Sneer and Smear (2b)

As a kind of addendum to the previous posting, I’d like to invite you to consider three images.

Two of them could never have been allowed anywhere near the front of The Economist

… which leaves one that could — and, indeed, was

Can you guess which one…?

Take as long as you like…

*          *          *

Image result for cup of coffee...

*          *          *

Well…? Have you chosen…?

Yes, that’s right: the one The Economist saw fit to create and to use was the one that doesn’t point to the actions of the US gangster-state and its compliant vassals. The one that doesn’t point to the most enormous, nation-destroying war-crime of our present century. The one that doesn’t point to a million deaths and more

Or, to put it another way, within the Orwellian nightmare that is our proudly ‘free and idependent’ media, the word ‘inferno’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘inferno’. It may simply mean ‘someone is getting in Uncle Sam’s way…

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we happily say goodbye to the ethical and intellectual sewer that is The Economist

MD

microdonateIf you’ve enjoyed reading this or another posting, please consider making an anonymised micro-donation in return! Micro-donation — 50p, 50c, whatever — is the way to sponsor the creation of quality content outside the control of corporate-owned and power-serving media structures. To micro-donate to me, with guaranteed anonymity, simply click on the button… Thanks!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Sneer and Smear (2b)

  1. Does any publication have a fiscal incentive to tell us the truth?
    The overriding purpose of any organisation is survival, everything is secondary to that.
    The only information the media give, is what they want their readers to think.
    The only question is, why do they want us to think that …?

    Like

    • “Does any publication have a fiscal incentive to tell us the truth?”
      — The time-honoured justification for an ultra-high-investment media system — all those printing presses and distribution networks; all the sophisticated broadcasting equipment, and so on — is that ‘the organisations have so much to lose that they *have* to play straight’. The reality is, of course, the diametrical opposite of that: with so much invested in the existing elite’s systems of business and politics, ‘playing straight’ about what’s really going on is *the one thing they can’t afford to do*. The image we are brought up to believe in — that of an uncontrollable, ‘feral’ media that’s ‘free and independent’ and whose hero-journalists ‘speak truth to power’ — is a fantasy, a mirage: it is *structurally impossible* for a profit-seeking, advertiser-funded media reliant on political patronage and plugged into a system of corporate ownership and superstar wages to be anything other than *the enemy of the public*.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I would suggest that the media work most effectively when viewed through the prism of our favourite newspaper or news program – excluding those with which we disagree.

    As a long-term Radio 4 listener, now with the Internet, I am finding that including RT, Al Jazeera, The Jewish Chronicle, The Times of Israel, Press TV and others, can be useful for a wider view, a good example being the current anti-semitism hysteria.

    Though I resonate strongly with the phrase “the enemy of the public,” my main response is regret, because the media consist of many people like myself, who are doing what they think is right, their integrity intact and their purpose to improve the world as they see it.
    So my corporate “Enemy” is made up of those who individually should be my friends, because the de-humanising effects of being part of a large corporation are mostly ignored.

    Since the media are generally run by those in search of huge wealth, it would be of enormous benefit to society if we regarded those who crave millions as being mentally ill.
    We are one of the very few animals that kills more than it can ever eat.

    Like

  3. Kerry Burns you wrote: “…because the media consist of many people like myself, who are doing what they think is right, their integrity intact…” But surely you don’t mean that? Do you really think the journalist/s who chose that front cover of the Economist bother to do serious research about Putin? They believe what’s put in front of them and then spin a story. That’s how they earn their salary. Meanwhile, the UK government promotes another war sacrificing countless lives and destroying countries.

    Like

    • “Do you really think the journalist/s who chose that front cover of the Economist bother to do serious research about Putin?”
      No jbr, I don’t, I think they have swallowed the party line and no longer do any serious research.
      In my comment I ascribed this to “de-humanising effects of being part of a large corporation.”
      I do suspect that in order to survive with their self-respect intact, they have to spin things round to where, in their own mind, they are doing the “right thing”, and therefore not compromising their own internal integrity.
      My own take is that the Military/Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about is now running the show, and our democratic rights are reduced to choosing, every four years, between the puppets Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee. They will deal with “The Enemy,” which is an essential component of the American economy.
      Your view will probably vary, and you may well be right.
      Thanks for asking.

      Like

  4. Continuing on this topic of what goes through the minds of mainstream corporate media journalists:

    Kerry you wrote

    “I think they have swallowed the party line and no longer do any serious research.”
    So logically, if they believe western propaganda, as you say, there’d be no need for them to spin anything, but instead just say it like they believe it is.

    But then you write:

    “they have to spin things round to where, in their own mind, they are doing the “right thing”, and therefore not compromising their own internal integrity.”

    So my point is you can’t have it both ways: either they totally believe what they tell us or they are willfully and knowingly spinning or manipulating things.

    I believe the latter. I think these ‘journalists’ know they are at least on shaky moral ground when they publish this stuff.
    In their positions as ‘journalists’ there is no excuse.

    Like

    • I’m tempted to use the quote about believing 6 impossible things before breakfast jbr, as describing the job requirements for being a ‘reporter,’ but on a less flippant note I think we have both outlined our opinions clearly, and if I may say so, we both have expressed fairly sweeping views of a most complex situation. Perhaps many reporters fall somewhere between the two extremes we have delineated.

      Personally I feel that humans have an innate tendency to “grow towards the light” but that this basic urge can take a wrong turn, and we end up supporting a mistaken belief with all our energy.
      This is why I like the Quaker approach of addressing the Divine in every human, because it recognises our inner self, regardless of the exterior. Once we lose sight of the inner, it is easy to lose respect for the outer, and where there is no respect, there is little hope for progress.

      I’m speaking from fairly practical experience, as a Samaritan years ago, I had to retain my respect for callers in crisis, and not judge them. When sometimes they strayed into racist or homophobic rants, I simply had to hold on to the idea that they were wanting, in their own twisted way, to make the world ‘a better place’ by excluding these people from it, and that basic urge was the thing I could respect, while ignoring their agenda for accomplishing it.

      When I employ this strategy, I still find it a positive approach – I don’t believe there are good people and bad people, I think there is good and bad in us all, including “journalists,” (with the possible exception of John Humphries, who should be boiled in sump oil).

      I was brought up on an intellectual diet of lies – Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, then gentle Jesus and his wayward Dad, electricity too cheap to meter, we’re alone in the Universe, and lies that I can’t mention in France or Germany for fear of imprisonment, WMD in Iraq, 9/11 and all the other false flags _ there’s no end to the falsehoods which underpin our society, and clambering out from beneath their stifling weight seems to be a lifetime’s work.
      I think we can attenuate the voice of our conscience almost to the point of silence, or perhaps to the point where its suppression causes illness or depression, but I would hope that it can always be encouraged with our attention, and perhaps a helpful attitude in those around us.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s