medialens | The truth of corporate journalism, and the great irony of its
obsession with 'fake news', is that it is itself utterly fake. What
could be more obviously fake than the idea that Truth can be sold by billionaire-owned media dependent on billionaire-owned advertisers for maximised profit?
The 'mainstream' worldview is anything but – it is extreme, weird, a
product of corporate conformity and deference to power. As Norman Mailer
observed:
'There is an odour to any Press Headquarters that is unmistakeable... The unavoidable smell of flesh burning quietly and slowly in the service of a machine.' (Mailer, 'The Time Of Our Time', Little Brown, 1998, p.457)
A prime example of 'mainstream' extremism is the way the UK's illegal
wars destroying whole countries are not an issue for corporate
moralists. Physicians for Global Responsibility estimate
that 1.3 million people have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan alone. And yet it is simply understood that UK wars will not be
a theme during general elections (See here and here). By contrast, other kinds of 'inappropriate behaviour' are subject to intense scrutiny.
Consider the recent resignation of Defence Secretary Michael Fallon
and his replacement by Prime Minister Theresa May's Chief Whip, Gavin
Williamson. Fallon resigned after it was revealed that he had 'repeatedly touched the broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee at a dinner in 2002'.
Fallon was damaged further by revelations that he had lunged at journalist Jane Merrick:
'This was not a farewell peck on the cheek, but a direct lunge at my lips.'
The Commons leader Andrea Leadsom also disclosed that she had complained about 'lewd remarks' Fallon had made to her.
Sexual harassment is a serious issue, despite the scoffing of some male commentators. In the Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens shamefully dismissed women's complaints as mere 'squawking'.
But it is strange indeed that, while harassment is rightly deemed a
resigning offence, other 'inappropriate behaviour' leaves 'mainstream'
commentators completely unmoved.
medialens | If the human species survives long enough, future historians might well marvel at what passed for 'mainstream' media and politics in the early 21st century.
They will see that a UK Defence Secretary had to resign because of
serious allegations of sexual misconduct; or, as he put it
euphemistically, because he had 'fallen short'. But he did not have to resign because of the immense misery he had helped to inflict upon Yemen. Nor was he made to resign when he told MPs to stop criticising Saudi Arabia because that would be 'unhelpful'
while the UK government was trying to sell the human rights-abusing
extremist regime in Riyadh more fighter jets and weapons. After all, the
amount sold in the first half of 2017 was a mere £1.1 billion. (See our
recent media alert for more on this.) Right now, the UK is complicit
in a Saudi blockade of Yemen's ports and airspace, preventing the
delivery of vital medicine and food aid. 7.3 million Yemenis are already
on the brink of famine, and the World Food Programme has warned of the deaths of 150,000 malnourished children in the next few months.
Meanwhile, Robert Peston, ITV political editor, and Laura Kuenssberg,
BBC News political editor, have seemingly never questioned the British
Prime Minister Theresa May about the UK's shameful role in arming and
supporting Yemen's cruel tormentor. Nor have they responded when challenged about their own silence.
Future historians will also note that British newspapers, notably The Times and the 'left-leaning' Guardian,
published several sycophantic PR pieces for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman, 'a risk-taker with a zeal for reform'. 'Is he taking on too
much too fast?', asked a swooning Patrick Wintour, the Guardian's diplomatic editor. Martin Chulov, the paper's Middle East correspondent, waxed lyrical
about the Crown Prince's 'bold move' in arresting senior royals, a
prominent Saudi billionaire and scores of former ministers as part of a
'corruption purge'. The dramatic action was designed to 'consolidate
power' while bin Salman 'attempts to reform [the] kingdom's economy and
society'. As Adam Johnson noted in a media analysis piece for Fairness in Accuracy And Reporting, the Guardian's coverage was akin to a 'breathless press release.' A follow-up article
by Chulov, observed Johnson, 'took flattering coverage to new
extremes'. The 'rush to reform' was presented uncritically by the paper,
painting the Crown Prince as a kind of populist hero; 'a curious
framing that reeks more of PR than journalism.'
Meanwhile, Richard Spencer, Middle East editor of The Times, wrote articles proclaiming, 'Prince's bold vision drives progress in Saudi Arabia' and 'It's wrong to blame all terror on the Saudis', featuring such propaganda bullet points as:
