An independent and diverse media, capable of presenting to the public a wide range of differing interpretations of the truth, is the foundation of democratic government. In a healthy democracy there should exist a multiplicity of differing opinions and lively debate. Courtesy of a healthy media, the citizens’ informed opinions can be developed, their voices can be heard and their rights and interests will be respected by the politicians they elect. An independent and truth-seeking media is the guardian of such democracies and such democracies remain the least bad form of human governance for modern age societies.
A hallmark of dictatorships is their concentration of the media under government control and the manipulation of public opinion with the intention that all the public hold the same opinion and speak with the same voice as the government. However, overt dictatorship is not necessary for the consolidation of the media. A fatal combination of the capitalist process and feeble democratic controls over the market-place for media monopolies, is in the process of achieving the same ends in what are still termed the ‘democracies’ of the western world. Since WWII the consolidation of the main stream media (MSM: print, TV, film and internet) into ever fewer (and increasingly wealthy) hands has gathered pace. Needless to say, the media outlets subject to this process do not comment on this matter.
Most of the MSM in the western world get their news from Reuters, Associated Press and, on the financial side, Bloomberg. Just six American media conglomerates, GE, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS control 90% of all MSM outlets in the USA. Their total annual turnover is in excess of $300 billion – so they are dwarfed by the Pentagon, but not by much else. In Europe, Germany’s Bertelsmann turns over in excess of $16 billion and monopolises vast swathes of European media outlets. Its endorsement was a key component of Angela Merkel’s rise to power.
I won’t give hyperlinks here, but just Google one of those names: i.e. ‘Newscorp owns?’ and Wikipedia will give you the list. The ownership and control of these giant corporates is often widely dispersed, through foundations, stock-exchanges, the boards of directors of multiple companies, etc., with few being as clear cut as Rupert Murdoch’s control of Newscorp, or Michael Bloomberg’s control of Bloomberg.
They all have in common a convergence of similar corporate interests in expanding their monopolies, suppressing independent competition and placing politicians in positions from which they can derive corporate benefits that do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of their audience. Such interests in common would account for much of the common content contained in the media outlets they control.
However, what is surprising, but only at first sight, is the extent to which so many of the media outlets they own, appear to be singing off the same page of the hymnal when it comes to controversial foreign policy issues such as the war on terror, the Russian aggression in the Ukraine, the unacceptability of the Baathist regime in Syria, Iran’s fictional nuclear weapons and the evil-doings of Kim Jong-Il, etc. All of such matters seemingly have no immediate relevance to business profitability. However, once the corporates have worked together to develop a popular orthodoxy in respect of a given issue, it becomes a rod for the media’s own back, as it becomes hard to step outside that viewpoint without alienating readership.
This development of a unified public viewpoint on foreign interventions would appear to be more comprehensive than could be accounted for by any crude government interventions such as that of the CIA, as exposed by Udo Ulfkotte in my preceding blog. Could there be any other common thread of mutual interest uniting the media giants, over and beyond that of simply maximising corporate profitability?
One route to this convergence of media viewpoint is very simple to explain. Much foreign reportage about events instigated by human action (as opposed to earthquakes etc.) is based on actions and statements made by elected politicians. We have here a significant feed-back loop. Politicians play to their electorate; if their electorate is seized by a certain world view, the politicians will play to it in word and deed. The media will duly report those words and deeds thereby reinforcing the world-view already developed by the media and held by its audience.
Another route to convergence within the media corporates is the structural suppression of dissenting views. Career ambitious journalists, who work for the big media corporations have to watch the content of their reportage. If what they report is not appreciated by their employers, they no longer have that many options for alternative professional employment. When Robert Fisk found that his employer, The Times of London, was rejecting his Middle Eastern reports (which occurred shortly after the Times was purchased by Rupert Murdoch) Fisk was indeed lucky to have been able to transfer to The Independent. That he was able to do so was only because he was exceptionally far advanced in his professional career and would have brought a considerable readership with him.
Journalists working within the MSM have their career options remarkably restricted by the consolidation of media ownership. This decreases their choice of alternative employers, should they produce reports that diverged in content and viewpoint from the increasingly standardised ‘editorial guidelines’. In short, given the remarkable convergence between corporations as to which content and viewpoints are acceptable and which are not, the modern western journalist is heavily incentivised to self-censure and to conform.
The above explains the mechanism by which western media reportage convergences, but from where do the owners of the media corporations get their apparent unity of viewpoint on the key foreign policy matters that move their western readerships?
Though never mentioned in polite society, it has long been accepted that the American, and much of the other western media is largely controlled by Jewish, and through that, by Zionist interests. An indication of how Israel, a nation of just eight million, has the ability to influence the perceptions of hundreds of millions of western citizens is set out in the facts and figures given in this hyperlink. https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=284_1369633415 This, out-of-all proportion influence over the western MSM, represents what successive Israeli governments have seen as a crucial front line of defence, essential to Israel’s survival. It is the most effective weapon (some wit described it as Israel’s “Weapon of Mass Deception”) with which to stave off the dawn of that dreaded day on which the international community unites against Israel’s repeated flouting of international law and its gross abuse of the native Palestinian population.
In searching the Web for evidence of Jewish influence in the media, one comes across many anti-Semitic, hate sites. These are clearly so based on racist bias that one cannot take their contents seriously. Liveleak, the current affairs site, quoted above, seems generally to be in in favour of much of America’s foreign policy and I chose it as less likely to be deliberately spinning untruths. Those of its claims that I did check, appear to be completely factual – with one exception. The article claims that Rupert Murdoch is a gentile. In fact one inherits ‘Jewishness’ via one’s mother and Rupert’s Australian mother had a Jewish mother – (in exactly the same way as I am Jewish – but Rupert enthuses for Zion, whereas I do not.) https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071025102913AAjilr3
On the 18th of this month, Bill O’Reilly on Murdoch’s Fox News, called for “a Christian Holy War against IS.” No policy could be dearer to Tel Aviv’s (or of IS’s) perception of its best interests.
So great is the Zionist influence over American opinion makers and American policy makers (whose electors’ voting decisions are decided primarily by what they see and hear in the media) that, setting aside the present and personal differences between Netanyahu and Obama, it is hard to identify where American foreign policies and Israel policies separate.
In one of my earlier blogs, https://khakispecs.com/?p=128 I wrote on the subject of Israeli ambitions in the Ukraine. At first sight, the relatively modest aim of picking up a few thousand Jewish immigrants to boost the regime’s demographics in Israel and the natural affinity that one racist administration might feel for another, hardly seemed sufficient to justify the huge media campaign that we are witnessing in regards to what must be a fairly peripheral interest in Tel Aviv.
One commentator, Robert Parry, who has a track record in the Middle East (being instrumental in the breaking of the Iran-Contra deal) believes US Ukrainian policy is about the Neo-Cons putting a stop to the Obama-Putin relationship that was developing. Putin did not endear himself to that hugely powerful faction, when he helped Obama avoid their internal pressure to attack Syria over the false-flag, gas attacks. https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/27/why-neocons-seek-to-destabilize-russia/
Whether Parry is correct or not, one has to bear in mind that there are almost as many (six million or thereabouts) Jews living in the USA as there are in Israel. America is their country. Zionist interests in the USA, have worked themselves into a position from which they can ensure America remains the one reliable ally on which Israel can depend. This campaign has been so successful that it has in effect, given this tiny nation a veto on the UN Security Council. (Since the time of President Nixon, more than forty out of a total of eighty-two USA vetoes have been cast in the UN Security Council on Israel’s behalf.)
To quote Ariel Sharon, former Israeli Prime Minister when speaking to Shimon Peres – then President of Israel, “Every time we do something, you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about it. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/11/burying-sharon/
A more blatant demonstration of this power to control America occurred during the Israeli assault on Egypt in 1997. It appears to have been an attempt to stop America getting wind of, and possibly exerting pressure to prevent, an impending second-front being opened by an Israeli invasion of the Golan Heights. The Israelis tried to sink a US spy ship off the Israeli coast that was gathering electronic intelligence. The USS Liberty suffered massive casualties, but though severely damaged, managed to stay afloat. President Johnson was persuaded it was in America’s interest to cover up the whole incident and the MSM obliged by never questioning the findings of Johnson’s whitewash committee of inquiry. This found that what was an obviously deliberate attack, with repeated sorties taking place over several hours, was a simple case of mistaken identity. https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html
If American decision-makers and formulators of foreign policy (many of whom are Jews and of whom a significant number hold joint American-Israeli citizenship) perceive a policy as being good for America, it will gain their support. In their view, whatever strengthens America has also to strengthen Israel.
Unfortunately, Israel being a state in which extreme right-wing views predominate, Israeli influence in the USA is particularly strong among the Neo-Con Republican groupings who came to power under the younger Bush. https://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html The Neo-Cons hold the viewpoint of ‘American exceptionalism’ to which no rules made by the UN or other outsiders (other than Israelis?) should apply.It is this belief that justifies the search for seeking ‘full spectrum global dominance’ and the use of power, militarily and economic, to prevent other nations, or groupings of nations, developing a viewpoint different to the USA’s and the potential to form an independent centre of significant influence in global affairs.
A perfect insight into this attitude is Victoria Nuland’s (America’s Assistant Secretary of State for Europe) infamous “Fuck the EU” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 It is this exceptionalist world view that justifies the current aggressive moves against Russia and the ‘containment’ of China (pending the time when the Neo-Cons are convinced, it too will be forced make the kow-tow.)
Unsurprisingly, all the opinions expressed above, are routinely suppressed, debunked and demonised in the MSM as anti-Semitic propaganda such as could only be uttered by a racist gentile (or, in my case, by a self-hating Jew.)
Israel, given its geographic location and it still being in a phase of active colonial expansion (and the consequent acquisition of multiple enemies) has interests very different to those of the rest of the western world. Its geopolitical imperatives are not those of America, or even (despite its participation in the Euro-vision Song-Contest) of Western Europe. Israel’s key national interest is in ensuring that none of its Arab (or Iranian) neighbours develop internally or form alliances to the extent that they could threaten Israel’s military dominance. Israel’s interest is to Balkanise the Islamic World and keep it in perpetual turmoil. To do this it needs to involve, or use as proxies, other western nations, especially the USA, in its local theatre aggressions. The current and successful MSM campaign designed to promote Islamaphobia by representing the hugely complex Moslem world as being chiefly composed of irredeemably bloodthirsty terrorists, is indicative of this policy.
Though Israel’s interest in promoting Middle Eastern chaos might be shared by key elements within the US State department and Security/Defence establishment, it is not in the interest of the vast majority of Americans, whose lives and treasure have been squandered in pursuit of an ambition which is not at all their own.
In short, it is likely that America and its allies are doing themselves a serious injury by letting such a player exercise excessive influence over their foreign policies.
In all of the above, given the fundamentally democratic machinery of American government, the key factor in the equation is public opinion and its general acceptance of the reasonableness of the government’s policies. If the media is discretely, or not so discretely, weighted in any particular direction, so too will be public opinion and government policy.
Be that as it may, one has to ask how does the New Zealand democracy stand in relation to the plight in which America has got itself into?