On the media

I have [had - see the PSs] just one news link for this post: 

• “Who will replace Ita at the ABC? You’re asking the wrong question”   “In 2023, you can’t talk about the problems of the world without talking about polarisation, disinformation and conflict. The media, far from being seen as a solution to those problems, is generally recognised as being part of them.”   https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/who-will-replace-ita-at-the-abc-you-re-asking-the-wrong-question-20230823-p5dyqq.html  
  

The included quote is a perfect encapsulation of the problems with media - but it is hopeful that it was published by a media outlet. 

PS - I can add another news link: 

• “The Great Australian Gaslighting”, by James Moylan on the Australian Independent Media Network   “The political thuggery has become overt. There has to be pushback, to not do so would be dangerous.”   https://theaimn.com/the-great-australian-gaslighting/  
  

PPS - and another: 

• “an editorial in [a conservative] newspaper which targeted the ABC journalist Louise Milligan was inaccurate, unfair, lacked balance, caused unnecessary distress and was not in the public interest, the Australian Press Council has found”   https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/05/the-australian-newspaper-editorial-louise-milligan-inaccurate-unfair-press-council-finding  
  

and also: 

• an interesting episode of Star Trek Voyager about brainwashing (“propaganda”, as it is mis-termed at one point in the show) / illusions - see here and here, which has a very powerful final line: “I wish it were as easy to stop hating as it was to start”;

I’d like to write here about a couple of interactions I have had with the media. Someone I knew back in the 80s and 90s was a journalist - and may well still be. He had done some excellent work, but he also was arrogant about being better than others and untouchable because of being a journalist - which is an arrogance found in many other professions that have (e.g., police) - or want (e.g., engineering) - such influence. 

He was also, at times, completely and utterly wrong. 

On the occasion I am thinking of, he claimed a lot of New Age groups were being set up so men could seduce women into leaving their husbands. I had a fair few contacts in that area at the time, so told him he was wrong, and why: the truth is, those women had come across caring, gentle men who were good, healthy, affirming company, and left the macho cismales they were with for healthier and happier relationships. (To be clear: all those groups I knew, and many of the people, also had profound problems, which is why I am no longer in that area.)

When the journo said he was basing this on someone he knew - a male acquaintance, I pointed out that many times people don’t know what relationships are like from the outside, and pointed out that journo’s circumstances as an example of change for the better (because of his new partner).

We later fell out because he - mistakenly - thought I was consciously thinking about transition and not telling him for many years: the truth was no, I was suppressing that for most of the years we knew each other in  an attempt to fit in with society’s dictates, but he wouldn’t accept that - which  was professional incompetence and arrogance on his part, and a fairly common denial of social conditioning.

He also had a tendency towards being macho, which was (a) a further barrier to me opening up about sensitive personal matters, and (b) a perfect example of the sort of problem I had explained to him in relation to New Age groups. 

On another interaction occasion, I was listening to a radio programme about malaria, and sent in a message about being told at uni that mosquitoes also could get malaria. The question was asked on air, but only after the presenter had been dismissive of my question - and thus me - as potentially incredibly stupid. The guest confirmed I was right, but no apology from the presenter. Given that, and the dismissiveness of that presenter over transphobia, I have had nothing to do with him (he is now retired) or the channel he was on (or interacting with any radio programmes - with one excellent exception).

Going back to the news links. I’ve written - with less eloquence and thus greater length - on the topic of the media, and the following is a bunch of those links: 

• “Media”; 
• “On the settlement between a media company and a tech company in the USA”; 
• “The coming global waves of hates ... and canaries in the mine”  (~930 words; 3 - 5 min. read) - and these people’s influence has been getting into the media, IMO; 
• “The moral abyss we're being herded in to by the media and political parties of the 1950s”; 
• “Emotional, psychological, social, intellectual, legal, and MORAL blindness to cruelty” (~1,800 words - 8 - 11 min. read) - which is, IMO, also apparent in some media people; 
• “Meritocracy, lack of bias, and other myths” (~2,400 words; 5 - 8 minute read) - which is, IMO, also apparent in some media; 
• “The evil of Edmund Bernays”; 
• “More on dealing with psychopaths in the workforce” - I doubt media corporations are exempt from this problem ... ;
• “Expertise and "rationality" vs. communication” - another problem that, IMO, is also apparent in some media people; 
• “Endemic, systemic racism in authorities” - which, I suggest, Stan Grant's recent actions show also happens in media; 
• “Australians' right to free speech”; 
• “Backlash and other thoughts” - which is about matters the media also need to reflect on; 
• “Accidental hate”; 
• “Katherine Graham’s autobiography: a brief review”; 
• “The Unprofessionalism of Australia's "Broadsheet" Media”.
  

 

Assumptions / basis 

In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following: 

• this blog states quite clearly that it is about political and human rights matters, including lived experience of problems, and thus I will assume readers are reasonable people who have noted the content warning in the post header;

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”; 
  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

 

If they are of any use of interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post. 

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.

Vote Yes for the Voice in Australia.  

Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.