Kit, latest, media watch
Comments 13

Media Rundown: Mainstream Narrative Fractures Under Tension

by Kit

media_control

The mandated, acceptable opinions that we’re all currently being told we should hold are becoming more and confused, contradictory and insane. As a writer, one hates to keep going back to the 1984 well…but papers like The Guardian leave you very little choice. What are the following if not direct, pure examples of doublethink?

The Guardian, in one of their annonymous editorials the “Guardian View” on Putin’s speech yesterday, claim:

In the eyes of many Russians, the Syrian adventure has also brought tragedy for their own civilians, in the shape of the bombing of a plane full of holidaymakers. Rightly or wrongly, such a shock is seen as proof that there is a price to pay for intervention abroad…

And yet, in the weeks leading up to the all-too-predictable decision by the British parliament to drop some more bombs on Syria, the MSM printed – without contradiction, examination, or even a splash of irony – various claims of Cameron and Fallon et al. that the UK will be safer from terrorism as a result of their bombing campaign.


Here, in this sourceless saccharine mess of an article – about a poor family who went on holiday to a war-zone and got bombed by the Russians (it was definitely the Russians, because it happened at night) – the Guardian claims:

[Russian bombings] already appear to be entrenching the war and fuelling radicalisation.

One of a the interviewees adds:

“There is no Isis in our area at all, but there is going to be soon.”

All this, of course, was not mentioned in the run up the parliamentary vote – where such arguments were dismissed as “appeasement” by the press and “terrorist sympathising” by Cameron himself.

Perhaps most telling of all in this article is this line, from the same man, who is (allegedly) a fighter with the “Free Syrian Army”:

“Isis are not very good, but a lot of people think they are doing the correct thing against the regime,”

There you have it – ISIS are “not very good”, with their crucifying, organ-eating, burning people alive and such – but hey, at least they aren’t Assad, or Russian! It will be interesting to see if this is the first step in a rebranding of ISIS as “our bastards”, rather than evil incarnate. If that is their plan, they have made it very hard for themselves.


In an interview with Channel 4 News (reported by the Independent), Hammond claimed:

“There is one person in the world who can bring this madness to an end immediately and that is Mr Putin by picking up the telephone to Mr Assad and telling him the game is over,“

Now, that seems rather odd, given that we have been told that ISIS are a “multi-tentacled monster” who planning to flood Europe with heroin and dominate the world by 2020. Why on Earth would this “madness” end if NATO managed to talk Russia out of backing Assad? How would removing Assad end the threat of ISIS? An odd statement from Mr Hammond.


So….to sum up:

  • Russia bombing ISIS makes Russia unsafe.
  • The UK bombing ISIS makes Britain safer.
  • Russia bombing ISIS radicalises the population, resulting in increasing numbers of terrorists.
  • British bombing does not.
  • ISIS are a quasi-omnipotent death cult, controlling the world’s heroin market and bent on world domination
  • …but if NATO managed to get rid of Assad then they’d all give up and go home.

Good luck unravelling all that.


13 Comments

  1. Shelly says

    I think the incoherence is deliberate. I think it is meant to confuse us so that we don’t feel we can understand what is going on and are forced to trust authority. Also dissent is difficult if there isn’t a clear narrative to dissent from. E.g. there has been very little discussion of the size and composition of the ‘Syrian opposition’ because of the ridiculous 70,000 claim – if there had been a genuine attempt by Cameron to analyse the ‘opposition’ then this analysis could have properly discussed.




    0



    0
  2. Reblogged this on Siem Reap Mirror and commented:

    “So….to sum up:

    Russia bombing ISIS makes Russia unsafe.
    The UK bombing ISIS makes Britain safer.
    Russia bombing ISIS radicalises the population, resulting in increasing numbers of terrorists.
    British bombing does not.
    ISIS are a quasi-omnipotent death cult, controlling the world’s heroin market and bent on world domination
    …but if NATO managed to get rid of Assad then they’d all give up and go home.” People in charge of western mainstream media are either poorly educated themselves or rely on (intentionally) poor education of their readers.




    0



    0
  3. O! Lucky Man, all you have to do is clear your browser history and you can carry on reading Telly online




    0



    0
    • O Lucky Man! says

      Ha! Yes, you are right of course. Can’t imagine this won’t be locked down properly soon though and mission creep will see the place will disappear behind a virtual wall of cash-grabbing to become a distant folk memory like the Times.




      0



      0
  4. O Lucky Man! says

    And mainstream media shall eat itself.

    Yes, it is getting difficult to believe how far things are slipping into a sort of churning mush of incoherence. In the old days it all seemed better disguised somehow, there was at least a cohesive comforting confection of narrative floss around whatever the current rusty spike of agenda it was that they were trying to get you to ingest. All the easier to get it buried deeply enough in your guts to make pulling it out at a later date too painful to bear.

    But this kind of stuff is so poor. In the Gandrian bomb-victim article mentioned there is one sentence slipped in saying “Coalition airstrikes led by the US have also killed civilians, but have stricter rules of engagement”. Rather like one of those small print/ hastily read disclaimers at the end of an advert that gives the embarrassing lie to the fallacious fantasy sales image being concocted. I guess this fig-leafing is what goes for a “free press” these days?

    Also I see that the Gandrian has suddenly introduced a four comment limit to its threads without any explanation (or has someone seen this somewhere?). After the new format’s collapsing away of what used to be the long lists of comments into a couple that are left peeping out of their ghetto, this is no doubt one further step towards their sidelining and eventual utter demise .

    And straying into the Telegraph this week to marvel in disbelief at amongst other gems an article that suggested Corbyn was to blame for the decision to bomb Iraq because he wasn’t in a position to stop Cameron doing it (yes, pure undiluted crap served up cold here), I have found that they now have a joyful notice that soon comes up saying “YOU HAVE REACHED YOUR ARTICLE LIMIT FOR THIS WEEK”. It suggests you subscribe and pay for the pleasure of chewing on your crud. There was at least some semblance of sanity in the comments section of the article, but again it seems this will soon be restricted to the small club who want to pay up, and therefore naturally culled of most dissent.

    As the amount and severity of the bullshit that needs to be promulgated grows, slowly strangling off the commenting that can highlight its toxicity is no doubt part of the plan for trying to preserve the increasingly sickening dosage that you will be required to swallow.




    0



    0
  5. Amer Hudson says

    Absolutely clear: this isn’t really about ISIS, it’s about completing the USA/Israel Mid-East policy of chaos, regime change, and destabilisation. And facing off against Russia and Iran.

    Our Media, the Tories, and New Labour are perfectly okay with all that. The swine.




    0



    0

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole