The Swedish news media is apparently doing an ostrich-style head-in-the-sand routine with respect to the Swedish Pirate Party, the story of which set off a whole train of thought in my mind today. The story, as reported on Falkvinge:
It’s a familiar story:
“for some reason, the fifth-largest party out of Sweden’s eight – the Pirate Party – is consistently omitted from listings, events, debates, and coverage ahead of European Elections. For a challenger, this would be acceptable, but not for a defender of title”
It’s the same trick that the American media pulled with Ron Paul when he ran for President last time, except in this case it’s an incumbent party getting the treatment, and much more blatantly than in the case of Ron Paul. Paul at least got an occasional, condescending mention, as well as a nice, well-applauded guest appearance on Jay Leno. The Swedish Pirate Party appears to be on 100% ignore status.
I realize I’m being foolish when I say this, but isn’t the media supposed to be neutral and unbiased? Especially about elections? :)
LOL, yeah. In fact, in the case of the Swedish Pirate Party, one can easily understand the obvious bias, since “the media” includes corporate entities who are among the most steadfast opponents of the Pirate Party platform. Without current intellectual property laws, which the Pirate Party opposes, they’d be out of business (or so they say).
What the American media’s beef was with Ron Paul is a bit harder to figure, but much more interesting to speculate about, especially the question of why. I mean, yes, on one level you can say that they didn’t like what he was saying about the gold standard, or whatever. But why? Why do TV stations and so forth even care about that?
To mention another example, it’s hard to avoid noticing the way that the media so slavishly parrots the official line on American foreign policy, even when it flies directly in the face of their normal leftist agenda. The Ukraine, for instance, is currently under the leadership of an American-installed, full-fledged Nazi organization, put there by the machinations of the State Department and their well-financed shills, in spite of the fact that the previous government was legitimately elected. Liberal media types are supposed to care about this kind of stuff. So why do they so faithfully and consistently lie about it?
It appears that we (i.e. “the people”) are not the people who the media really gives a shit about, other than as potential fodder for the leftist hive mind (which itself is merely a tool, not an end in itself).
Some of this makes sense given the media business model. A newspaper is not a product, a newspaper is bait. You are the product, advertisers are the customer, and newspapers won’t bite the hand that feeds. But what do advertisers care about what’s going on halfway around the planet or what Ron Paul says about fiat currency? Yes, advertisers have some preferences as to what sort of marks (i.e. suckers) they are looking for. They would rather you be dumb and suggestible than smart and skeptical, so media sources gravitate towards dumb, suggestive content. But that still doesn’t explain things like ignoring Ron Paul and lying about the Ukraine.
I concluded a while ago that the ultimate masters of the media are somehow the big banks, oil companies (and other resource-extraction companies), big agribusiness firms, big pharma, generalized big money interests, etc. etc. And I don’t mean the corporate entities themselves, but the people who ultimately control those entities through their ownership of them. In other words, the people who we could loosely call “the plutocracy.” These people aren’t just the masters of the media, either. They are the masters of everything that matters. If something happens on this planet independently of their will, it’s only because they recognize that micromanagement is not an effective way to run things.
What I still wonder about, the question that bubbles up into my conscious mind when I read about the Swedish media’s desperate attempt to uncreate the Pirate Party through sheer force of looking the other way, is the actual structure of it. How does it all fit together? For instance, if something is going down somewhere in the world and it’s clearly something that We the Plebes can’t be allowed to know about, how is it decided what the official story is going to be, and how are the media outlets instructed on its promulgation? It’s a web of money and ownership, clearly, but it bugs me that I don’t know the structure.
Of course, from the plutocrat perspective, that is the beauty of it: Ordinary people like myself aren’t allowed to know who is really in charge, how they got there, how they stay in charge, and so on. The old system, where everything was managed by a visible aristocracy, suffered from the problem that it was too easy for the Volk to rise up and kill the aristocrats. Nowadays, that sort of thing appears to be no longer possible. If things get really rough (due to, say, plutocrats clear-cutting the world economy), we are basically screwed. We won’t even be able to eat because the food trucks won’t have any gas and almost all of our food is produced hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Has humanity ever been so completely enslaved? I don’t think it has, not by a long shot.