Journalistic Manipulation... since the Crimean War

I was listening to the person currently calling himself Prime Minister of Great Britain on the news a few days ago. In an attempt to distract the media and the public from his impressively demonstrated economic failures, he has taken that most traditional of routes - start a witch hunt.

I despise politicians who take such stances, and have ever since the time in my teens when the military junta in Argentina decided that the best way to distract their populace from their failures was a short victorious war... like invading the Falklands. The dislike only grew as I watched a series of Australian PM's distract a compliant media and cretinous public with such things as "no child shall live in poverty" during the last "recession we had to have"; followed by "great betrayals" and "republics" the next time the polls were bad, and "gun control" and "children overboard" the next time. A pox on all their houses.

It did make me reflect however, on the dangers of a media that can say "oh look, shiny things" whenever their political meal tickets start pulling irrelevant rabbits out of hats. The fact that the media can then whip up a frenzy amongst people who should know better is even more scary. (I still shudder to remember how the last time France exploded a test nuclear weapon at Muraroa Atoll, the Australian government led a chorus of media frenzy which had mindless mobs smashing the windows of French restaurants within weeks. A warning to any Nazi hater who thinks it could never happen here..)

It is not that newspapers themselves are evil ( despite the complaints of voter manipulation from many who do not understand basic concepts of supply and demand leading to a voice for any opinion big enough to pay). It is more a matter of modern journalists being so ignorant of the possible effects of playing with fire. Certainly those I have spoken to have been genuinely shocked to think that their fortnight long rants against someone who has not yet been proven guilty of anything, are leading to lynch mobs in the street. The 'ethics' components of any journalism courses I have looked at seem to have more to do with how not to be sued, than with handling media power judiciously. Don't they study their own history?

In the 1850's for instance, we get the first conflicts where modern telecommunications (meaning telegraph wires), allow journalists at the front to influence popular opinion at home to force politicians into things they are not very keen on doing.

The first 'modern' war correspondent were people like William Howard Russell, who now receives renown for revealing the truth about army conditions at the terrible Crimean Campaign, and for creating a cult of adulation for Florence Nightingale. (Actually the more interesting heroin of that campaign was Mary Seacole, who lacks the modern cred of Ms Nightingale, possibly because she was coloured.) Much is made of characters like Russell, but little is thought about their influence on the causes of wars.

The British government of the day was not remotely interested in being involved in a new European war against Russia. Unfortunately for them, unscrupulous journalists were ready to whip up public opinion to force them to it. What eventually happened was that the government was backed into a corner that required a guarantee of some sort to the Turks, who promptly sent their ragged fleet on a suicide run to be destroyed by the Russians. Result? The British Empire moves in to grant the 'decaying old man of Europe' another 6 decades of subsidised existence.

Oh there were other things going on as well. The most important of which was Napoleon III having a fit of grandious-ness: which meant that a bit of one-up-man-ship between France and Britain could also be played up in the press. Nonetheless the issue was one which should never have led to British involvement in a war. Certainly not a major international one, unless journalists were willing to drive a PR cart (or do I mean barrow?) through government policy.

Another great, if slightly later, example of journalistic integrity being the theory that the American William Randolph Hurst encouraged the Spanish-American War for the sole purpose of expanding newspaper sales.

It was bad enough when journalists were doing it on their own. It was appalling when newspaper magnates became convinced that they could influence their readerships, then national politics, and eventually international relations, by fiat. (See, for instance, Lord Beaverbrook in the lead up to World War Two.) But the nadir is reached when politicians realise that they can direct their fawning lackeys (many of whom are even more pathetic for their self deception that they are fearless investigators) down any blind alleys that suit them.

And so we get witch hunts. Enquiries into problems that everyone knows the answers to, but which are too politically sensitive to act on. (Like students learning to read, write, and behave like human beings). Committees to report on things beyond anyone's control. (Some of the more exotic fantasies of 'environmentalists' spring to mind.) Commissions into things that are the governments fault, but they think they can distract people into blaming someone else for. (Yes, I am thinking specifically of the Victorian Bushfire Commission, where they are not even looking at the state governments failure to follow through on what many previous commissions have told them needs to be done, while steering public attention towards convenient scapegoats who are also victims of the government's policies.) Or yet more reports on things that have had at least two or three reports already. (The PM fellow announced yet another inquiry into the Iraq war.)

Personally, I preferred it in the days when journalists tried to steer people themselves. There is enough variety in newspapers that most journalists are steering the self selecting group who read their particular rag exactly where their preconceptions want them to go... no real issue there. What I can't stand is that journalistic standards have gone so far down this path that they do not even seem aware, let alone interested, that they are putty in the hands of politicians. Do they not know? Do they not care? Is it policy? Is it 'keeping up with the net'? (Or is it an acknowledgement that they can't keep up with the net on news, so they will play shock-jock instead?)

The interesting thing is that the tactics of modern journalists are self defeating. Already there are debates on the collapse of 'quality journalism', simply because there is not the advertising revenue to support it. What the debaters are missing is that the modern media is not about quality journalism. If people want investigation, they go on line and do it. (Or try the new method of contracting online an investigator to look at it... enough people interested can buy a tailored investigation.) The rest of the consumer base only tunes in to have their opinions validated. (When organisations like the BBC, with it's massive resources, rarely bothers to run anything but party politicals on pre-determined lines - see anything on Israel for instance - then quality mass journalism is pretty well finished.) Falling revenues and falling standards become a fairly 'chicken or egg' argument.

What started as manipulating the news for the journalists own beliefs, became tailoring the news you report for your readership; which then becomes limiting what you report to what the readers want to hear about; which then becomes being manipulated into 'newsworthy' items by smart politicians (and others). In practical terms, this progression of 'journalism' seems a quite logical flow from the Crimea to Celebrity Big Brother.

It will be interesting to see whether the net does manage to come up with something well enough done to replace investigative journalism. Something has to.

Problems with Democracy

One of the debates in Britain during my working holiday seems to be a continuation of my earlier post about politicians distracting people with witch hunts. Specifically, Gordon Brown has followed the well trod path of trying to refocus voters onto a non-issue. This one is called 'democratising' the House of Lords.

The theory that democracy is good, all the time, regardless of the costs: is frankly scary. Even more scary is that the media and voters have fallen for this line enough to assume that it is a natural law, with no need for explanation or justification. The truth of course is vastly different.

One of the lead articles in British newspapers today discusses how the opposition in Iran is campaigning to have their recent election overthrown as a fake. I do not know whether this is true or not, though lots of informed people seem to be suggesting that it is (let us ignore motives for a minute). In that case, their argument is fair enough. And fair enough that the internatioinal media is supporting them, and the international community is putting on pressure. (Again I will put aside the many reasons that this might be seen as a convenient cause for the international community, and pretend that we might still be interested just on the basis of seeking justice.)

The problem with this is that 'we' feel the right to express outrage that the popular will is being ignored, despite the 'official' election results saying something different. In other words, we will reserve the right to assess election results to suit our own purposes... or so it seems if you move on a couple of pages in the papers...

THe Times Editorial is called 'No Banana Republic', and is pleased to support the international outcry against the Honduras military chasing President Zelaya out of the country. It gloats that Central and South America, previously annual competitors in the 'find yourself a new dictator' stakes, have had a fall off in the military imposed dictator business. (They claim that the last was in Guatamala in 1993, and that Honduras has been all of 20 years without one.) They are delighted that Spain and France have withdrawn their ambassadors, and that the EU has announced that it will have no contact with the 'post-coup' leaders. Once again, it all sounds fair enough... until you look at the details.

Apparently the reason the military felt 'forced' to chase Zelaya out had a bit more to do with him acting unconstitutionally than with a rush of blood to the military rulership lobe. Zelaya's plan to stand - illegally - for a second term, has been ruled unconstitutional by the countries highest court. When he tried to get around that with a 'referendum', the army refused to 'assist; at which point he tried to dismiss the chief of the army. When congress voted unanimously to remove Mr Zelaya for "apparent misconduct" and violation of the constitution, he ignored them. Only then did the army chase him out.

So let me get this straight. Popular opinion - that sacrosanct animal in Iran - is being ignored here? Or is it? The 'referendum' that Zelaya wanted would have been 'official enough'? Or wouldn't it? The fact that the army acted (only after having been attacked for failing to act un-constitutioinally), in support of the Congress (who had responded to a ruling from the courts that Zelaya was being un-constitutional), means that it is the army who is in the wrong? Or is it?

Are our media as stupid as our politicians?

Why does the excuse that someone once got enough votes to be elected, mean that they should be supported regardless of what they then do with or to their country? Hitler was elected. Mussolini was elected. Should we have been supporting Mussolini's regime against the evil move of the Italian Army - backed by the Italian King, Parliament, and even Fascist Council - to get rid of him?

A similar problem has occurred recently in the Pacific. I visited Fiji soon after the latest round of 'restore democracy' campaigns by the Australian and New Zealand governments. They too were outraged at (yet another) military takeover in Fiji, and appalled that the constitution was being 'rethought', and elections 'delayed'. And once again, that sounds fair enough... until you look a bit deeper.

First, the outraged democrats in the large and relatively stable Dominions - with their century long history of independance, backed by another half century or more of carefully trained apprentice democracy under British colonial supervision - don't seem to understand that some of the hastily 'freed' new nations of the post war period have trouble coping with a system where an un-practised, and largely illiterate electorate, have to make something as difficult as a Westminster democracy actually work. (They seem to have missed the fact that since independance it is ONLY the regular coups in Fiji that seem to lead to the next attempt at genuine democratic elections, rather than just straight out civil war.)

Second, the constitution that the military believe needs 'rethinking', can hardly be called 'democratic'. It is race based, both in intention, and result. (It was fascinating to watch the kind and charming Fijian's who ran our little island resort completely fail to notice the wife of one of the Australians staying there with us. Off course, she was that most evil of creatures, an Indian.)

Stop me if I am wrong, but don't I remember Apartheid being a 'bad' thing only a few years ago. Since when does 'one vote, one value' become irrelevant to so called 'democracy'. (Or am I just falling into the Yes Minister trap... "Yes but he's against persecution by black governments as well as white ones"... "You mean he's a racist?".)

Personally I believe that 're-instating' the 'old' Fijian constitution (which has now had more rethinks than the French Republic), is unlikely to be a victory for 'democracy'. I would not be willing to claim that I know the answer, but I am pretty sure I can spot the irrationality of my governments approach to 'realpolitik' in the Pacific.

To return to the Honduras, I think The Times should be a bit more cautious about their enthusiasm for the outrage of the 'Organisation of American States'. They do acknowledge that some of the South American leaders who have vowed to support Zelaya are hardly squeeky clean. (President Chavez of Ecuador seized power unconstitutionally, and when removed by an abortive coup, attempted to fiddle the constitution.. sound familiar?) However I think they overestimate the 'democracy' credentials of the entire organisation they are acclaiming in this case. (Surely if Ecuador and Argentina and Nicaragua and others are apparently threatening to re-impose Zelaya on his Congress and Courts by force, the entire concept becomes a bit farcical?)

A more recent comment on teh effects of the Yanks imposing a dictator back on teh country that exiled him is here.

Which brings us back nicely to the unrealistic fascination with 'democracy', that allows someone who has fought his way up through something as institutional, bureaucratic, and frankly tribal, as the UK Labour Party, to claim that he thinks the government system needs making more 'people friendly'.

I accept that ALL party lackeys want more control, and less restraint on their activities, when in government. I accept that they are confident that if they can get an elected upper house, they can make it just another extension of their self indulgent party structure. What I can't accept is that any voter, or even any journalist, could believe that this is a good thing.

A very good letter to the editor in the same issue of The Times sums this up fairly well. It points out that the present House of Lords is made up of a selection of the very best examples of "men and women of outstanding achievement and knowledge, who between them represent practically every area of human endeavour; be that medicine, scientific research, trade union affairs, and industry, to quote but a few". If you add in the charity-runners and entrepreneurs, the ex-judges and generals to this list; it is hard not to agree with his follow up statement that it is hard to imagine that we would be better served by replacing them with another group of professional politicians chosen by party committees.

(As an amusing aside, I have previously commented on the way the Blair government started offering 'Peerages for loans to the British Labour Party', and on how disastrous I thought that would be for the average Briton. I was amused to see on the news the other night that the body which approves new Lords is blocking Brown's latest lapdog appointment on the basis that he faces a law case which might demonstrate his 'unsuitability' for such a position of respect. Apparently he is accused of being sexist and offensive to female executives. Sounds a good excuse to me. I hope they get away with it. Can we apply it to certain Australian Prime Ministers who abuse Air Force hostesses?)

'Democratising' the house of Lords? Could we be forgiven for suspecting that this increase in 'democracy' might have the effect of giving us even less control of our politicians? Would we be paranoid to imagine that the politicians proposing it know exactly how much more control it will give them.... and remove from us? Hurray for democracy.

My own belief is that there is nothing worse than falling for the appalling concept that unfettered democracy is a good thing. (See my post: Australian Republicanism, in pursuit of a failed model?) A belief only reinforced by reading sanctimonious dribble about the internal affairs of countries that our politicians and media neither understand, nor really care about. The world is too complex a place for 'democracy at all costs' to be the default answer. Particularly when the people proclaiming such 'solutions' apparently don't really understand, or believe in, democracy.