Back to an Illiberal New World Order?

 

Back to an Illiberal New World Order? 

The harsh reality of political choices and the indeterminate harm from “unintended consequences” of those choices, is one might think, beginning to infest the dubious veracity of the strength of persuasion used to fool the many that did not have the intellect to discern the reliability of the assembled specifics applied to the requirements in deciding those choices taken. Many of which were taken purely as a means to an end of pretentiously gaining sovereign powers to be exercised by the elements of the educational privilege affluent steeped in the golden tarnished days of empire commonwealth and their deserved class distinctions with little regard for the sovereign or subjects. This has, in ones irrelevant opinion, moved to the opening pages of an additional chapter of the shape of things to come. Taking a very broad scope on the elements of the pressure that will bear on the shape of such things can raise a list of highlighted contenders, some very obvious and are currently prominent in ‘headline attracting’ terms and some not so striking as they reside in the 2nd and 3rd world or are not politically of value in 1st world priorities. For now one is not going to lay out a list of future shape forming issues (some already covered) or potential scenarios that could bring some into play, it serves no useful purpose to open speculation when others can have an equally valid view on the importance or not of what they may hold as essential influential issues that will play out into the future, although it could be an entertaining mind game to track them out and map them up for comparison if any.

However just as an indication of what sudden changes can occur from of obvious festering power points; out of the murky blue sky comes the event on 6th Jan 2021 in the USA the impending inauguration of the new President Biden and the storming invasion by Trumpian insurrectionist of Capitol Hill senate house played out to the worlds media. Superlative visual or verbal depiction offered by the media coverage, simply do not do justice to the astonishment of the occurrence inflicted onto the America psyche as a nation or the individually held assumptions that colour ‘the American dream’ and its assumed political global status position. One’s mind can stagger in bewilderment and run out of suitable descriptive or infuriating expletives and still not really convey the cultural and political abnormity of the event. As a challenge to the long standing partisan splintered representation that runs through the USA byzantine electoral democratic process, the event was aided by festering misleading claims that some states were attempting voting eligibility manipulations, (it does go on) and the claim that the outturn count was inaccurate. These legally defeated fabricated claims were used as an additional nudge force to validate rebellion action, irrationally encourage by Trump and then threaten the very stability of The US Constitution, (section 1) by force, (1). This may have been unthinkable as a likely event to rational people, yet it happened.

That an overthrow of the election result was avoided may have been pure unscripted period luck which potentially saved it from internecine catatonic civil war. However the shock of seeing how easy it was to attempt such takeover, the scramble to save Senators lives, the rampant destruction in the building and the killing of 2 people with the incidental death of 3 others was enough to astound stupidity into action, all played out for the world to see. As a nation that prides itself as being the leading nation of the world, a beacon of democratic processional unity, under one flag; collides with the passing of the Trumpian years which has done irrepressible damage, that can only be honestly seen as the causal influence leading to the assaulting affront on the nations self respect. Many leaders of countries around the world must have stood open mouthed at the spectacle and even those countries whose leaders would have had some merriment in the sight, were vocally circumspect. What is interesting during the build up to the USA capitol hill pandemonium, substantially caused by the failing egocentric president leader, looked on by other foreign country leaders, knowing how irrational the Trump person is and not knowing how events might unfold; is neither Russia, China or Iran made any move to immediate make military political play, out of the ordinary, to a military offensive defensive positions, so it is just as well that the event was short lived. And one may think like many others, that the roots and stem of this event will outlive the spectacular day that could so easily been considerably worse, perhaps; had it not been for the reverence in which The Constitution is held and the fact that the USA is a glorious (intemperate) gun culture. Sense just prevailed and no one was willing to move down that rabbit hole. Read all about it eventually and maybe see the film.

But really was it not unexpected?  It would be unwise to assume that the dissent that formulated the attack on Capitol Hill has abated; sure for the moment control has been reset with the begrudged inauguration of President Biden and his more rational balanced considered style to impress onto the new administration. But one can already see that certain parties will not be willing to make it an easy ride for him or his policy agendas. However one thing may be clear to all politicians, republicans especially, something has gone terribly wrong with the theoretical ‘American Dream’ (2), too many do not have it and the numbers are growing. What they have is an altogether anarchic dream ample fed by their own living reality that bears little comparison with the exterior facade that is wrapped around the American Flag of Main Street, Wall Street to Capitol Hill. In all practical reality, The American Dream, for the many, has never existed but it has been immensely useful to sustain the idea of it within the Flag, by those that do hold it close and have the life style to fly it in comfort. Yet its use is also as a barricade, how-ever the flag of The American dream is portrayed it is apparent that with analysis of the decades of the various social, economic, distribution of prosperity matrixes, that the dream has become threadbare with time. The unrequited problems of its shabby facade behind the matrixes problems, is a metaphor for the ‘American Dream’ and its ignominious fall illustrated on the January 6^th 2021 had no doubt a long gestation period amply aided this pass (five?) decades by guided political mendacity and imbedded helpful media, with in the Trumpian term, the idiocy of a few people suckering up to the sociopath the people put in place and in that act alone it does inform its own accommodating narrative. 

Perhaps one is attaching too much significance to the event and being too critical of the uncared for processes one assumes has led up to it occurring, after all it was a short media full event and the corrective follow-up to seek public image / political / legal redress, is under way. This hopefully curative action is important for in this the attachment people have to the American Flag and what it is stands for is seriously iconic which augment the American Dream. Thereby may be a problem; what is the American Dream? The definition is syntax vague but generally comes in the lines of: - ‘being a national philosophy of the United States, with ideals in which freedom gives the opportunity for prosperity and success, offering such for upwards social mobility for all to attain it, via hard work, their dream, without barriers. The conviction is that anyone, disregarding no one, from whatever social position, background, class or where they were born can attain their own version of success in a society in which upward mobility is feasible, not to say desirable’. There are slight interpretations to attack this description one has given but there is little doubt as to the uplifting intension yet it is not consolidated specifically, unambiguously and clearly in congressional / constitutional law! One would offer that due to this (unchallenged oversight) there is an ambiguity that runs through all delineation of describing the American Dream, it is the unspoken and shielded interpretation that has come to resides behind the Flag and with it the dream; the onus principle is entirely on the individual to achieve their own dream to upward mobility and the state nor others need not do anything to help - every wo/man is for themselves. It is, in practice, an ideological corruption of The Dream held firm in the all encompassing or boundless term of “Freedom”, in which it is taken by many people in the US, the government or states, it should in no way interfere. So by extensions there are individual’s freedoms to choose how they live, social groups freedom to choose what they do, business freedom to act to their needs, society freedom to develop as it needs all free of perceived restrictive controls etc. This may be making an undue literal account with the ideal of the American Dream and its merging in with the Flag, for it may be reasonably thought that the idea(s) of the American Dream are clear and well understood and being ‘patriotic’ standing with the national icon is the bedrock of being American, for the dream (such as it is) is enshrined in the three documents comprising the “Charters of Freedom”:- Declaration of Independence, which declares that "all men are created equal" with the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." and also in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (2) endorses similar freedom, in the Constitutions opening statement: to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

One may justifiable indicate that in the time these words were written, however lofty the nature of intent, they were words used within a different constraint requirement and a specific sense of place meaning, unaware (obviously?) of the shape and direction of the future Union and is perhaps no longer useably applicable to the modern USA; or in the scribing of them it was a short deliberate concise choice of words, meaning no more than what they said for those that ascribed to the construction of it but in this context the implication of them may have also been meant to stand a test of time and events. Perhaps they were astute to prescience in the construction of the wordings used in the Constitution and DoI, foreseeing the interpretation adjustments that might be applied overtime to lessen their intentions and weaken the democratic demands of the people’s supremacy over all. And in this the right to “bear arms” might have been intended to be the ultimate security of the democratic process against an imposition of any sovereign, dictator, perverted legislative process, or any form of presumptuous administration of the executive overriding the will of the people. However nothing is to last forever and one might note that in the phrase “all men are created equal” has no reference to women or implied pseudo gender alternatives, the implicating being it applied just to men and intended to progress with that indicative. Is it any wonder it has taken so unresolved long for wo/men to take their own equality place? Nevertheless attaching nuanced meaning or interpretation since those words were written and the extracted implications of them, has formed over the last fifty decades, ideals of the USA morphing into the Flag of the American Dream. And throughout that time to the modern economic progressive era of the 21st century, additional and different rationale has inevitable been attached to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, codifying / clarifying / expanding (?) their importance in the development of the nations identity with and by the shifts of society, business and administrative influencing powers. These shifts have not all been beneficial; in a perverse way reinforcing the singular individualistic idea in which “all men are born equal” but to only be as they are, nurtured into their acquired place but perhaps holding within themselves hazy unrequited (demonstrable?) aspirations. That is as far as the American Dream goes leading to Trumps potent election sales pitch deal, delusion for the dreamers and the permissive rallying abuses with the culmination of the use of the not new powerful entrapment phrase “American First”. (3)

So the American Dream with the power of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution gives individuals ‘Freedom’ to do their best for themselves, if they work hard. The rewards of: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." for their “Posterity” offers potential wealth / riches as something everyone can obtain as “all (wo)men are created equal” All of this may have been a reasonable prescription for civil encouragement in just aspiration terms, it is though the foundation ideal of the American Dream. Due to this dreamy ideal it carried enormous expectations acting as soporific faith to everyday reality, disguising what could be actually individually achieved. For some this faithful opportunistic reliance in the American Dream may have been enough to live by, if it was not for the fact that it has become a material fabrication shown up in the exposed division of the wealth and health of the nation. The administrative state, business structures, power lobbies, bought Politian’s, wealth caucuses, racial isolation, deviant partisan attitudes and an economic systems dysfunction that has been allowed to develop, has made it impossible for the majority of the people now to obtain any Dream of “upward mobility”. If the fine words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which helped form the ideals of the American Dream were really meant and forcefully implemented with good purpose, lifting the majorities in “equality, justice and democracy” of life; the January event might not have happened.

Expecting the majority to continue to believe in the “Charters of Freedom” the inviolability of the state and its social, corporate and economic institutions, while having allowed over time, the putting in place of frustrating systemic obstacles to give supremacy to the corporate, economic and state over “We the People” intrinsically disbars the dream of affluent mobility achievement; it is an anomic situation.  This dysfunctional of administrative powers, political deviant partisan ideologies and complex inequalities, does not support the American Dream. In some way the intentions of the “Charters of Freedom” have been usurped by the infiltration and evident integration of an economic imperatives in generating wealth, such extracted and appropriated into the hands of a few (corporate and individuals) ultimately directing, with that financial power, the administration of democracy in States for their own needs over the provisos of creating “equality, justice and democracy” for genuine aspirational mobility of the people with the American Dream. Perhaps with this deceit there is a call for the overthrow of invidious government when it might be suggested that were the peoples grievance are not heard the “Charters of Freedom” does call upon them to challenge the Senate – Capital Hill; for the Dream is not being satisfied. See extract from D.o.I. (4). It’s unravelling therefore only required vicarious contentions to be amply massaged by a fêted psychopath or sociopath, to be given opportunity, unchallenged, and events do happen. Unsurprising in a god totting country?

Although one has started this with the first interesting event of 2021as the most striking, it did in peculiar way give an example of how some events can happen fast, albeit that there is often a slow simmering overlooked build up and the potential of the spectacle was one that is not lost on others; residing perhaps in obvious rogue countries that have their own dissenters, tackling the corruption of authorities and militarised administrations, that will be encouraged to not have the same takeover challenge occur, so will keep up oppression. In all likelihood eventually and inevitably, leading to destructive implosions. For others to assume as well that similar cannot happen elsewhere in partial democratic countries when there are analogous pressure causes comparable with the US; seen with:- the civil society abuses and deliberate tension being created between identified class /racial/ religious factions, querying judicial impartiality, criminalising protest and the rising uncared-for inequalities, increasing unemployment (skilled invalidated deemed unemployable), and the evisceration of good employment prospects for the anxious youth, while the financial leeching edifices and those controlling them extract greater wealth from the civil/society body, for themselves; is symptomatic that an event “shock to the system” can and will happen.

Slowly corralling enough people into an invidious life style by neglect, expropriating lawful or assumed rights and doing nothing to correct mal administration is often concealed by increasing administrative control of forces under the guise of protecting the people which has nothing to do with the defending the people, it is all about retaining power for the deserving executive cadre against the forces of change, for to accept change would require a just systemic realignment of where power and wealth lies. Despite the clear, obvious disturbing trends, this is too much of a possible paradigm absolute for established influences to willingly adapt so dictatorial action become easily appealing. To nail this indication in further, one does not have to look too far to illuminate the shape of such things to come. Consider what the UK government (a voluntary dictatorship) did and is still doing: the illegal proroguing of parliament (5) aided by the ‘sovereign’, the Queen; (who by common public opinion is held in historic respect?), did absolutely nothing to object! Also in the intent, to breaking an agreed international law re N. Ireland and endangering the ‘Good Friday’ agreement. Bypassing parliament scrutiny numerous times enacting restraining laws under the aegis of Covid, cronyism largess and in the process hiding the treasury own researched implication of Brexit impact problems all with no effective Parliament in situ to provide scrutiny and extract accountability on  the government. It consistently ignores all the past evidence of festering inequality in the civil, social infrastructures of the country, for one might see that ‘something’ is rotten. One need only look to other countries as well, those of pretence democracy: Poland, Hungary, France, Spain, Italy, Spain, Greece and others to see the shape of divisions moving against cosseted power held assumptions and against the evidential rising mainstream held in social / economic disenfranchisement; so don’t think a ‘6^th of Jan’ could not happen, it already started and it does lead inevitably to.....

For the moment little england is still fighting the pandemic, and like other countries, it’s affect is being counted in lives, lost jobs, some unlikely to be reclaimed, cash and the long term new intrinsic damage; all of which one need not spend too much time on as it has been adequately covered, other than to posit, it is all not going away, it has already been accepted that the rate of mutation will required constant adjustment of a vaccine and it will have to be rolled out every year to those of an vulnerability age until the virus hopefully degenerates to acceptable low level of virility or herd immunity is gained. And the cost, well no one is worried about the magic money tree anymore as Wilkins Micawbers’ economics is held in abeyance for “something will turn up” and well it might but perchance not as desired. 

So not only having to contend with the above, the sovereign year has hardly stuttered into February when the problems of BoJo’s deal starts to play out. Who first is out off the starting blocks comes the that small minority engage in the fishing industry finding that the new documented requirement to meet the terms of trade with the EU means they cannot sell any fished products into the EU. The EU is applying as it always said it would, rules effective as a 3^rd country status requiring proof of origin and quality controls on imports. Effectively proving such fit for human consumption leading to transit delays, losses and EU market share. Administrative requirements are time consuming and costly to do and is raising the price of ‘exported’ fish. Well who would have known that?

Next up are is the farm industry, faced with a similar problem which is especial difficult for small dairy products producers, finding valuable European markets shrinking by the day, for similar landing export cost increase reason. Again who would have known that?

Then there are all the unsung small businesses (which provide most employment!) that exist, some have built up and have relied on selling into the EU market a range of manufactured goods, not only finding the administrative process expensive and onerous in meeting, with documented proof, all the import ‘proof of origin’ standards of the EU but it is also making their exported produce more expensive to buy, losing valuable customer base. Did anyone know this would happen?

In addition problems are coming to light with goods purchases from the EU being hit with new tax customs duty adding some 30% to a UK (internet) buyers, with goods being rejected, returned and EU business then unwilling to sell into the UK. Did no one know how trade and tariffs operated before the EEC/EU?

Of course all these trading issues are just minor teething problems, the government ministers say, as they are aware of the problems, which they will sort out; in the meanwhile their official advice is to establish a business base with the EU! How can these created impediments be good for the sovereign UK?

This is on par with the government’s frightful ignorance of the London City financial relocation arrangement due to unresolved “Passport” agreement with the EU, thinking it will have little effect on the tax take from the city. One may make a gamble that if any Brexit popinjay minister et al is not worried yet with the uk solvency, they will be within 4 years time.

And but not finally, the nonexistent boarders between N. Ireland and uk is becoming risky and ‘Troubles’- some, as indeed is the porous non border between Eire (in the EU) and N. Ireland  (not in the EU but retains single  market status) that allows goods to move to and from NI to the ROI and the rest of the EU without customs checks (not the uk) and there will be new border check and tariffs on goods moving between NI and the uk and those that flow between the uk and the EU. It is a fraught convoluting mess but which will aid the breakup of the union, given that N Ireland like Scotland rejected Brexit. Who would have known that?

It is comical to note that supportive Brexiteer put all this down to the euphemism “teething problems”, not much to worry about, and as BoJo said “fuck businesses”, they take the relaxed view that businesses will adapt to the new administrative arrangements required to trade with the UKs largest market the EU and N. Ireland / uk borders issues. Now that the government has a majority it does not need the N. Ireland DUP support; so no need to fret about the province, trade will carry on! As is becoming clear, just as in the creeping impacts of Brexit and as in the pandemic ruin, many companies will not be in business, unable to carry overhead cost, absorb new trade cost, having little cash reserves and running out of customers; many simply will not adapt as their market outlet is extinguished. Who knew that?

The Brexiteer are also now progressing to blame ‘Remainers’, moaning about problems beginning to unfold and this of course is also aimed at all those businesses small and large that now realise the additional cost, delays and losses they are to suffer causing their own whinging problems. It is a remorseful state of affairs, the Brexiteer may have been able to pull off the swindle of the century to gain their sovereignty while covering over the Brexit cost of a range of (anticipated) businesses support to be financed via increase debt and PSBR but the fragility of the whole of the personal, social and business reserve resources, exposed through the pandemic and the bank breaking cost has, and should make them think WTF have we done. So they cast around to censure any that point to problems with the implementation of BoJo’s deal while they themselves find it more difficult to defend it or convince of the benefits of ‘sovereignty, getting our borders back, rolling back immigration and global world beating trade’ etc.   

Although one has picked on the above two unfolding 2021 scenarios in two closely aligned politically rightist countries that have had the most recent exposure, what one can see is cultures under social and administrative culminating stress. Similar stress point can be picked up in other 1st world countries focused in the divergence of ideals that highlight the increasing social discomfort being experience by people locked into a degrading economic / quality of life stratification, exacerbated by age, employment, health, ethnicity, available opportunities, gender or less so, lacking religious emancipation. More people are not happy, frustrated, angry, fed up or apathetically disinterested in the directional fate of their country. Such fracturing stress may be containable within repressive nation states, of which there are many, of the likes of China, Russia, Turkey, Egypt, UAE (some European) etc and forceful control may be appealing for a while as it seems to offer stability for corrupted administrations, however long survivability of it depends on what financial availability there is for use to extend and strengthen a base for all supportive civilian infrastructures. Disregarding the requirement of providing for a healthy civil base and ignoring the caustic pressures, which become self evident with overall degradations; chaotic events increase. It is very difficult for those countries that do not have a functioning free legal system with a robust written constitution, for people to appeal too, which suits countries with despotic tendencies; the only recourse is for self help. Occasionally there are moment of unified actions were people pull together to tackle injustice or the weakened amalgamated social networks exposed by increased reliance on charities but in the main in a psychological sense it is every wo/man for themselves. Much of the divisive cultural stress which is visible in all countries and is obviously demonstrated by the above country examples is accepted, as being expected, for they are variable tyrannical in nature and the people have little remedial capacity, no robust free lawful administration structure, constitutional base or civil control over militarised force and have to wait for events to overtake rigidity.

The same cannot be said of pretence democracies, cultural stress is due to the breakdown of the reactive democratic process, often fragmented to partisan positions and they have an aversion to recognising what the issue are and taking steps to solve them, if solution may (detrimentally?) challenge their supportive base. For such, no government wants to willingly correct the inadequacies of representation, no government wants to willingly hand more power the people to choose. No government wants to willingly reign in the excesses of the economic and financial sectors, extracting immoral inequitable proceeds leeched from their providing populaces cultivated economy. No government actively fosters the development of administrative democracy. All governments continue to assume that they have the invariable right to know what the people want, without asking, reliant on the weakness of the elective process as authority to abuse governance and specifically those without a written constitution. It can be a mark of approaching systems collapse when governments start to enact powers that start to restrict peoples demonstrating ‘right to object’ on anything, noticeable in pretence democracies. Without robust effective measures to retain, improve and strengthen the democratic processes, it cannot be taken as an established order that will endure, as uniquely and timely expressed by President Biden (6). In incremental stages, all politicians, not intrinsically endowed for retaining good altruistic ideals, find it difficult to fight for what is fundamentally right for the majority being faced with cultural stress. They are captured within a partisan sphere; a bubble that shields them from personal responsibility to take actions which they know will impede their career and are therefore more inclined to acquiesce to demands to follow “a party line” established by the controlling powers. Any governmental injustices that have increased social stress are perhaps able to be fought against via legal redress, if it is freely available however where there is the ability for the state to confound and threaten the legislature, defy / break laws, suppress facts and truth, and have no concise written constitution for plaintiffs to call on (has happens in the UK) it is an indication that for such governments, if they are frustrated in their writs and defeated by legitimate means; rule by autocracy is an attractive endeavour to foster. Thereby beware.

Does any of the above matter, probable not, some events are a nuisance often unforeseen and create new dilemmas to deal with which tend to inundate what may have been thought as the problems of the day but occasionally they do either wholly expose the fundamental issues that might have given rise to an event and offer opportunity to redress them or as is more likely diaphanously avoid shifting political policy ground too much to implement remedial actions. There is ample evidence that arbitrary reductive political decision have allowed inequalities to expand and done nothing of substantial substance to control the festering cause. For many who choose to ignore the stealthy degradation within the society they live in, it may be enough to reside in peace and adequate comfort, blissfully oblivious. Unfortunately ignorance solves little when the symptoms of the problems manifest within and on civil structural short comings, for all too readily see. Even though these issues are not easily resolved being set in the continuance of the extant ‘status-quo’ in all power influencing systems that gives effective and practical control to the few over the majority, change has to occur for natural terrestrial dynamics will demand it. If change is not voluntary, events can stipulate a populace to suffer painful hardships and after enough blood is spilt following an influential (popular?) charismatic, a new structural paradigm is possible. Is it to be worse before it gets better though? It does not have to be this way but it is the usual human way.

Anyway by the time any of this matters, one will have gone home.

  © Renot

     212211703

 (1) www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 (2) www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration.

 (2) www.archives.gov/founding-docs/billof rights

 (3) Sarah Churchwell’s book: Behold, America. American Dream.

 (4) Declaration of Independence. Extract:-

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-"

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

(5) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9006/

(6) The US President Biden said, in a live streamed speech to G7/Munich Security Council on 19.2.21

      Neither he nor Europe’s leaders could take democracy for granted.

“In so many places, including Europe and the United States, democratic progress is under assault,” Biden said. “Historians are going to examine and write about this moment as an inflection point and I believe with every ounce of my being that democracy will and must prevail”. “That, in my view, is our galvanizing mission.” “Democracy doesn’t happen by accident. We have to defend it, fight for it, strengthen it, renew it.” “We have to prove that our model isn’t a relic of history”.

 

Problematic Information Media

 Problematic Information Media

In this age of overload ‘news’ outlets, it has become very difficult to believe all that one reads, hears, sees or has passed into conscious awareness via un-chosen influences, all due to the vast array of media mechanism straining to get out their particular slant on; what might be placed under the banner of world affairs but more generally concentrated within each country based on localism, preferential newsworthiness, inclined  with direct or indirect financial leverage (pecuniary gain, advertising, patronage etc) whether truthful , discrete or of overt bias attached to ‘public interest’ news and it increasingly regrettably converge with the stealthy rise of created misinformation, outright lies and fake news. 

The ‘traditional’ media outlet routes, papers, radio and TV have had to contend, in some cases match, the arrival of instant news afforded by the electronic platforms, Emedia, taken up by the ubiquitous electronic-gadgets accessing ‘web’ site offerings and pushed out at an increasing coverage rate. The means of origination of such news is via individual / groups with popularised self projected apparent realistic information of opaque truth, gossiped reports, heresy or inventive substitution onto notable ‘true’ news with some affectively  morphing into fact-less opinionated or bogus ‘fabulously’ (as in fable) believable narrative ‘news’. And unfortunately when designed to be of radicalised influence, the speed at which such cant can be disseminated around the world outstrips the mainline news providers and can become entrenched by some recipients as real vehemence information.

The traditional media outlets have an assumed representational position to maintain, one that leans on being accurate, truthful, reasonably comprehensive though forced to be concise in some reporting (dependent on the medium used) and yet can allow some news it reports to displays partisan preferences predisposed by who resources them (not immediately obvious) and who their audience target is. It has to be said that they are all careful to foster believability in the lines taken in covering newsworthy items, it takes time to gather the relevant information, source qualify it before broadcast / publication and generally they do not indulge in creating speciousness. This of course only applies to those countries with free press and broadcasters not shackled with dictatorially controlled governments and unfortunately the list of countries that do force control over media outputs (e.g. Russia + eastern bloc satellites, China, Arabian states, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, etc) is getting longer but also is a comparable one of ‘wanabees’, those of frustrating assumed democracies using covert, overt and with helpful complicit actor means, to secure favoured coverage(e.g. Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, USA, Italy,). Although all democratic governments do like to influence media, sometimes directly if a reported item really irritates against the governments preferred script, (undisclosed briefings, damaging official papers, unofficial leaks) dissuasion from release can often be by unspoken ‘understandings’, or by implication of potential action sometimes (as amply used in the UK with financial repression on the BBC) or with the official secret suppression stamp or ignoring their own Freedom of Information Acts (in UK 2000) that should give the public access to requested information. But as Blair, of the UK government admitted, it was one of the worse bits of legislation they passed and regretted doing it, however governments since, with many others, have been choking it off.

Sweden had the first FOI Act in 1766 (1) giving access to its populace on the comprehensive range of government documents under the basis of the people’s ‘right to know’. The principle of FOI has slowly been copied by other countries and covers the reporting press in whatever form, the ability to access and make openly public what is being done by governments, in the public’s name. Sweden’s FOI is unique in its coverage, the starting proposition is, nothing is secret unless it can be shown, clearly, that the release of some information will be damaging / dangerous to the state of the people; showing such danger or withholding information is difficult and testing to do.  Many western democratic countries have adopted some form of FOI that falls behind Sweden’s example, In all other cases it is limited with deliberate caveats to shutout a ‘right to know’ with opaque explanations if any, on the reason why information is denied public access for release. The freedom of the press/media/broadcaster to inform the public is Not as Free as may be assumed. There are maybe only two countries (USA FOIA 1966 + Constitution and Sweden) that protects by strong statute press freedom, in all others it is tolerated on the basis it reports with favourable reasonably accuracy until it transgresses to enact unwanted government, corporate or individual embarrassment; legal or otherwise. If and when they do discomfort government or individuals, there are mechanisms that can be brought to bear onto news dissemination that it would not want to have out-with the “public interest” (super/injunction/official secret?) or judicially otherwise seeking correction for injurious publications. For instance, public complaints stemming from slanderous / libellous accusations can be taken against the broadcaster /publisher / individual, assuming there is financial resources of the offended person to press for recompense and the offending accuser has resources to be attacked by those injured. In less serious cases, say were an item of broadcast/ publication is taken as being erroneous, that complainer can seek some redress via the Independent Press Standards’ Organisation (IPSO) or the Office of Communications (OfCOM) in the UK, though both have difficulty in being effective in getting corrective action in some cases; they are not completely independent. For individuals to defend against unwanted media attention requires large financial resources not available to the wider population, if perhaps unwittingly and unnecessarily they are caught up with being ‘in the public interest’ apart from the above there is little they can do but as it is generally those individuals or government that keenly court for public attention, it is them that often become justifiable targets of interest.

 In some cases it is apparent that reporters and journalists do not always get their facts right, in the competitive field to be the first to push out a ‘story’ mistakes do occur and when obvious ones arise, having been pointed out, they will make corrections but what is more noticeable to those that might be observant over the past 20 years is they do not always report accurately what has actually happened or has been said.  For in order to ‘jazz’ up a story they will change the depiction of the event with unrelated ‘footage’ or adjust the sense of an actual spoken meaning, changing the connotation of the news item by injecting different verb / adjectives etc terms that were not of the original. This adjustment is sometimes at the behest of the indicative culture of an organisation that pays them for their labour generating a ‘slight’ prejudicial bent in reporting. Often by looking at various new items on the same issues this stands out and could be put down to selective interpretation which may not matter to the casual news watcher/ reader but it does point to a more serious development and one might suggest that this has become worse; for with the recent drive to be ostentatiously balanced in the presentation of media output of stories, it has offered a platform for entirely different views contrary to known facts and accepted realty.  They have fallen into a trap of being seen as complicit providers unable to seriously challenge palpable inaccuracies that deviate from being just an opinion, odious or not, to helping disseminate formulated fabricated news constructed from actual newsworthy items overlaid with blatant falsity or misrepresentation, generating suspicion of what is true in newsworthy items. Not a comprehensive examples; but the distrust generated this past year with the rolling out of the antivirus injections to fight Covid19 has seen a remarkable willingness for some people to take on a range of unreasonable attitudes against getting some measure of safety from being infected. This can be matched up with what is prominent in the USA, the anti-vaxers and the Trumpism antics lauded by some journalists on some media platforms of both countries, can only be an inane leave of common sense somewhat similar to the stance taken on the promotion of environment ‘climate-deniers’ all in the face of proven observable tested fact. Some journalist and reports with a public platform have clearly become guilty of misrepresentation, indolent on accuracy, dissemble fact and unwilling to challenge proffered falsity: who pays the piper....    

Old style journalist and reporters are having a difficult time adapting to the new avalanche of newsworthy choices, especially if their alleged professional independence is dependent, limited to what can be said or covered. How is one to get good truthful, independent, dependable information against the barrage of Emedia? Not sure if it helps to make a stab at the characteristic on the idea of what reporters and journalist do but in simple terms: Reporters, using an oxford dictionary definition are those people that “are employed to gather and report news for newspapers or broadcast”. And journalists “are persons employed to write for journals or newspaper”.  These are too simplistic descriptions in today’s cut and thrust of covering news in its wide presentation styles, so maybe one can elaborate a little in an attempt to identify what their responsibly might be expected to be.

Reporters try to inform the public about events. They are given the job of delivering a script on a subject handed to them which has been created by a producer, fact checked by research team and the reporter adds a personality in delivery of the news report. Occasionally a reporter may have to interview a person to extract a pertinent perspective to add into a report, acting like a journalist. In the fast live delivery, the reporter will need to be able to adapt effectively to delivering a reports, as in the case of a breakdown, sudden additionality or instantly pulling a story off for an alternative infill. The assumption is the reporter is not wholly responsible for the content of the report or accuracy but being on the presentational front they are taken to be responsible, so what they give out ought to be truthful.

Journalist may also work as reporters but they also can collect information on single or specialised fields and draw up their own story to be delivered. Generally they will carry out research, gather facts, assess truthful content, interview with skilful probing question to draw out relevancies or challenge deviousness in responses. When required put pressure on a subject to extract answers to questions that the interviewed would rather not respond too and overall ensure their news story is based on factual researched evidence, not spurious, gossip or falsehoods. Investigative journalism is demanding and a good journalism relies on gaining a reputation for honest integrity with, if need be, a balanced opinion that may not sit well with any party mention in a story. They are in a unique position to represent a public unable to challenge people and businesses in power positions and have to gain public trust in their deliver of a story. 

They both have to have a certain presentational style or creativity in delivering content and face the same difficulty in presenting coherent news, in a fast time frame. On slow written media, an investigative report can be much more comprehensive but requires that as a conclusion to the article it may have  to be given as a compression of facts yet still try to retain a readers  comprehension to appreciate the essence of what is being reported on.

All the methods of the dissemination of news broadcast compiled into reports etc.  may have overlaid similarities based on the strap line headline grabber or be extended to account for the way the new media foundation has developed and expanded, however the main premise is that good news or whatever may pass as broadcast material is pushed out to an assumed specific or general consuming public with the aim; to inform. In this there is an assumption that the presentation of reports by reporters and journalist do have responsibilities to lay out truthful details relating to the facts within a report and some may offer a nuanced interpretation to perhaps simplify complex conditions to a story line. In the main the ability to be an honest broker with delivering scripted rehearsed reports is perhaps a sincere position to be in but with roving journalist / reporters acting maybe in real time, what they also have is responsibility to is whatever occurs in or after the presentation of reports when such do not adequately offer a truthful view but one (deliberately?) skewered to a personal / corporate / politicised agenda and in some high risk situation outing a truth can be problematic for the journalist, broadcaster or paper in all countries.

For those involved in investigative news, of late it has become deadly dangerous to engage in unwanted political exposés (e.g. Russia, N. Ireland, China, Cypress, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc) as some journalist are being intentionally killed. This of course is a problem for those involved and specifically identified, being on the ground. In the old main stream news world as a person of irritation they are therefore likely to be subject to escalating harassment and such does hinder or stop great investigative journalism as it takes time to accumulate relevant facts to support a good narrative of an exposé. A dramatic report might be one that is a credible newsbreak yet it may be sometimes difficult under a broadcast / publishing time constraint to get it out with good qualitative substance but as is fast becoming a growing topic of government concern, competition for truthful reporting is under pressure in the speed and spread of electronic media outputs which is potentially more invasive, lacks verified veracity, with faster insertion into public ‘acceptability’ and far greater global coverage. It also carries less personally identified risk to out inconvenient truths or lies. Emedia is used for ‘suggested’ iniquitous electronic ‘news’ outputs by the use of corporate behemoth platforms for some organised factions and individuals plying as reports / journalist untroubled by accuracy, designed to dissemble or confuse veracity of prominent ‘news’ with artifice of an alternative reality to construct believable counterfeited news. The powers behind troublesome factions are often difficult to identify be they financing individuals or state sponsored; the penetration allowed by the use of global platforms into the Emedia world and the receptive coverage that it has must be considered an unrestrained menace to the (continuous?) satisfactory truth / openness within and for a democratic society.  

Compared to the established old media providers, the advent of multimedia platforms not associated with the mainstream providers papers / broadcasts, there is, in effect, apart from republished news outputs picked up and used by the Emedia platforms, no real quality measures attached to the outpourings of ‘independent’ players using such platforms. No restriction or penalty on the instigators content or platforms used; such platforms have always argued that they are not publishers and therefore not responsible for what goes onto their platforms. With this dubious rational they get considerably substantial greater freedom than old established providers. However by volume of recipients, as Emedia has now become the dominate main media that clearly has superseded traditional formats that many more people have access to, this privilege irresponsibility should and is going to change driven by rise of propagated antisocial extremism, spurious content, cultish indoctrination promulgating conflicts and the selective attack on free speech against irrefutable evidential truths on and in a range substantive subjects like medicine, education, social to scientific endeavours etc.

The freedom of trustworthy press in its established forms is an essential bulwark for the continuance of democratic systems to offer testimony to events, quiz organisations and people in power, on behalf of the public but it is under threat.

For journalist to work they have to develop networks of contacts, with whom they can interview and the interviewed to be willing to participate in such interviews / discussion. This means there has to be engendered a degree of trust, trust based on known questions and how any answers are recorded / pass for dissemination to an audience. In addition a number of closeted informants are also required to gain an “insider” view; one not generally reported publically but might be referred to as “it is being said” by an unnamed source etc. This tack is often used by journalist having made statements that seems to suggest that what was said was from the (persons) representation of official position. (It might and might not be true but what use is it as a statement being unattributed and impersonal, other than to be mischievous)    

It is not in the journalist interest to seriously unexpectedly challenge, persistently, interviewees like say a Member of Parliament, or place them in a position of  ridicule being unable to answer knowledgably, questions (it does happen) if such journalist is at one with the contact trusted source. If tempted in disparaging weak answers, the journalist could find they become cut off from the inside view. As an example, consider the block put on the BBC gaining interviews with any MPs of BoJo’s government; taking the stance that the BBC and its journalist were aggressive, socialist, liberal, elitist commie stooges (take your pick) and did not give a fair view of governments ‘Conservatives’ position on issues. This was similar to Trump banning journalist from the USA White House briefing sessions for asking hard questions!

Getting answers to questions is becoming harder for reporters / journalist especially from politicians who’s default position is to never say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and to obfuscate on details when the journalist has done research on a subject and can construct probing questions. Even if an “outline” of the list of questions is known to the recipient and the interview is not going well then sometimes degree of stage-managed action is required. A recently manipulation example of a media presentation, would be to consider the TV interview by Laura Kunsberg of the PM BoJo on 30th Dec with discussions on the Brexit deal. In which she laid out that there would be new barriers to trade (as evidenced) which were not existent before Brexit and stressed with him his continued rejection that such barriers would not exist after his Brexit. He was in his usual prevaricated pomp, clearly uncomfortable, could not answer or be definitive with any substance and on a number of occasions the broadcast was cut and pasted to skip over his lack of depth of knowledge in the effects; his deal is beginning to cause. It showed his clear smirking stance, cavalier attitude and disregard of his own blatant continuous lies. It was a piece of visual corrosive artifice of news speech.

For anyone seeking the truth on wide societal issues using any singular media channel, there isn’t one. All of them have a particular predisposition to follow, probably inevitably influenced by the owners of the media and the financial resources that support the news outputs. None are wholly independent and no journalist (in UK) has a statutory safeguarded position to be investigative, to pursue and out truth for the ‘people’s right to know’. There are risk and limitations in delving into the dealings of criminal, corporate or political activities; one is in the purview of law to pursue if called upon to do so and the other is protected by composite laws both of which could involve personal life-style risk to the investigators / informers. In extremist, investigating the political sphere in some countries is actually dangerous and may suggest that in some cases the established media have become sycophantic to the messages that governments want to push out. News from such sources is of limited value without independent verification and here Emedia does have a role to play for it does allow some surreptitious autonomous outing of information and if carefully assessed can offer a direction to what is actually occurring.

Within the established 1^st world media where there are measures of potential control over them and having to adapt to the competition afforded by instant unrestrained Emedia, they are hindered a little as they have to try and engage peoples interest in news items; to inject enthusiasm or an emotive sense in delivery presentation, verbal or written and are under pressure to curtail some elements of what they give an account of. Media has become terrorised by being ultra careful in not falling foul of affronted PC in an era where it has become disproportionally multiculturalists socially receptive, be it an area of stereotyped commentary, cultural appropriation, or any racial ‘specialism’ taken out of an assumed preserved status, is all fertile breeding ground for extreme protestation to be expressed of prejudice. Accusation which can be difficult to meaningfully discuss when wrapped in the racial bigotry mantle and hence all forced sensitive media (and entertainment formats) take steps avoiding as far as possible any offense that might be taken at the smallest alleged infringement of assumed special cultural position or cultured espoused mores. Even though being in minority culturally representational position there are those that seek to cultivate a situation of being offended and this has and is causing diffident approach to examining and reporting on some elements of societal problems.      

Such selective reticence does not assist the quality or truthfulness of media outputs but this may not be strange for it does seem it has also adopted an obsession with promoting balance; giving space for counter views no matter how unreasonable that may be against provable facts. One has noticed that time and again some journalist themselves have change the tone of a “reported” story line, inserting interpretations of what was said by politicians or scientist by injecting a different word in place of the one actually used and thereby changes (subtly) the intent sense; making the sentence more or less definitive to what the original meaning was. It maybe a minor point and might only be noticed if one has heard an actual discussion on a subject then heard the reporters / journalists ‘take’ on it and then moved to read a quote non quote printed version. This manipulation and reinterpretation to obscure certainty and not challenging fabrication / lies has gone on for years and got worse. It cannot be unrelated to observe some events over the past 8 years (some very recent) that demonstrate the danger that can flourish with the disregard of truthful media content infected into the public domain with crude ingenious inciting phrases that require no thought but carry meaningful intent. This perversion in the long run is much more damaging than internet system sabotages for it is slipped in via ‘trusted’ sources.  The casualness and bias that some reporters and journalist have adopted has shown up in the mediocrity of quality in their profession with some actually promoting some of the fabricated news and supporting the originators of extraordinary actions, fantasy and imaginary accomplishments. There are plenty examples residing in the global media of aberrational behavioural and attitudes being opinionated as acceptable, with recent examples picked up in prime US and UK papers. Some flawed opinion coverage is challenge by a few independent journalists but such perversity to truthful reporting and clear preferred prejudices are largely unrecognised or ignored by the consuming public. But how many people accept created falsity as truth, after all they hear or read such via their chosen media and if the same defective themes are persistently expressed, how many people can be captured to a cause?   

It may be that established news, (paper/broadcast) outlets, have slowly become, on some things, unreliable, having fallen into inhibited respectability. Some are holding onto a measure of public trust but they are also being concerned with the gaining or the maintaining of paid for volume coverage; their income from whatever source being crucial to continued existence. Into this arena comes business manoeuvres to takeover or consolidate news presentation (mainly broadcasters, print is declining) to maximise media presentation and minimise cost of production or create new streamline outlets. Some new outlets, which due to the structure of financial backing, may well be scripted partisan, further oppressing reporting independence. Well known outlets with their conventional position, are further compromised by the expanding rise of ‘uncontrolled irresponsible’ Emedia narrowly seen as a existential danger because of its instant insertion into the public domain of all news, information, good, bad, awful, truth and lies. But it also could be seen as the greatest protection of the ability to express views, uninhibited by vested interest, as it allows everybody to be a globalised ‘report/journalist’, good or bad. It also holds within it, due to its so-far global internet uncontrollability, the essential ability of The People’s Right to Know, perhaps driven by investigative ‘reporters / journalist’ who can carry out research into hidden public important issues in ways and with methods that established media outlets may not do and lawful bodies have no (persuaded?) interest in.  Thereby is the clash that confronts governments and others of power, how much do they want the people to know that they cannot know and who is to influentially controls consumer’s media minds?

Being in fear of an all encompassing good constitution, strong FOI and accessible equality in law to act on the behalf of the people is not a universally supported democratic or dictatorial priority, for all want to retain controlling presentational power, in apprehensive ways or forceful means.  Knowing as they do that most individuals do not have the time or persuasive access to those in power, to challenge and hard press them for responsible answers; so disempowered public have to rely on good reporters / journalist to query them and bear down on their actions. Without reporters / journalist prepared to be cleverly acerbic, challenging and determined in investigative interviews, how long is truth going to last in with The People’s Right to Know? Do they really have any?

Can the public or profession accommodate more of the likes of:  Woodward and Bernstein (Watergate), Barton Gellman - Glenn Greenwald - Laura Poitras (Edward Snowden re NSA), Paula Reid, Yamiche Alcindor (Trumps USA), Daphne C Galizia (Malta), Tova O’Brien (New Zealand), J. Paxman, J. Humphreys, J. O'Brien, N. Smith, or L. Kunsburg, (choice is not exclusive) maybe it can, but given governments etc take fright with the wrong attention and media owners cannot risk the loss of revenue stream, journalist may quietly understand a need to be restrained.

It might be an acceptable argument that reporters and journalist, on presenting a report etc, should 'just' be factual and balanced, and avoid any attached sense of their own personal interpretations, especially if such are paid employees and must toe the broadcaster's guidance. There is a problem with this proscription and it has to do with as mention above, who funds / owns the broadcast facilities in the environs it is operated and may weaken and in some case distort truthful information output. Self funded reporters etc can perhaps please themselves but if they want to have their report article used it will have to bend to the brief of those paying for researched material especially within high risk exposures. For those people who spend their whole time immersed in disseminating news worthy information, it might be expected that there is principled fair, honest, integrity guidance in what they do and occasionally they perhaps should be allowed to offer their own personal opinion providing it is made clear that any analysis offered on news information is of their own, one should also expect good journalist/reporters to have a element of an engaging personality, if being on a front deliver line. Of course occasionally journalists in the established news outlet do get their facts wrong often repeated from elsewhere and it should be expected for them to make suitable correction; errors are common in Emedia and correction scarce.

Good reporting and journalism is getting much harder being up against Emedia that has very little limitation in what it pushes out as (truthful?) news. Its erroneous invidious content can be persistently penetrating to make ineffective the good it can do as a tool for accountability to power. On this basis good unrestrained journalism, if it is also channelled freely onto Emedia and given strong legal backing should be a priority for the protection of democracy and treasured. Trustable tenacious individuals, tasked as journalist and reporters, are an essential linchpin to a free society, driving the People’s Right to Know; such ideal though is under expanding threats. As evidence over the past few years, governments do not like scrutiny, they resent being answerable to ‘the people’, so the peoples representatives in the form of investigative journalism should be able to pursue with flexible determination answers to presented questions and not be fobbed off with facile verbiage or falsehoods that counter known facts! Some hope:

If any rights to know are deprived, if reliable honest journalism is extinguished; ideals of democracy are inevitably lost and whatever is left, erratically goes into incremental conflict. Who is to care?

 © Renot

11211033

 (1) www.access-info.org  The World’s First FOI Act

 In this age of heightened emotive sensitive’s and the obsequious deference being paid to anyone who is unfortunately given unexpected offense too, albeit oftentimes unwittingly due one’s own lack of understanding of the moral, sociological, cultural, religious, gender background etc, etc, of the sensitivities of a recipient or any whom take virulent objections with above issue; one would like to offer ones profuse apologies should anything in this article give such unintentional offense. This to any that have had the misfortune to read it and to those that may never read it; just in case..

Anyway by the time any of this matters, one will have gone home.

© Renot