Do No Harm

Just had to alert to another fine piece of writing at Media Lens.
This quote, in particular:

Compassion, then, is the key concern - where best to direct our efforts in the hope of doing something to relieve suffering in the world. Journalism should be honest and rational, but it should not be indifferent or neutral - it should be biased in the direction of relieving misery. Noam Chomsky has gone so far as to suggest that a life without compassion is meaningless:

“So if you decide not to make use of the opportunities that you have; not to try to live your life in a way which is constructive and helpful, you end up looking back and say: ‘Why did I bother living?’” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zt8svS2w1I)

This position is important because it provides the psychological motivation for challenging vested interests that are keen to reward servility with status, privilege, even power. In the absence of compassion, there is every reason to conform, to toe the line - to perhaps give the appearance of adopting dissenting positions without really rocking the boat. Then journalism is a job like any other - a way of paying the bills. To be sure, Chomsky’s position is an exotic one from the perspective of much mainstream journalism. When asked what he likes about his job as a journalist, Paxman answered:

“It offers you the opportunity to meet all sorts of fascinating people... If you have a curious mind and you like words it’s a wonderful, wonderful occupation.” But the pay is not good, he warned: “The salaries are very poor... There is no job security.” Nevertheless: “It remains a fascinating way to spend your time.”

I would frame "compassion" more as "do no harm" - acknowledging that true self-interest is unknowable because we can only follow the rail of consequences so far in our tiny human brains - as is proven in matters as diverse as high school shootings and the current environmental upheaval. We should always aim to tread lightly, and provide resilient criticism when someone does start throwing their power around.

Budding journalists, take heed.

An Eye on Media Lens

I'm taking it easy today, because one of the great sources of research and media analysis has made yet another incisive, accurate contribution.

Media Lens is the unpaid labour of freedom and love of several excellent British Media commentators, aimed at holding the distorted narrative of the commercial press to account, offering some perspective. Today they deliver a wonderful piece on the propaganda campaign against Iran. Their clinical common-sense compared to the lyrical rabble-rousing of the "Guardian" writers (supposedly a lefty, liberal press) is an astonishment and a delight.

A favourite from today's article:

"The lunacy of the current propaganda campaign against Iran is bad enough. The fact that it comes so soon after the lies on Iraq - every last one of them now exposed for all to see - makes it far worse. But it is taken to an altogether different level by the fact that the last set of concocted threats has resulted in the devastation of an entire country, with over one million killed and four million made refugees (they are still out there, although not for the mainstream media). The icing on this malevolent cake is that there is next to no reference to these horrors in the latest media propaganda campaign. There is no sense that journalists recognise the consequences of what they helped make happen in Iraq. There is no sense that they feel even a tiny tug of horror at the prospect of repeating the same catastrophe in Iran.

As Noam Chomsky has observed, it is not that they want to cause harm; they simply step on Third World people the way they might step on ants."

It sums quite succinctly the problem with the Western media, and with its NZ followers. Whatever your political persuasion, or interest in politics and news, Media Lens are a must read, just to put your own point of view into context.

A good friend in the business news in Britain read their book, "Newspeak in the 21st Century" and it totally levelled his respect for even the "liberal" media. In fact, he said he preferred Fox news now, because at least they wear their prejudices on their sleeve.

The end result is, of course, we in the West base our opinions on a fraction of the facts, distorted and represented as the full story. Repeated over, and over, and over...

What we need, in NZ at least, is a real current affairs programme. Not the magazine investigations of 20/20, or the increasingly tabloid Close-Up and Campbell Live. After the banal and misinformative "daily snapshot" of the 6pm news they should have an hour where the real continuing stories can be explored. If the facts were properly canvassed and revised and reiterated and followed every day, there'd be a lot less controversy over Palestine. Iran. Environmental matters. Maybe even the economy.

C'mon. We're a civilised country, right? First World? Who's scared of a little real information? It is crucial, for both capitalism and democracy. Who's scared of change?

Well, as always, the people who are already very happy with the status quo.