What should the role of the media be in keeping us informed? Are they entitled to dictate our political beliefs or seek to underpin those views held? The role of the media, surely, is to report and not to interpret with a political slant, the information they impart. It is a question of ethics. Thought is our escape route from the dark corners. Ethics forces us to think, whereas a diet of prescribed coverage makes us more passive. Moreover, even if we think the information being filtered down to us is wrong, it comes from a source(s) which we assume has more knowledge than we possess. The tendency is therefore to kow-tow to that source. The propaganda machine wins!
Are the media feeding our intransigence forcing us to maintain our ideology? Or, perhaps more damning, trying to force us to adopt their political dogma?
Who are the tribes involved in this mishmash of a war?
On the Right we have: the Rich, the ‘Beautiful People’ who think that capitalism is the best possible system because they’re doing well out of it. Occasionally, they feign concern for the poor but in reality just want to get richer.
On the left we have: the Guardian/Observer, the Independent, BBC and the Mirror at times.
On the Right we have: the Telegraph, Daily Mail, the Sun and the Times at times.
The Truth? Neither side want things to change much because they are really enjoying their privileged position in society.
The media in pursuit of their own political agenda are doing enormous damage to the country by denying the people an ethical stance and portraying partisanship as bona fide. Such an outcome leads to greater intransigence on all sides. Moderation takes a back seat and an honest broker is viewed as a pitiful ass in consequence. It has an adverse effect on critical and creative thinking and a direct effect on emotional intelligence as well as a devastating effect on empathy. Understanding becomes an estranged relation to the man/woman who knows what’s right.
We like to consider ourselves as free thinkers but in reality, no matter how desperate we are to assume, we are not. We make stands based on emotion, anywhere from pride to dislike. Constantly we seek guidance. We ask others what they think of our idea or plans, looking for reassurance that we are heading in the right direction. This is where ethics has a place, vis-à-vis moral and political questions.
The saddest aspect of the tribal war is the inclusion of the BBC on the left of the table. As a publicly owned broadcaster it is essential that it is non- sectarian and remains so. If it wants to propagate a political ideology then it should be run separate from the public domain. However, the BBC cannot become an economically independent broadcaster for by doing so it would become subject to the outlook of its new capitalist owners. Therefore it uses its closeted privileged position to further its political agenda. Such a scenario is anathema to ethics.
It may be appropriate to bring to the attention of the ‘top guys’ at the BBC, Omar Bradley, US General, speaking on Armistice Day 1948:
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants”.
The BBC helps to perpetuate a world of ethical infants by its political bias. What is truly surprising is that a quick look on the web brings you to a BBC introduction to ethics, level 1. Here we are presented with some little gems of information:
- “Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society”.
- “But often there isn’t one right answer – there may be several right answers, or just some least right answers – and the individual must choose between them”.
- “Modern thinkers often teach that ethics leads people not to conclusions but to decisions”.
What a revelation; level 1 ethics and the guys at the top haven’t read it! Bias blocks the brain! So as not to tax them too much, the new mantra for senior management at the BBC should be the three little gems above. A large colourful poster should be pasted on the inside of their office door.
Have a read of basic ethics at:
The Left, Liberal, Humanist, whatever non de plume they ascribe themselves have lost the plot as usual. They are an army of transient forces and, if not ill-equipped, they have a severe lack of resources. Unfortunately, because of their dependency on the disenfranchised they will find it impossible to sustain the siege of the battlements of the Right. It is akin to Robin Hood against the nasty Sheriff. Their frustration will inevitably lead them further down the road of diktat.
Frustration at the tardiness of the people to grasp their vision, has forced the Left to push ahead by supporting individual causes on the Human Rights periphery which has little or no public sympathy. And a forced accommodation with political correctness epitomizes their contempt for the ordinary people. Every communist party/ government that began with a beautiful vision has ended by inflicting a bloody nightmare.
A nice little conspiracy theory can be developed from the cosy camaraderie of the Guardian/Observer, the BBC and the New York Times (NYT). They share information, personnel and semantics and the former Director General of the BBC who now lords it over the NYT. World domination! The problem for the so-called Liberal elite is that they have become the mirror image of those they oppose; they have become intransigent.
“The most important persuasion tool you have in your entire arsenal is integrity”. Zig Ziglar
Ziglar may not have been the person they wanted to hear that from but if right, it’s right.
Ethics in a media setting brings everyone to your door, even those who don’t agree. They still have a compulsion to know what the honest broker is saying and that is a very powerful tool. As for the Right wing media; it’s the same old, same old. A lost cause or can they be redeemed?