Media’s choice is between truth and propaganda

Media’s choice is between truth and propaganda, by Jennifer Oriel.

If Donald Trump wants to know what is coming, he should study the rise and fall of Tony Abbott. …

We know how Donald Trump’s presidency will end. The process is familiar. It begins with a politician elected by the people to introduce secure border and rational immigration policies that benefit the national interest. Said politician is conservative and patriotic. He is Christian. He is proud of his culture: Western culture. The PC ­establishment despises him. The left media class undermines him. A mob of wreckers forms to destabilise his government. The wrecking crew comprises faceless men who leak to the press with impunity; publicly funded activist networks in the media, academia and NGOs; supranationalist organisations such as the UN and EU; and professional protesters. …

Many media outlets have a professed philosophical view. However, when that view influences the content of news reporting in favour of bias over fact, the credibility of the media comes under ­attack. If the media cites anonymous sources as though they are impartial and credible, the reader should know whether the source has a vested interest in ousting a democratically elected leader.

For example, does the source stand to gain professionally or financially if the coup against an elected head of state succeeds? How many of the anonymous sources cited by the The Washington Post and The New York Times vote Democrat? How many were appointed by the Obama ­administration? How many stand to gain professionally or financially if Trump is ousted? Perhaps the reader should be given such information so they can make a more informed choice about the anonymous reports.

Trump-Russia conspiracy stories share an abundance of anonymous officials and paucity of hard facts. The same was true of stories that fuelled the campaign against Tony Abbott. The leakers were given a veneer of authority by the designations “officials”, “insiders” and “experts”. Their anonymity was protected as though they were whistleblowers, but insiders who engineer coups against democratically elected heads of state are not whistleblowers. If they were ­exposing corruption, they would tender hard evidence. No hard evidence has been tendered to justify the investigation into Trump’s presidency. No proof has been ­issued. No valid defence has been mounted. No empirical facts have been established. At what point do we call such news propaganda?

This could lead to major changes in the nature of society:

America’s silent majority already feels excluded from the institutions supposed to put the liberal in liberal democracy: the law, academia and media. If their last chance at representation, the democratic vote, is trashed by the establishment, middle America will be pushed to breaking point. …

The media is the problem:

The single point of difference between traditional media and emerging alternatives is trustworthiness. People pay for news they can trust. While journalists make mistakes, fake news does not arise from human error. It is propaganda with a predetermined conclusion in mind. The media cannot serve two gods. The choice is between truth and propaganda.

hat-tip Stephen Neil