04.08.2016

An independent voice

How can we combat the disinformation of the mass media? Yassamine Mather discusses the problems and solutions

Last week Jeremy Corbyn continued his campaign to be re-elected Labour leader with a meeting at the Lyric theatre in Salford. There were at least 1,700 present, with hundreds more standing outside. Another 3,500 were watching the event live on the internet. However, BBC evening news showed a clip of a small fraction of the audience, giving the impression that only a few dozen were at the meeting. Pro-Corbyn supporters were rightly upset. It looked like a deliberate, and indeed clumsy, attempt at news management.

In mid-July a study conducted by the London School of Economics showed that in September and October 2015, during Corbyn’s first leadership contest, “in 52% of articles about the Labour leader, his own views were not included, while in a further 22% they were present, but taken out of context or otherwise distorted”. In another 15%, his views were present but challenged, and in only 11% were they present without a challenge or alteration. According to Dr Bart Cammaerts, who directed the project,

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader … Allowing an important and legitimate political actor - ie, the leader of the main opposition party - to develop their own narrative and have a voice in the public space is paramount in a democracy.¹

Another survey found “clear and consistent bias in favour of critics of Jeremy Corbyn”. Researchers found “twice as much airtime given to critical, rather than supportive, voices in relation to Jeremy Corbyn on the main BBC bulletins. There was also a domination of views opposed to the Labour leadership in all but one of the online outlets sampled, and across both left and right-leaning titles”²

The Mirror (July 29 2016) claimed: “Owen Smith may be the underdog, but his campaign to be Labour leader is picking up speed.” Yet in the same article a poll showed that 84% of those asked whether Owen Smith should be the next Labour leader replied in the negative, while 82% said it should be Corbyn. So how exactly is Owen Smith’s campaign picking up speed?

Since Corbyn’s election last year, the support he enjoys amongst Labour members, as opposed to the animosity he has faced from Labour MPs, not to mention their failed coup, has been followed with great interest by exiles from dictatorial regimes, especially those with illusions in so-called bourgeois democracy. What we have is the ridiculous situation where rightwing MPs, supported by a media agency associated with Tony Blair, used mass resignation as a tactic to overrule the votes of tens of thousands of rank-and-file party members, while the overwhelming majority of the media presented this as a democratic and legitimate move.

As readers of this paper know, I am not an uncritical supporter of Corbyn³ or John McDonnell’s Keynesian economics.⁴ However, like many others I am outraged by the shenanigans of rightwing Labour MPs and the behaviour of the media, which makes a mockery of claims that we live in a democracy.

For example, Hilary Benn, who was undoubtedly one of the coup leaders, supported military intervention in Syria and claimed it was necessary because Islamists “hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt”. And “what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated”, so “we must now confront this evil”.

As Middle Eastern exiles in the UK will tell you, organising a coup against party members who voted for and continue to support Jeremy Corbyn in their tens of thousands is hardly a good example of the kind of democracy Benn is ready to send the troops in for.

Limits of social media

Of course, this lack of balance, this negative bias is not directed against a Marxist - the Labour leader has expressed opinions that can at best be described as radical social democratic. So if this is the treatment he is getting, one can predict the kind of venom the rightwing media will direct against anyone to his left.

It is precisely because of this that the left needs to address the need for its own independent, powerful media, particularly broadcast media, be it in the form of the internet or radio/TV. Most of the time all we can do is react to a news agenda dictated by the right in the shape of articles, etc that are read by very few people. To make matters worse, the left’s obsession with social media, and the ‘empowering’ role of Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, has compounded its complacency. Of course, social media can play an important role, but it has severe limits.

Firstly, posts are shared within limited confines, but the left fools itself into thinking it is reaching out to vast sections of the population. After last weekend’s large Corbyn meetings in York, Hull, Leeds and Liverpool, I asked a number of acquaintances who are, generally speaking, on the left if they were aware of those events. Only three who happened to have been ‘following’ the right posts knew about them. The others either were not aware of the outlet in question or were not on social media at all. None of the main news bulletins or online newspapers provided any information about these meetings and in order to find out what was going on you needed to be not only on social media, but in the particular left circles publicising them. The idea that social media, with its limited bandwidth and zoned audience, can fill the role of an independent internet or TV/radio facility is a fallacy.

Secondly, capitalism has found its own ways of making social media work in its own interests. For every leftwing message you share there will be a distracting commercial advert. In addition Labour rightwingers have paid for political adverts on behalf of Owen Smith and before him Angela Eagle. And existing TV channels and newspapers have set up their own pages on social media, often putting out their line more effectively than posts from leftwing groups or individuals.

Thirdly, social media is good only for short messages. Character limits on Twitter and Facebook are in fact part of a dumbing down process.

If the left is serious about explaining its arguments and winning mass support, we need more than the occasional two or three minutes the mainstream media permits. However, while, for instance, an occasional leftwing speaker may be asked to comment on the six-million-word Chilcot report in a couple of minutes, Twitter encourages two-word comments!

Of course, we will never have the kind of funds that are available to capital, but, with the efficient use of resources and committed organisation, we should be confident that we will be able to counter its propaganda. We should follow the example of left groups in other countries, who are able to run their own radio and TV stations, and have at least made a start in presenting some kind of alternative view. Unlike social media, they are available to the overwhelming majority of the population.

Iran and US

Soon after the defeats of 1979, the Iranian left became aware of this. The media liberated by the left in the days of the February revolution eventually became a weapon in the hands of the new religious state. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini would give three-hour lectures on radio and television, while stories about the Islamic courts carrying out summary executions of those accused of working with the previous regime dominated ‘news’ bulletins.

The left’s reaction was to set up our own radio stations in Iranian Kurdistan. Despite constant attacks by the regime’s military forces and the absence of electricity (power was generated by old motors), we were able to broadcast our message and help maintain some kind of existence in the dark years of the 1980s. Learning from that early experience, the Iranian left now has TV stations (both satellite and internet) and it is no exaggeration to say there are more left TV stations broadcasting in Iran than in any other country.

I recently asked two comrades from the North America Iranian Left Alliance TV station Daricheh about their hour-long weekly programme, which is an essential part of the organisation’s work. From America they communicate directly with worker activists in Tehran. New technology has made this possible. But its importance lies not only in its immediate impact, but in the vast archive of podcasts it has accumulated over the last six years since it started broadcasting. The programme often dedicates 45-50 minutes to one subject, usually in the form of an interview, and the station’s recent programmes have included discussions on the relevance of Marx’s Capital in the 21st century, women’s equality and socialism, the Chilcot report, the Asiatic mode of production …

The programme allows guests to put forward a much more coherent argument than what is possible on social media. Skype allows the editors to invite guests from all over the world and for the programmes to be viewed internationally. Daricheh editors and presenters have managed to overcome the amateurishness of the first few months of its existence and by all account its programmes, as well as those broadcast on other Iranian leftwing stations, is on a par with the output of state-owned media. The slow speed in the internet in Iran forces viewers to purchase expensive air time for satellite TV stations, but such a problem does not apply to internet-based radio and TV stations aiming at European or North American audiences, who could access such programmes on demand.

In the US cable radio and TV stations run by the left have been in operation for at least 10 years and they have played an important role amongst leftwing activists. Amongst dozens of programmes one could mention is Beneath the surface with Suzi Weissman, one of the deputy editors of the Critique journal. The programme goes on air every Friday on KPFK Pacifica Radio both on FM and online on the KPFK website, as a podcast. And, of course, there are relevant links on social media and the web to publicise specific programmes.

KPFK is a listener-sponsored radio station, and Suzi’s guests deal with major economic and political issues. The host’s familiarity with the subjects in question and the length of the programmes allow a proper discussion of vital international issues. The programme is streamed 24 hours a day via the internet.

Recent guests have included political essayist, cultural critic and broadcaster Chauncey DeVega, who talked about the escalation of fatal police shootings in the US; Pedro Paulo Zahluth Bastos, a professor of political economy, talking about the continuing profound crisis in Brazil; the UK’s very own Paul Mason talking about Brexit; and Fernando Losada, coordinator for the Bernie Sanders campaign in California.

The station’s costs are covered primarily by donations from listeners and sponsors and fundraising events. Significantly the station has no paid commercial advertisements or sponsored programming. Membership is set at a minimum donation of $25, allowing participation in the election of local station board (LSB) member, as required by the Pacifica Foundation bylaws. The full LSB meets monthly and its committees come together on both regular and ad hoc bases.

The above examples are just two amongst dozens of similar TV/radio stations combining traditional broadcast with internet-based stations. In France Alain Badiou uses an internet-based TV programme to present his views on topical issues in debate with others from the left. But broadcasting regulations in the United Kingdom would probably mean that an internet-based TV/radio station is a more feasible project.

The advantage of such stations over social media is clear. They are available to all, not just those already on a list of ‘friends’ and ‘followers’. They facilitate the ability to return to previous broadcasts, while better bandwidth allows listeners and viewers to follow a talk without high-speed internet and a reasonably powerful device.

yassamine.mather@weeklyworker.co.uk

Notes

1. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html.

2. Media Reform Coalition, July 28 2016.

3. See ‘War and peace’ Weekly Worker September 10 2015.

4. ‘By your advisors shall you be known’ Weekly Worker March 17 2016.