How do we like our discussions to be presented to us in the press and media? Homogenised? Civilised? Light and humourous? Or do we really like things to be a distraction? – entertainment and education – that sort of thing.
The bigger question is do we like anything that isn’t honest? It seems that honesty has been the driving force behind hacking into peoples personal lives. Note the people who have been hacked – police, politicians, celebrities and news victims – all have a market share on their ‘private’ information coming to light. It’s like 1977’s ‘Network’ and ‘Scoop’ came together in 2011 to distract us from something bigger.
I’m talking about War. Exploitation. Rampant capitalism and greed resulting in the death and slavery of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.
It would seem that we could have possibly reached a Paradigm shift in defining what a member of the press is and what he/she is supposed to do and in doing so, also redefined what privacy is. That is if we believe all the hype.
Make no mistake, things are not what they seem.
The freedom to express opinion is somewhat lacking in our press. A quick glance at bias recently and we have seen very few journalists telling it like it is. Maybe that is because they are too concerned with the inner politics of their environment, trying not to piss off too many bosses, who may or may not have connections with whichever vested interest may lay, as it is with the big media empire News Corp.
We are currently engaged in wars around the globe and are propping up regimes much like Gaddafi. Our government sells arms – one of the biggest exporters in the world – to any country with the money to buy them. Our ‘defense’ (‘ministry of love’ anyone?) and military are deployed frequently to the middle-east – where Israel has been central to decades of conflict and bloodshed. Where nearby we have unseated leaders in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and may have been instrumental in many so called revolutions in the region. All this so we can enjoy a nice cup of tea and have a game of cricket. Our stock market is hugely lucrative if we have market dominance. War seems to be one of the instruments that enables this.
We have just been ripped off by the banks. Our government actually. They gave all our money to them!
Our government is connected to the Murdoch empire. Blair and the previous Labour government also.
I will, of course, carry on telling it like it is. But that is only possible if people have the right to speak out without being criminalised.
Some issues that have aroused my attention recently are at the forefront of controversial legal pressure. For instance, did you know that various ISP’s block access to you being able to access anonymous software? The recent spate of DdoS attacks have meant ISP’s are reluctant to allow their clients to access proxy circuits such as the onion router or privoxy by denying them access to the site to even download the program…. That would sound like censorship to me. They have dressed things up to say that this is a legal issue, but regular readers of my posts would have something to say about that I’m sure. The way things are looking at the moment, this could get messy.
Consequently, our rights to fully inquire and probe are being placed in check by this big scoop, this media frenzy, where politics are playing a big part in what people say – and therefore what we think. I’m not convinced that things are as they seem. Of course, the way this pantomime is playing out, we will probably eventually hear that the move for Murdoch to own BSkyb is blocked. An even more cynical thought is, what happens if the *other* news company which buys the Bskyb stock ends up being an even bigger instrument for the propaganda cartel? I would have thought this would be the wisest way for politics and big business to stay afloat.
What this highlights is that we need characters who are willing to stick their head over the parapet, like investigative journalists such as Pilger and the Private Eye writers. Even more fundamentally, we need the ‘source’ of information that Assange has provided, in order to shake up any sense of humanity, any sense of decency that is left in human society. Traditionally, we never heard the name of those who provided the proof (if so they were executed). This means (in this case) Assange really does need protecting. In him allowing us to see who he is, he has enabled us to humanise the person behind the wall. That wall is being torn down. We should fight to keep it up.
One other big barrier is the Espionage act and other legal mandates, left behind from the corrupt days of the Caesars, which powerful men today look at and go ‘yep’ (nodding their heads) ‘we’ll keep this – it might come in handy’. It’s time to fight for our rights to lay this to rest and save ourselves and those like Manning and Assange from a particularly nasty fate.