish, Swedish.
If leftists are willing to lie about who raped them, is there any doubt they’ll lie to advance their political preferences when it doesn’t even involve anyone physically violating them?