The Struggle For a Free Press
Murdochgate.
The News International (NI) phone-hacking scandal went right to the top of society. NI's billionaire owner Rupert Murdoch's bullying tactics exposed the rotten deals and self-serving manoeuvres of Britain's ruling class. The trail of guilt leads from the capitalist media through the tops of the police force up to establishment politicians including Tory prime minister David Cameron.
Murdoch had already been forced to close his News of the World (NoW) rag and to give up trying to totally control BSkyB broadcasting when he bought advertising space to 'apologise' for what he had done.
People who had suffered at the hands of Murdoch's press rejoiced at a 'Gotcha' moment. Next day NI chief executive Rebekah Brooks resigned and was later arrested.
Then top Metropolitan Police officers with close connections to NI, Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates, both bit the dust.
Former NoW editor Andy Coulson was until January David Cameron's communications director. Coulson was arrested over "allegations of corruption and phone hacking". Cameron himself was also in Murdoch and Brooks' dinner party set.
Labour MPs were at first told not to oppose Murdoch's total takeover of BSkyB and the party's leaders have long bowed their knees to him and his reactionary anti-working class politics.
So it's no surprise that Labour leader Ed Miliband merely wanted Cameron to 'apologise' for his misdeeds. But Brooks and the Met Police chiefs were forced to resign.
The impact on the mass consciousness after the whole Milly Dowling saga underlined and exposed the corruption of the establishment. This was not a case of a one-off scandal, here the difference is that scandals such as this were normally hidden from the public eye and this was the corruption that happened to be exposed. This was described as our equivalent of Watergate. What’s more, despite the closure of the News of the World, and all the surrounding scandals, even now police operations have uncovered Sun reporters paying for information. The victims of the 7/7 London bombings and the families of soldiers in Iraq can testify to this.
However, Murdochgate has more repercussions than first meets the eye to the average members of the public. For instance, although Murdochgate came out only last year, the police sat on incriminating information for 5 years. Politicians of all parties did not expose this information because of their level of involvement with Rupert Murdoch to get elected. Only after the Milly Dowling scandal came out did they perform a u-turn and ‘condemn’ the cover up between police and News International.
Before the scandal broke it was well known that Murdoch was trying to get his hands on BSkyB, and sought to get the green light from the Con-Dems. When the story broke this was put on the back burner.
As socialists we question the ownership of the media, and the amount of power given to one individual, as this is not just a question of a consolidation of power for power’s sake, but can be a dangerous monopoly of an ideology.
For example, Murdoch’s son tried to get the BBC to open up the market, similar to the Fox network in America. This would mean a push by the Murdochs to a right-wing ideology. Consider the news coverage, or lack thereof, of the Occupy New York movement. Beyond a simple virtual blackout of coverage by the media in America, the coverage afforded was particularly negative towards the protestors. Murdoch’s ideology influences the stance taken by the media not only in America, but worldwide.
The reason for this is the fact that 10 Media companies own and control 75 percent of the media. This has led to a certain method of producing news called ‘churnalism’. News and figures are churned out from agencies such as Reuters. In his book Flat Earth News,[1] the journalist Nick Davies reported a study at Cardiff University by Professor Justin Lewis and a team of researchers[2] which found that 80% of the stories in Britain's quality press were not original and that only 12% of stories were generated by reporters.[3] The result is a reduction of quality and accuracy as the articles are open to manipulation and distortion. For around 20 years now genuine investigative journalism has been at a minimum, or non-existent. For example only 1 in 10 stories in the Guardian actually come from journalists. Not only is this a reduction in the quality of the media itself, but this is a symptom of a capitalist system – a system that requires ever faster demands from its media. As a capitalist tool, its own ideology is spread through these news agencies – racism, attacks on the working-class, immigrants and of course, the public sector. Indeed the private sector is used as the stick to beat public sector workers, with reference to the recent pension issues and strikes.
This is sadly not a new phenomenon, but merely a continuation of the capitalist machine attacking the public. During the Miners’ strike The Sun described the miners at the time, so eloquently, as ‘scum’. There are no longer any journalists, left or otherwise, who question the establishment.
However, it is possible to challenge the authority of the capitalist machine. During the Miners’ strike the National Union of Journalists refused to print their newspapers with Scargill apparently giving the Nazi salute. This was successful and highlights the need for a strong union presence in the Media.
Despite a negative and pessimistic outlook, there is hope for us as socialists and the media. Although we know from previous experience that the capitalist media will do their best to minimise our party and policies in the public sphere, the changing technologies and habits of its users mean that we are striving to build our own media through the use of sites such as facebook, twitter and youtube. Through outlets like these we can reach potential supporters directly. In today’s digital age people can actually bypass the ideology of the mainstream media and choose which information to receive in a way that we never could before.
Under a socialist government the above-mentioned methods of production that the capitalist machine produces is not needed. We would of course strongly oppose the monopoly of only a few individuals or organisations controlling all of society’s media output. The current control of a right-wing mogul and empire highlights the danger of a negative ideology being foisted upon the working-class, and it makes it harder for us to operate under such a regime. However, we would also oppose a state-controlled media, as this is not a position we would operate from. History shows us that this could lead to a dictatorship. We would argue for a nationalised media, and one that means free expression of all aspects of media resources. Under socialism there would not be a singular viewpoint. The criticisms and discussions that could occur within the media would enable all to express ideas, and ideas that are free from capitalist influences and demands, which always seeks to defend the system it operates under.
Like other establishments and workplaces, under socialism the media could be publically owned. Even the local media is now part of a national news organisation. The Sentinel is one such outlet, and as part of a national group it becomes harder for working-class people to see through capitalist ideology. A privately owned media machine allows capitalists to have more outlets for their ideologies and the status quo remains. A socialist media, rather than be a tool of the state to control all, as the perception may be from the ruling-class, would be the most perfect expression of a truly free media.
Murdochgate.
The News International (NI) phone-hacking scandal went right to the top of society. NI's billionaire owner Rupert Murdoch's bullying tactics exposed the rotten deals and self-serving manoeuvres of Britain's ruling class. The trail of guilt leads from the capitalist media through the tops of the police force up to establishment politicians including Tory prime minister David Cameron.
Murdoch had already been forced to close his News of the World (NoW) rag and to give up trying to totally control BSkyB broadcasting when he bought advertising space to 'apologise' for what he had done.
People who had suffered at the hands of Murdoch's press rejoiced at a 'Gotcha' moment. Next day NI chief executive Rebekah Brooks resigned and was later arrested.
Then top Metropolitan Police officers with close connections to NI, Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates, both bit the dust.
Former NoW editor Andy Coulson was until January David Cameron's communications director. Coulson was arrested over "allegations of corruption and phone hacking". Cameron himself was also in Murdoch and Brooks' dinner party set.
Labour MPs were at first told not to oppose Murdoch's total takeover of BSkyB and the party's leaders have long bowed their knees to him and his reactionary anti-working class politics.
So it's no surprise that Labour leader Ed Miliband merely wanted Cameron to 'apologise' for his misdeeds. But Brooks and the Met Police chiefs were forced to resign.
The impact on the mass consciousness after the whole Milly Dowling saga underlined and exposed the corruption of the establishment. This was not a case of a one-off scandal, here the difference is that scandals such as this were normally hidden from the public eye and this was the corruption that happened to be exposed. This was described as our equivalent of Watergate. What’s more, despite the closure of the News of the World, and all the surrounding scandals, even now police operations have uncovered Sun reporters paying for information. The victims of the 7/7 London bombings and the families of soldiers in Iraq can testify to this.
However, Murdochgate has more repercussions than first meets the eye to the average members of the public. For instance, although Murdochgate came out only last year, the police sat on incriminating information for 5 years. Politicians of all parties did not expose this information because of their level of involvement with Rupert Murdoch to get elected. Only after the Milly Dowling scandal came out did they perform a u-turn and ‘condemn’ the cover up between police and News International.
Before the scandal broke it was well known that Murdoch was trying to get his hands on BSkyB, and sought to get the green light from the Con-Dems. When the story broke this was put on the back burner.
As socialists we question the ownership of the media, and the amount of power given to one individual, as this is not just a question of a consolidation of power for power’s sake, but can be a dangerous monopoly of an ideology.
For example, Murdoch’s son tried to get the BBC to open up the market, similar to the Fox network in America. This would mean a push by the Murdochs to a right-wing ideology. Consider the news coverage, or lack thereof, of the Occupy New York movement. Beyond a simple virtual blackout of coverage by the media in America, the coverage afforded was particularly negative towards the protestors. Murdoch’s ideology influences the stance taken by the media not only in America, but worldwide.
The reason for this is the fact that 10 Media companies own and control 75 percent of the media. This has led to a certain method of producing news called ‘churnalism’. News and figures are churned out from agencies such as Reuters. In his book Flat Earth News,[1] the journalist Nick Davies reported a study at Cardiff University by Professor Justin Lewis and a team of researchers[2] which found that 80% of the stories in Britain's quality press were not original and that only 12% of stories were generated by reporters.[3] The result is a reduction of quality and accuracy as the articles are open to manipulation and distortion. For around 20 years now genuine investigative journalism has been at a minimum, or non-existent. For example only 1 in 10 stories in the Guardian actually come from journalists. Not only is this a reduction in the quality of the media itself, but this is a symptom of a capitalist system – a system that requires ever faster demands from its media. As a capitalist tool, its own ideology is spread through these news agencies – racism, attacks on the working-class, immigrants and of course, the public sector. Indeed the private sector is used as the stick to beat public sector workers, with reference to the recent pension issues and strikes.
This is sadly not a new phenomenon, but merely a continuation of the capitalist machine attacking the public. During the Miners’ strike The Sun described the miners at the time, so eloquently, as ‘scum’. There are no longer any journalists, left or otherwise, who question the establishment.
However, it is possible to challenge the authority of the capitalist machine. During the Miners’ strike the National Union of Journalists refused to print their newspapers with Scargill apparently giving the Nazi salute. This was successful and highlights the need for a strong union presence in the Media.
Despite a negative and pessimistic outlook, there is hope for us as socialists and the media. Although we know from previous experience that the capitalist media will do their best to minimise our party and policies in the public sphere, the changing technologies and habits of its users mean that we are striving to build our own media through the use of sites such as facebook, twitter and youtube. Through outlets like these we can reach potential supporters directly. In today’s digital age people can actually bypass the ideology of the mainstream media and choose which information to receive in a way that we never could before.
Under a socialist government the above-mentioned methods of production that the capitalist machine produces is not needed. We would of course strongly oppose the monopoly of only a few individuals or organisations controlling all of society’s media output. The current control of a right-wing mogul and empire highlights the danger of a negative ideology being foisted upon the working-class, and it makes it harder for us to operate under such a regime. However, we would also oppose a state-controlled media, as this is not a position we would operate from. History shows us that this could lead to a dictatorship. We would argue for a nationalised media, and one that means free expression of all aspects of media resources. Under socialism there would not be a singular viewpoint. The criticisms and discussions that could occur within the media would enable all to express ideas, and ideas that are free from capitalist influences and demands, which always seeks to defend the system it operates under.
Like other establishments and workplaces, under socialism the media could be publically owned. Even the local media is now part of a national news organisation. The Sentinel is one such outlet, and as part of a national group it becomes harder for working-class people to see through capitalist ideology. A privately owned media machine allows capitalists to have more outlets for their ideologies and the status quo remains. A socialist media, rather than be a tool of the state to control all, as the perception may be from the ruling-class, would be the most perfect expression of a truly free media.
