Why I'm glad we have the mainstream media
Published:
The traditional mainstream media acted as gatekeeper for news and opinions. Without it the gate is open to a myriad of cranks, miscreants and plain idiots.
Why I'm glad we have the mainstream media
Recently I decided to follow a wider range of people on my Twitter/X feed. I also began using Threads, BlueSky and Mastodon social media, each of which has a different type of user base. This was not least due to my longstanding interest in politics and my concern at the ferocity of the online onslaught, aimed at all of us, from both the Right and the Left. The more of us that argue with the online nuts, the better.
I was shocked at what I found, when I did argue with them.
The big problem with the Internet
I have liked the Internet since I first began to use it in 1995, when I worked as a computer programmer for the British Royal Mail. Everything I searched for, on the Excite search engine, I found. Does anyone remember the Excite search engine? It was pre-Google but was superseded by the admittedly better newcomer. In 1995 I thought the Internet was incredible. I could see that it would be huge. I'm often nostalgic for the early web.
In those days large numbers of loons had not yet discovered the web. One could find an Internet penfriend without having to worry about attracting the attention of malicious or criminal individuals. Also most users seemed to be the type of people who read books and valued or at least respected knowledge. How things changed, for the worst.
The Internet allows self publication. Nothing wrong with that. But at least before the net, most published content was filtered by some kind of editor. Editors were usually balanced and shrewd people. Often their position was highly prestigious, which reflects the perceived importance of what they were doing. Internet blogs rarely have editors, and of course the whole point of social networks such as Twitter and Facebook is that they are not designed to be self edited. This is both a good and a bad thing. Good because people can express themselves and talk directly to their audience, whether it is their family, friends or the world. Bad because there is no one - such as a knowledgeable editor - to ascertain if what they are saying is true, hence the plague of fake news.
But there is something worse than fake news. It is apparent that there is a community of people who are using the internet to evangelise and convert others to believing things that no old-school editor would contemplate.
Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories are not a new phenomenon. There were JFK assassination and Roswell spacecraft conspiracy theories long before the Internet was invented. But the Internet allows the quantitative promulgation of conspiracy theories as never before. And when put together these conspiracies can be woven into a unified conspiracy-based worldview. This is the really new thing which the Internet has brought - it is quantitative. More conspiracies, more elaborate conspiracies and a huge web of conspiracy. All backed up by 'evidence' which is snipped stories, photographs, videos and news items in incorrect context. AI is now widely being used to generate fake videos and pictures to back up the fake narrative.
If one searches on YouTube for 9/11 there are lots of videos of the terrible 9/11 New York terrorist attacks where extra things have been edited into the original video footage. Cranks make all sorts of ridiculous claims about 9/11, and blame many different agencies and organisations in their conspiracy theories. Aliens, Israel, the CIA, the 'Illuminati' are variously blamed for the attacks, with no regards for the memory of those who died. The videos have often been edited in a very professional way with freely available video editing software. The audio narrative which accompanies them often cites fake 'insider' testimony to support the claims made.
No reputable media organisation will air these conspiracy theories, as the 'evidence' would not pass scrutiny by junior journalists, let alone experienced news editors. On the Internet, however, anyone is free to say anything, and anyone is free to believe anything.
A positive development came in 2018 when the notorious Infowars site was dealt a severe blow. Major platforms such as Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter and others removed Infowars content and apps from the sites, citing repeated violations of their terms concerning abusive and racist content. For example Infowars had claimed that some of the school shootings in the USA were staged by the government, and that some of the grieving relatives who appeared in the media were in fact actors paid by the US government.
Hopefully the example of Infowars will serve as a warning to those who peddle ridiculous conspiracy theories to millions of undiscerning people who distrust mainstream news sources.
Alt Right loons
Recently on Twitter someone suggested that the Koran should be burned. I responded that in Germany in the 1930s Dr Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, organised the burning of Jewish and liberal books. Soon after this the Nazis began their infamous programme of extermination of political opponents and minority races. Suddenly afterwards I was shocked to find my Twitter timeline suddenly awash with Holocaust deniers who assured me that they had 'done the maths' and that the Holocaust could not have taken place. I assured them the meticulous records were kept by the Nazis themselves and the local police forces who often rounded up victims in occupied territories. Not to mention other residents who noticed the deportation and disappearance of entire communities. But no, the Holocaust deniers insist it did not happen. Where is the proof they say? I replied that they could read any decent history book on the subject. But they had not and no doubt did not do their reading.
It is obvious that on the Internet far right activists have created their own narrow narrative, to be read by people just like themselves. Some people call it an echo chamber. No light gets in of a different point of view. The Internet blogs and forums can become a closed world. Some of the people in this closed world openly call themselves National Socialists.
Left loons
The left wing activists on the Internet also have their own closed world. They talk about 'American Imperialism', the 'Jewish Banking Cabal', Israel, capitalism and resistance to what they see as control over their lives. Their narrative claims that all the perceived differences between groups of people are actually invented social constructs. Therefore anyone who has progressed further in life than them is part of a conspiracy. The Left do not seem to see people. They only see classes, oppressors, oppressed and elites.
Of course there are structural and perpetuated inequalities in every society, but there seems to be no real evidence of a coordinated control of the world order. There are similar problems of inequality in many countries and various attempted solutions to fix them. For example what kind of economic system to have that allows the most benefit for the most people? Communism in Eastern Europe failed spectacularly to give people the freedoms and opportunities they seek. Market capitalism seems to work better but produces damaging inequality.
The Left have a more complex and well-developed set of ideas than the Right, with an ever growing terminology to describe problems and proclaimed solutions. But their narrative seems mostly to be a critique of capitalism. No one has, or maybe dares have after Marxism and Leninism, a programme to positively encompass and carry forward the ideas of the Left. In short the Left know what is bad about capitalism, but have no real alternative to it which has not already been tainted by failure.
Moderate and reasonable = boring
For now the voice of moderation is in danger of being drowned out in the new media i.e. Twitter, Facebook, the Blogosphere and the growing number of 'alternative' news sites such as www.Breitbart.com. A lot of the information in these spheres is described as 'fake news', either unverified or demonstrably untrue. Search Engine Optimisation and advertising revenues drive these sites rather than research and principled editing.
Where the problem is complex, and easy solutions have failed, few want to read about the complexities of the matters in hand. For example global warming. The scientists say it is happening and that human activity is the culprit. Public and professional political opinion seems increasingly polarised between those who simply deny climate change and those who advocate the steady state economy. Complex negotiated treaties and declarations seem to satisfy fewer people on either side - they go 'too far' or 'not far enough'. On the Internet claims are made about 'Net Zero' by bloggers and other figures paid for by fossil fuel companies, or by 'Think Tanks' funded by fossil fuels.
Another example of a complex problem is displacement of people from Africa into Europe. Africa has growing problems, sometimes caused by climate change, and more and more Africans try to get to Europe via any means possible. Opinion on how to react to this is either to deport migrants or offer shelter to them all. It seems few are interested in the idea of offering help to stricken countries in Africa to make those countries better, more prosperous, safer and more peaceful places for their citizens to live. Here again on the Internet the far right have taken the initiative, and appear to be running the debate.
Rational analysis of matters is by nature not emotionally charged. This puts rational voices at a disadvantage when social media headlines are drafted, and when video shorts are made. It is easier to passionately rant than try to explain something complex. Also ranting seems to get much better engagement on online platforms, and the social media algorithms therefore promote it.
There is more and more evidence that the ranting narrative, from whichever point of view it originates, is bypassing traditional legacy media with its editorial balance and focus on facts.
Consequences, consequences
So far there have been few consequences from the spread of fake news and hate across the Internet. Some say Brexit and Donald Trump are consequences, but both might have happened anyway. However the sort of hate being propagated to millions of people, many of them younger and more impressionable, could cause an unstoppable tide of misanthropy which in the future could tear civil society apart, in a way which might shock even the people spreading the poisonous narrative.
There are many who fear the emergence of a more democratic world, and would love to frustrate the steady march of social progress. History has shown these people to be capable of committing and organising others to commit monstrous acts. We must not allow them to surf on a tide of hate and division.
In defence of the mainstream media
Clearly the mainstream media is more important than ever in a world where unverified statements from dubious sources sit right alongside verified and true information. The role of the sensible editor and rigorous journalism is greater than ever before. Let's hear it for the mainstream media.