Phenomena, like catastrophic Global Warming, become fact in our minds because journalists and politicians in the West tacitly say so. Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t the oft-touted but non-existent “consensus of scientists” who are promoting Carbon Taxation. In this case for one, the science is very much secondary to the politics.
Our press is phenomenally powerful in formulating our Group Think. Will they continue to promote Idealism and thus reject Realism? If so, the Global recession will only get worse as Big Government spends more money from a contracting tax-payer base. Can our newspapers help us out of our current economic decline by pulling the wool, they placed, from our eyes?
When I first landed on the hallowed shores of Sydney 12 years ago. I swiftly got myself a subscription to the leading broadsheet newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH). For one, my soon-to-be wife loved the excellent Life Style supplement sections. Over the years, I’ve become older, wiser (and plumper). I also think I have woken up to a few more intricacies of life, love and politics. I’ve turned from being an avid ABC, SBS, SMH fan (UK~BBC, USA~NBC) to a disillusioned, disappointed departee. They are strong proponents of Left-Liberal Progressivism (something some friends still blame me being of). So, I guess I should still be a big fan? These media outlets are banner wavers of Middle Class Idealism; proponents of a better, more egalitarian society. Great. However, as I’ve become plumper, I’ve come to realise they perhaps a certain degree of lack common sense philosophy and Realism. I now read the Daily Telegraph (aka “Torygraph”).
Progressivism proponents, such as the SMH, have had one small chink in the armour of late. Articles, by people such as Gerald Henderson, published by the SMH itself, deviate from their philosophical polemic. In particular, I fully laud today’s offering by the Sydney Morning Herald. Are they finally waking up and smelling the prevailing wind’s flowers? Or is this just tokenism? As controversial Gina Reinhart pointed out, their readership numbers are collapsing and the Murdoch press are snapping them up. The reason is their so-called balanced viewpoint, which they like to promote, is predominantly firmly Left to Far Left (aka Green). Many people, but of course not all, have had enough of being told the Carbon Tax is great for business, Boat People immigration should not be discouraged, we should stifle the engine of Australia, the mining sector, in more Super Taxes, the list goes on. These are allegedly great ideas. We are delivered these messages from Prime Minister Gillard in Canberra and the message is disseminated through the government’s, tax payer paid, voice-piece, the ABC and papers like the SMH. Many people, especially Blue Collar workers who seem to often have more common sense than us City types, read one thing and see with their own eyes another. The story just doesn’t stack up with reality. They are voting with their subscriptions and perhaps the decline of the SMH has finally given credence to this viewpoint. SMH, don’t keep spouting the same party line. It’s time to go back to centralist, more balanced, more incisive, objective and aggressive journalism. It’s time to reveal the inconvenient truths not propone them?
Is the SMH back on former form, have they found their balance again, or is this sort of quality journalism just a blip?Gerald Henderson for the Sydney Morning Herald
Information is power and thus those who deliver the information are important gate-keepers to power. When it comes to politics, virtually all information has bias. It’s intrinsically a subjective form. Furthermore, when the vast majority of readily available information, namely from the mass media, is coming from a certain standpoint, then there is an overall imbalance. When the mass media, by and large, promotes Big Government, taxation and thus regulation, it is perhaps fair to say, the “Press is the Opium of the Masses”.
Are the SMH, and the majority of the West’s press institutions, changing tack to survive the onslaught of the popular Murdoch machine? This is not a willful change of tact, but a necessity of survival. One directional reporting is no longer cutting the grass of viewer opinion. SMH, are you putting the old school, informative journalism back into your journal? Let’s hope so.