What distinguishes a proper medicinal cure from, say, a piece of lard? At a minimum, it should have certain active ingredients which are known to have an effect on what it is intended to cure or at least ameliorate. If it has no such ingredient, or has them in extremely diluted form that they could have as much impact as a feather landing on the Great Wall of China, then you might as well go and swallow some lard.
The more you think about it, the more curious it is that public money should be used to purchase any placebo substance which by design is diluted so that it could have no active ingredient. Hence the current outcry about state funding for homeopathic ‘medicine’. Better late than never in recognising their ineffectual nature and focus our energy and resources on what can really improve our health.
It’s no different with our civic health. Democracy was devised to help society fight off the ills of oppression and anarchy. To counter decisions made with no meaningful involvement of those affected by such decisions, it was proposed long ago that the power to decide the fate of all must be grounded on the participation of everyone concerned. Dignified citizens, not pitiful supplicants, would determine what is to be done for their common good. It follows that for democracy to work, it must have active ingredients in the form of engaged citizens – participating, reflecting, deliberating, and acting collectively to shape their shared destiny.
But what we have in practice is very diluted indeed. How many citizens form opinions, not on the basis of informed deliberations, but through reading tabloid headlines? How many in America would oppose reforms to improve access to healthcare, fight climate change, or curb the powers of irresponsible banking institutions, just because their deepest prejudices are fanned by the enemies of the public good? How few are confident that citizens can band together to rein in the influence of large corporations? How few believe that by investing their time in looking into public issues and discussing these with decision makers, they could make a difference?
It is often said that time is in short supply, and people cannot be bothered with all the democratic responsibilities citizens are meant to take on. Allegedly, they just want to leave it to others, and the ratio between citizens and the ‘others’ becomes so great that the civic ingredient needed for a vibrant democracy approaches vanishing point. But people do act on the things they care about. The difference between a mother fighting for better medical care for her child, and a hundred mothers conceding defeat to a developer ruining their neighbourhood is often the overwhelming sense of powerlessness in the latter case. When that is multiplied many times over, we have thousands, millions of citizens assuming – wrongly – that democracy is a lost cause.
Democracy can of course make a huge difference. The key is to revive its active ingredient – citizens who will come together, deliberate critically, place the common good above private gains, and pursue their objectives with confidence and determination. Many networks and organisations are doing precisely that in their efforts to develop active citizens: Take Part, Democracy Matters, the Community Sector Coalition, the Citizen Organising Foundation, Unlock Democracy, the Community Development Foundation, the Citizenship Foundation, to name just a few. They have the know-how and commitment between them to restore democracy’s potency. Separately they might find it difficult to achieve, but working together – with strategic unity and tactical collaboration – they will undoubtedly attain their common goal.
Monday, 1 March 2010
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Begging the Charity Question
Another natural disaster, another prompt to donate money to help those in need. That’s absolutely right. And decent people – i.e., most of the human race minus hate-warped evangelists – respond. Not all as generously as the likes of Sandra Bullock ($1 million cheque to the Haiti appeal - never mind the Oscars, she should be given an award for her lead role in generosity), but we did our bit. The problem is that we all know this still leaves the much bigger question unanswered: how can we stop people from being so wretchedly vulnerable to the disasters to come?
Earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, extreme heat and cold, and more will keep coming. Charity will supplement the resources to deal with the immediate crisis, but the underlying weaknesses are still there. Hurricane Katrina infamously hit New Orleans when the rich had been able to leave the city behind, killing the poor stuck behind with no protection. Across the world, excepting where people have been able through the use of their democratic power to take collective action to look after themselves, the powerless are left to be crushed whenever the next catastrophe strikes.
Charity is a useful top-up, drawing on the generosity of the kind, adding to relief for the stricken, but only fools and charlatans would suggest it holds the key to combating human suffering. For all the moralising about Victorian values of charity, the one vital legacy of the Victorian era was to highlight the squalor, degradation, and utter repugnance of a laissez faire society, where people, old and young were left to suffer and die whenever misfortune should befall them. Successive governments in Britain, other European countries, and even America learnt in the early twentieth century that state funded public actions were ultimately indispensable to improving people’s life chances significantly.
So let us not succumb to global amnesia and forget the necessity of democratic public institutions to secure better protection, fairly and reliably, for all. Alongside the most valuable charitable work, there must be real political foundations for long term housing, development, law and order, education, and health provisions if those with the least power to protect themselves are to have any future.
And it is not just countries like Haiti that need strong democratic governance to bring about improvements for the people, their American neighbours are also experiencing a growing incapacity to develop public solutions beyond the acts of private charity in meeting desperate needs. With over 45 million US citizens lacking health insurance cover, and a life expectancy rate lagging behind all other major developed countries (and not so developed ones like Cuba), it beggars belief that the idea of collective government action to guarantee protection for all citizens should be vehemently rejected by so many. Perhaps those who are fortunate enough to have insurance themselves can’t bear to pay a few dollars more in taxes to help others, and they shield their conscience by pointing to charity as the safety net.
But make no mistake, in America, in Haiti, across the world, individual acts of charity can never substitute for universal support secured for all citizens with contributions from all citizens. So give generously to charities, and if you really care about minimising avoidable suffering, give your backing to collective action to secure better protection for all, at home and abroad.
Earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, extreme heat and cold, and more will keep coming. Charity will supplement the resources to deal with the immediate crisis, but the underlying weaknesses are still there. Hurricane Katrina infamously hit New Orleans when the rich had been able to leave the city behind, killing the poor stuck behind with no protection. Across the world, excepting where people have been able through the use of their democratic power to take collective action to look after themselves, the powerless are left to be crushed whenever the next catastrophe strikes.
Charity is a useful top-up, drawing on the generosity of the kind, adding to relief for the stricken, but only fools and charlatans would suggest it holds the key to combating human suffering. For all the moralising about Victorian values of charity, the one vital legacy of the Victorian era was to highlight the squalor, degradation, and utter repugnance of a laissez faire society, where people, old and young were left to suffer and die whenever misfortune should befall them. Successive governments in Britain, other European countries, and even America learnt in the early twentieth century that state funded public actions were ultimately indispensable to improving people’s life chances significantly.
So let us not succumb to global amnesia and forget the necessity of democratic public institutions to secure better protection, fairly and reliably, for all. Alongside the most valuable charitable work, there must be real political foundations for long term housing, development, law and order, education, and health provisions if those with the least power to protect themselves are to have any future.
And it is not just countries like Haiti that need strong democratic governance to bring about improvements for the people, their American neighbours are also experiencing a growing incapacity to develop public solutions beyond the acts of private charity in meeting desperate needs. With over 45 million US citizens lacking health insurance cover, and a life expectancy rate lagging behind all other major developed countries (and not so developed ones like Cuba), it beggars belief that the idea of collective government action to guarantee protection for all citizens should be vehemently rejected by so many. Perhaps those who are fortunate enough to have insurance themselves can’t bear to pay a few dollars more in taxes to help others, and they shield their conscience by pointing to charity as the safety net.
But make no mistake, in America, in Haiti, across the world, individual acts of charity can never substitute for universal support secured for all citizens with contributions from all citizens. So give generously to charities, and if you really care about minimising avoidable suffering, give your backing to collective action to secure better protection for all, at home and abroad.
Friday, 1 January 2010
The Denial Industry
People don’t take too kindly to injustice. They react against attempts to exploit their weakness, and are more than willing to press for fairer outcomes if their concerns were persistently ignored. But this can only happen, or happen with the correct consequences, if people knew what was really going on. Sadly, this means that those in powerful positions can protect themselves by covering up the truth. And the more they need to cover up, the more deception they have to spread.
The Denial Industry is now one of the most formidable businesses – with its hired agents to manufacture false and misleading information, its legion of public relations specialists and lobbyists, funded by corporations who have the most to gain by undermining the credibility of their critics. Climate change is the most obvious example – to spin out stories to cast doubt on the scientific evidence on the correlation between industrial increase in CO2 emission and global warming. Why? So that companies can go on making their profits while causing more and more long term problems which the poorest in the world will have to bear disproportionately. The same trend has been going on for decades with the arms trade – the denial of the utter destructive futility of increasing the military capability of oppressive governments and ruthless rebel groups all over the world. Millions of people are injured, killed or displaced. We read about the refugees who need to be turned back, and not the weapons sold to the people who make lives hell for them back at home.
The way to counter the workings of the Denial Industry is for those who are engaged in genuine scientific research, investigative examination and objective reporting to pursue their activities, with the support of public funding untainted by private interests. The battle against the tobacco business and its deployment of the Denial Industry has demonstrated that even the most heavily invested lies can be exposed.
However, the fact that cigarette companies have maintained their growth and profits by increasing their export sales has shown that cutting off a few heads of this Hydra of deception is not enough. The lies must be contested and extinguished everywhere.
In the midst of all this, watch out for the most insidious tactic of all of the Denial Industry – namely, to undermine science itself. Creation myths about who created what are harmless enough in themselves. But the reason why significant finance is given to support the teaching of creationism in schools, to discredit Darwinist ideas which are paradigmatic in scientific reasoning, and to conflate empirical hypotheses with groundless assertions, is to attack the basis of legitimate reasoning itself. If scientific reasoning and evidential assessment were lumped with myths, and their distinct role in validating beliefs could be denied, then happily for the sponsors of the Denial Industry, every criticism of their actions could be dismissed as unfounded.
The Denial Industry is now one of the most formidable businesses – with its hired agents to manufacture false and misleading information, its legion of public relations specialists and lobbyists, funded by corporations who have the most to gain by undermining the credibility of their critics. Climate change is the most obvious example – to spin out stories to cast doubt on the scientific evidence on the correlation between industrial increase in CO2 emission and global warming. Why? So that companies can go on making their profits while causing more and more long term problems which the poorest in the world will have to bear disproportionately. The same trend has been going on for decades with the arms trade – the denial of the utter destructive futility of increasing the military capability of oppressive governments and ruthless rebel groups all over the world. Millions of people are injured, killed or displaced. We read about the refugees who need to be turned back, and not the weapons sold to the people who make lives hell for them back at home.
The way to counter the workings of the Denial Industry is for those who are engaged in genuine scientific research, investigative examination and objective reporting to pursue their activities, with the support of public funding untainted by private interests. The battle against the tobacco business and its deployment of the Denial Industry has demonstrated that even the most heavily invested lies can be exposed.
However, the fact that cigarette companies have maintained their growth and profits by increasing their export sales has shown that cutting off a few heads of this Hydra of deception is not enough. The lies must be contested and extinguished everywhere.
In the midst of all this, watch out for the most insidious tactic of all of the Denial Industry – namely, to undermine science itself. Creation myths about who created what are harmless enough in themselves. But the reason why significant finance is given to support the teaching of creationism in schools, to discredit Darwinist ideas which are paradigmatic in scientific reasoning, and to conflate empirical hypotheses with groundless assertions, is to attack the basis of legitimate reasoning itself. If scientific reasoning and evidential assessment were lumped with myths, and their distinct role in validating beliefs could be denied, then happily for the sponsors of the Denial Industry, every criticism of their actions could be dismissed as unfounded.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Mill, Dewey & Me
In a year when the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origins of Species has been rightly celebrated, we should remember that 1859 was also the year John Stuart Mill’s seminal On Liberty was published and the great progressive philosopher, John Dewey, was born.
Mill’s ideas on expanding human understanding through experimental science and the freedom to explore knowledge claims without being constrained by prejudices or arbitrary authority paved the way for contested theories like Darwin’s to get a fair and rational hearing. Consequently, societies more prepared to consider new thinking with a genuinely open mind are the ones more likely to advance their abilities to solve the problems which would otherwise hold people back from having a happy and fulfilled life.
As for the accusation that experimental knowledge could only deliver technical tools without enriching our moral understanding, Dewey made the case that ethical dilemmas arose from having to choose between options, where the appropriateness of one’s choices could only be judged with the help of experimental knowledge. What should one teach the next generation? In what practices and institutions should we invest our resources? How to balance the needs of one group against the claims of another? For Dewey, the answers to these questions were not to be found in some transcendental realm beyond human experiences, but have to be worked out like any other challenges in life through systematic and responsible experimentation.
Unless we are prepared to review diverse options, take into account the actual experiences of the people who were involved, and adapt to changing circumstances, we would not learn how to make life better. For Mill and Dewey, human beings share the goal of overcoming suffering, frustration and missed opportunities, and they stand the best chance of attaining that goal if they cooperate in developing arrangements which enable everyone to explore and reflect critically on what practices would bring improved results. Dogmas, superstitions, the whims of the rich and powerful, must all be held in check so unhindered enquiries can continuously deepen our understanding as to the ends and means for how we should live.
In recent decades, as the progressive cause has so often been at risk of splintering through the contrasting political emphasis put forward by liberals, communitarians, civic republicans, deliberative democrats, mass action activists, feminists, trade unionists, localists, and global federalists, Mill and Dewey have provided the one consistent basis for a unifying approach. Thinkers and advocates who draw on their writings, whatever other differences they may have, tend to have important outlooks in common, making it possible to connect what they advocate into a coherent whole. In short, leaving aside divisive labels, intellectual empathy with Mill and Dewey is the surest pointer to a shared agenda for building more inclusive communities.
These two philosophers have been a constant source of inspiration to me. By a fitting coincidence, it was in 1959 – the centenary of Mill’s On Liberty and Dewey’s birth – that my own sojourn in life began.
Mill’s ideas on expanding human understanding through experimental science and the freedom to explore knowledge claims without being constrained by prejudices or arbitrary authority paved the way for contested theories like Darwin’s to get a fair and rational hearing. Consequently, societies more prepared to consider new thinking with a genuinely open mind are the ones more likely to advance their abilities to solve the problems which would otherwise hold people back from having a happy and fulfilled life.
As for the accusation that experimental knowledge could only deliver technical tools without enriching our moral understanding, Dewey made the case that ethical dilemmas arose from having to choose between options, where the appropriateness of one’s choices could only be judged with the help of experimental knowledge. What should one teach the next generation? In what practices and institutions should we invest our resources? How to balance the needs of one group against the claims of another? For Dewey, the answers to these questions were not to be found in some transcendental realm beyond human experiences, but have to be worked out like any other challenges in life through systematic and responsible experimentation.
Unless we are prepared to review diverse options, take into account the actual experiences of the people who were involved, and adapt to changing circumstances, we would not learn how to make life better. For Mill and Dewey, human beings share the goal of overcoming suffering, frustration and missed opportunities, and they stand the best chance of attaining that goal if they cooperate in developing arrangements which enable everyone to explore and reflect critically on what practices would bring improved results. Dogmas, superstitions, the whims of the rich and powerful, must all be held in check so unhindered enquiries can continuously deepen our understanding as to the ends and means for how we should live.
In recent decades, as the progressive cause has so often been at risk of splintering through the contrasting political emphasis put forward by liberals, communitarians, civic republicans, deliberative democrats, mass action activists, feminists, trade unionists, localists, and global federalists, Mill and Dewey have provided the one consistent basis for a unifying approach. Thinkers and advocates who draw on their writings, whatever other differences they may have, tend to have important outlooks in common, making it possible to connect what they advocate into a coherent whole. In short, leaving aside divisive labels, intellectual empathy with Mill and Dewey is the surest pointer to a shared agenda for building more inclusive communities.
These two philosophers have been a constant source of inspiration to me. By a fitting coincidence, it was in 1959 – the centenary of Mill’s On Liberty and Dewey’s birth – that my own sojourn in life began.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
A Simple Equation
You don’t need to be Einstein to work it out.
Power x Arrogance = Oppression
Yes, it is as simple as that. You allow a system to concentrate power in some at the expense of others, then even the slightest arrogance would bring about oppression.
Give the Post Office management the power to make cuts to the frontline workforce while increasing their workload, and on the basis of such changes reward themselves with more money while the postal workers get nothing – and sure enough, the postal workers are left with no choice but to take strike action. What do you expect them to do? Say “thank you for reducing our numbers and making work more difficult so that you can get a better pay packet while we get zilch”?
Give the police a system which, according to the latest newspaper report, has just appointed a senior police officer who was “personally criticised for failings in the Jean Charles Menezes shootings” onto the management board of the Independent Police Complaints Commission – and are we now more or less confident that wrongful police actions against us would get a fair hearing?
Meanwhile in America, give the insurance and pharmaceutical companies so much power, and they protect their astronomical profits by leaning on enough politicians to stop them approving anything near a system which provides universal healthcare for what is supposedly the richest nation on earth. In the meantime, those without cover just go on suffering and dying quietly.
Isn’t the ‘arrogance’ part of the equation the bit we can do something about? Remind people of their ‘corporate social responsibility’, their ‘conscience’, the ‘respect’ they ought to show their fellow human beings … but that is the problem with arrogance, people afflicted with it don’t give a damn what you say to them. If they were convinced they could get away with trampling over you, they wouldn’t give it a second thought. You see them everywhere – in organisations large and small, some paying lip service about consulting those their decisions would affect, some not even bothering with the superficial niceties.
The only thing we can do anything about is the power part. Do not let power be concentrated in the few who will owe us no accountability whatsoever. Do not acquiesce in a structure of oppression. Do not forget that even if we as separate individuals lack the influence to correct unjust distribution of power, we could organise ourselves to take a collective stand.
It is often said that a true test of a civilized society is how well it treats its weakest members. An equally important test is whether even the most arrogant cannot get away with pushing others over to achieve their own ends. We can never get rid of arrogance, but we can put a limit on the accumulation of power and thus end oppression.
Power x Arrogance = Oppression
Yes, it is as simple as that. You allow a system to concentrate power in some at the expense of others, then even the slightest arrogance would bring about oppression.
Give the Post Office management the power to make cuts to the frontline workforce while increasing their workload, and on the basis of such changes reward themselves with more money while the postal workers get nothing – and sure enough, the postal workers are left with no choice but to take strike action. What do you expect them to do? Say “thank you for reducing our numbers and making work more difficult so that you can get a better pay packet while we get zilch”?
Give the police a system which, according to the latest newspaper report, has just appointed a senior police officer who was “personally criticised for failings in the Jean Charles Menezes shootings” onto the management board of the Independent Police Complaints Commission – and are we now more or less confident that wrongful police actions against us would get a fair hearing?
Meanwhile in America, give the insurance and pharmaceutical companies so much power, and they protect their astronomical profits by leaning on enough politicians to stop them approving anything near a system which provides universal healthcare for what is supposedly the richest nation on earth. In the meantime, those without cover just go on suffering and dying quietly.
Isn’t the ‘arrogance’ part of the equation the bit we can do something about? Remind people of their ‘corporate social responsibility’, their ‘conscience’, the ‘respect’ they ought to show their fellow human beings … but that is the problem with arrogance, people afflicted with it don’t give a damn what you say to them. If they were convinced they could get away with trampling over you, they wouldn’t give it a second thought. You see them everywhere – in organisations large and small, some paying lip service about consulting those their decisions would affect, some not even bothering with the superficial niceties.
The only thing we can do anything about is the power part. Do not let power be concentrated in the few who will owe us no accountability whatsoever. Do not acquiesce in a structure of oppression. Do not forget that even if we as separate individuals lack the influence to correct unjust distribution of power, we could organise ourselves to take a collective stand.
It is often said that a true test of a civilized society is how well it treats its weakest members. An equally important test is whether even the most arrogant cannot get away with pushing others over to achieve their own ends. We can never get rid of arrogance, but we can put a limit on the accumulation of power and thus end oppression.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Interdependence Day
24 October – the designated United Nations Day – should from now on be celebrated as Interdependence Day. The establishment of the United Nations was a momentous step forward away from the anarchic nation-state politics which brought us countless continental conflicts and two World Wars. And underlying the institutional development of the UN was a principle with deep emotional and moral resonance, namely, that we are mutually dependent on each other. We thrive when we respect and respond to one another’s needs, but we are weakened by every attempt to dismiss the concerns of others as insignificant.
So what does appreciating our Interdependence entail? For a start, we should redouble our efforts to challenge those who want to split the world into separate groups with one-way dependencies. They must not be allowed, for example, to get away with dividing people into the ‘well off’ who hand over money with nothing in return, and the ‘poor’ whose lives are dependent on state benefits or philanthropic donations. We are, in fact, equal as citizens and we all depend on each other’s cooperation and good will. We should contribute to the protection of each and everyone of us through our ability to help, and draw on universal benefits we are entitled to count on.
Similarly, attempts to segregate society into the ‘wealth creating’ private sector and the ‘resource draining’ public sector have to countered. The private sector has its economic role but left to its own devices, it is quite capable of losing control and destroying people’s livelihood, whole communities and the environment. The public sector needs to be scrutinised democratically, but unless it is strong enough to take collective action in our common interest, the ruthless and irresponsible would get away with ruining the lives of countless others. When the private financial sector has exploited weak regulations to behave utterly irresponsibly, wiping out people’s savings and jobs, it is not time to be duped into jumping on the ‘slash the public sector’ bandwagon.
As such divisiveness is spreading globally, a worldwide sense of interdependence is even more urgently needed. Jobs cannot be protected for one country if other countries are starved of employment opportunities. We cannot turn a blind eye to the biggest polluters just because they are backed by regimes more powerful than any other single country acting on it own. We have to join forces to stop the climate change deniers make matters even worse.
And we certainly cannot have a small elite of nations which can deploy troops all over the world and bomb others at will, and expect the vulnerable countries to ignore chances to increase their military capability. A world with a few super protectors on whose mercy the rest depend for their security will neither be safe nor peaceful.
Democratic public institutions at the national and global levels hold the key to translating our moral interdependence into mutually supportive arrangements to secure our wellbeing. Total independence from others is not only unrealistic, but it breeds a self-deceiving arrogance that ignores the dire consequences one’s actions could have for others. We need each other’s support, and in this thoroughly inter-connected world, that means we need to work through strong and resourceful democratic governments within our respective state, and at the global level, through the United Nations. If the UN is not robust enough as it stands, the answer is not to weaken it further, but to boost its resources and democratic responsiveness.
So what does appreciating our Interdependence entail? For a start, we should redouble our efforts to challenge those who want to split the world into separate groups with one-way dependencies. They must not be allowed, for example, to get away with dividing people into the ‘well off’ who hand over money with nothing in return, and the ‘poor’ whose lives are dependent on state benefits or philanthropic donations. We are, in fact, equal as citizens and we all depend on each other’s cooperation and good will. We should contribute to the protection of each and everyone of us through our ability to help, and draw on universal benefits we are entitled to count on.
Similarly, attempts to segregate society into the ‘wealth creating’ private sector and the ‘resource draining’ public sector have to countered. The private sector has its economic role but left to its own devices, it is quite capable of losing control and destroying people’s livelihood, whole communities and the environment. The public sector needs to be scrutinised democratically, but unless it is strong enough to take collective action in our common interest, the ruthless and irresponsible would get away with ruining the lives of countless others. When the private financial sector has exploited weak regulations to behave utterly irresponsibly, wiping out people’s savings and jobs, it is not time to be duped into jumping on the ‘slash the public sector’ bandwagon.
As such divisiveness is spreading globally, a worldwide sense of interdependence is even more urgently needed. Jobs cannot be protected for one country if other countries are starved of employment opportunities. We cannot turn a blind eye to the biggest polluters just because they are backed by regimes more powerful than any other single country acting on it own. We have to join forces to stop the climate change deniers make matters even worse.
And we certainly cannot have a small elite of nations which can deploy troops all over the world and bomb others at will, and expect the vulnerable countries to ignore chances to increase their military capability. A world with a few super protectors on whose mercy the rest depend for their security will neither be safe nor peaceful.
Democratic public institutions at the national and global levels hold the key to translating our moral interdependence into mutually supportive arrangements to secure our wellbeing. Total independence from others is not only unrealistic, but it breeds a self-deceiving arrogance that ignores the dire consequences one’s actions could have for others. We need each other’s support, and in this thoroughly inter-connected world, that means we need to work through strong and resourceful democratic governments within our respective state, and at the global level, through the United Nations. If the UN is not robust enough as it stands, the answer is not to weaken it further, but to boost its resources and democratic responsiveness.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
The Fox and the BBC
One of the oldest tricks used by powerful commercial interests to undermine any public service institution which gets in their way is to accuse the latter of being over-bearing, costly, and harmful. Their propaganda has one not-so-subtle core message: if you dismantle, or at least considerably weaken, such institutions, then the kindly free market will look after everyone much more effectively.
That’s what private health care and insurance companies have tried to do in undermining the NHS in the UK, and blocking the development of anything remotely resembling it in the US. And where have they been given the platform to give utterly distorted views about public health provisions? None other than Fox News of course. Here, with the generous backing of rich corporations, you can always count on ‘experts’ being lined up to criticise any individual or organisation working for the public good. Typically, when Obama was running for President, Fox would routinely have a panel of exclusively pro-Republican commentators to help viewers understand the ‘flaws’ in the Democrats’ arguments. On any contested issue, the views of those more in tune with corporate interests would be presented in a better light, given a more favourable hearing.
In the UK, Fox could not so easily get away with such blatant plutocratic bias. Standing in the way of Fox’s owners are the British requirement on balanced reporting in broadcasting, and the existence of a publicly funded, impartial provider of news, the BBC. So it is hardly surprising that we are being lectured by the Fox-News Corporation junta about the terrible inadequacies of the British broadcasting system.
What would the cunning fox have us do? First of all, as usual, we should cut back on the ‘excessive’ regulations. The requirement on balanced broadcast reporting unhelpfully prevents corporate interests from using commercial channels to dominate the airwaves with pro-corporate messages and shut out everything else. Without such a requirement, we would have broadcast news as fair and instructive as we already get with the Sun and the News of the World, with their fearless reporting digging into the private lives of anyone, except for those running large and irresponsible businesses.
Secondly, we are asked to stop getting in the way of Sky’s attempt to secure a monopoly over coverage of popular sports events. This is very upsetting because the consumer may end up having to pay more to get all the coverage when it is divided between different providers. But we shouldn’t forget that before Sky came along to bid and charge people for their exclusive coverage, the consumer did not have to pay anything extra at all to view all the main sports events on terrestrial channels.
Thirdly, the BBC should be reprimanded for its ability to invest in new technology, its programming to reach a wide audience, and its world-respected quality because these all make it very difficult for those who want to squeeze more profit out of the public by giving them plutocratically soaked news and cheaper programmes. Yet if the BBC were to lack innovations, cater only for a small minority, or have low quality output, you know who would be first in line to lambast them for not offering value for money.
It doesn’t take Aesop to tell us that when the fox pleas with us to follow it into the jungle of deregulated competition, the last thing we should do is to mistake its deceit for sincerity.
That’s what private health care and insurance companies have tried to do in undermining the NHS in the UK, and blocking the development of anything remotely resembling it in the US. And where have they been given the platform to give utterly distorted views about public health provisions? None other than Fox News of course. Here, with the generous backing of rich corporations, you can always count on ‘experts’ being lined up to criticise any individual or organisation working for the public good. Typically, when Obama was running for President, Fox would routinely have a panel of exclusively pro-Republican commentators to help viewers understand the ‘flaws’ in the Democrats’ arguments. On any contested issue, the views of those more in tune with corporate interests would be presented in a better light, given a more favourable hearing.
In the UK, Fox could not so easily get away with such blatant plutocratic bias. Standing in the way of Fox’s owners are the British requirement on balanced reporting in broadcasting, and the existence of a publicly funded, impartial provider of news, the BBC. So it is hardly surprising that we are being lectured by the Fox-News Corporation junta about the terrible inadequacies of the British broadcasting system.
What would the cunning fox have us do? First of all, as usual, we should cut back on the ‘excessive’ regulations. The requirement on balanced broadcast reporting unhelpfully prevents corporate interests from using commercial channels to dominate the airwaves with pro-corporate messages and shut out everything else. Without such a requirement, we would have broadcast news as fair and instructive as we already get with the Sun and the News of the World, with their fearless reporting digging into the private lives of anyone, except for those running large and irresponsible businesses.
Secondly, we are asked to stop getting in the way of Sky’s attempt to secure a monopoly over coverage of popular sports events. This is very upsetting because the consumer may end up having to pay more to get all the coverage when it is divided between different providers. But we shouldn’t forget that before Sky came along to bid and charge people for their exclusive coverage, the consumer did not have to pay anything extra at all to view all the main sports events on terrestrial channels.
Thirdly, the BBC should be reprimanded for its ability to invest in new technology, its programming to reach a wide audience, and its world-respected quality because these all make it very difficult for those who want to squeeze more profit out of the public by giving them plutocratically soaked news and cheaper programmes. Yet if the BBC were to lack innovations, cater only for a small minority, or have low quality output, you know who would be first in line to lambast them for not offering value for money.
It doesn’t take Aesop to tell us that when the fox pleas with us to follow it into the jungle of deregulated competition, the last thing we should do is to mistake its deceit for sincerity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)