You smile politely, absent-mindedly listening to your parents' conversation.
"You know, earlier today, a someone was talking about the corona virus. It was the typical white man anti-Chinese racist spew. Really, I left the room as quickly as possible, what with me being the only Chinese person there. But one can't look at how China handled the virus and not feel shame."
"Well, at least we're not Indians. They don't feel anything about their home country."
You quickly excuse yourself. Mention something about homework (really, all you'll do afterwards is fuck around, and quietly panic when you see the assignment deadline). Fumble with the hang up button. Manage to miss it twice somehow.
***
So, yeah, turns out, Murdoch is a prick. Well, I mean, everyone already knew that, but it is a bit cathartic to say/write it out.
So this raises a few questions.
1. What the fuck even is a free press?
2. How do we minimise the harm presented by media corporations?
Let's tackle the first problem. Can a truly free press exist within the boundaries of a market system?
Now, now, let's back up here a second.
What is a free press?
Well, ideally, the press; reporters and distributors, should be free from the influence and pressure from government, corporate bodies, and other organisational bodies.
But here's the issue. Reporting, and any use of language, is still subject to biases, even if there are not structural elements in place to enforce these biases.
What do I mean by this?
Well, here's an example. Compare:
1. Village population was liquidated via the application of precise force.
versus
2. Several civilians, some of whom were women and children, were killed in a drone strike.
Now, this is an extreme example. A much more accurate example would be the use of euphemisms. Offshore detention, as a replacement for the mass incarceration of asylum seekers, with little oversight. Interrogation techniques, as a replacement for torture.
Now, on the surface, it appears that these messages, this particular diction, is not indicative of pressure. But, of course, as the certified madlad of 21st century film once said:
"We live in a society"
So even if there are no overt government or corporate pressures, the social system in which the media exists reduces the freedom of the press.
Currently, the predominant socioeconomic theory in the West (barring the bouts of Keynesian hype after all these seemingly ubiquitous recessions) is a neoliberal one. Well, it is neoliberalism. It is...interesting to say the least. It's interesting in that it heralds a global dominance of democracy (barring Middle Eastern exceptionalism, their words, not mine), combined with economic liberalism, whilst degrading the strength of social movements.
But, regardless, this current social system, has resulted in some very interesting results for the press.
Let's delve into some examples.
Take the pre-2008 situation. Now, whilst there was a dip in the economy due to 9/11, for the most part, the economy was chugging along. The vast majority of economists, and hence journalists, did not consider the possibility of a recession (granted some predicted the economic downturn, but the general idea was that of a party that never ended). In this example, the press and journalists were influenced by their context such that an economic crash seemed impossible. It could not be comprehended, and as such, it could not be predicted or reported.
And, of course, after the recession, all the talk about austerity and cutting spending, and dole bludgers and poor people, oh all these poor people and their inability to economise! And the Murdoch press, proclaiming the failures of spending, proclaiming the need to cut, to cut, to cut, to exorcise from our souls this demon of public spending. Digging deeper, refusing to budge from our neoliberal zeitgeist. After all, fuck the poor (because that's the only way I'll ever get laid).
Let's wind back a bit. Let's talk about 9/11, and Bush. So, after the attacks, when the dust settled, there was a general call to action. So when Bush went ahead and got Iraq invaded, there wasn't really much initial backlash. In that social environment, the desire to get something done after being essentially symbolically kicked in the dick overshadowed the question of "why the fuck are we even invading Iraq in the first place?" Of course, the framing of the campaign as "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and the underlying neoliberal view of the ascendancy of democracy furthered the idea that what we're doing (and, no one knew this at the time, what we will be doing for the next 20 years) is just and good.
This is not to say that the press being free from political or organisational biases and influence is a bad thing; rather, minimising these influences will serve to further distance the press from the cultural zeitgeist.
So, whilst the press may be freed from obvious and discrete influences from governments and institutions, their existence as a public service necessitates that they are influenced by social norms, which can be manipulated to a certain extent by governments and institutions.
Now, given that's out of the way, how do we minimise the harm done by media corporations.
I will be once again referring to Syrian Dust. In her work, Borri describes a highly competitive environment, with independent journalists selling their pieces to media companies. The environment resulted in what can only be described as a clusterfuck, with certain cases of journalists endangering each other in order to write a piece first (notwithstanding the human suffering necessary to write the piece in the first place). Furthermore, it appears that media companies are more interested in constructing narratives, as opposed to uncovering stories, or allowing the voiceless to speak their own stories, to a point where freelance journalists may be asked to provide contrived pieces or images.
On a societal level, it should not be surprising that this neoliberal freecheck handed over to media corporations has backfired significantly. It turns out that nuance and accuracy do not sell; outrage does.
So let us take the Australian bushfires. We know that it has caused significant emotional, economic, and physical harm to people living in affected areas. And it spread beyond that; for several days in Sydney, the skies appeared to be more akin to that of Beijing. Now, the Murdoch press was quick to lay the blame on arsonists, or lightning strikes, both claims that are, well, cringe. But see, in framing such harm as caused by a few individuals, psychologically at least, that is far less of a spooky scary skeleton than climate change, something far greater than a couple of individuals, and out of our direct control.
Thankfully, attitudes to climate change and its shitty reporting are changing. But just because people are tired of Murdoch's bullshit, doesn't make his bullshit any less harmful.
So what are we to do?
Well, perhaps we should stop slapping journalism and the media with a free market dick. Nuance doesn't sell, but it should never have been sold in the first place.
So we need to decomodify news. Now, of course, journalists still need to eat, have shelter...basically they still need to get paid.
Ideally, we would have an universal basic income, and render journalism as a proper public service, thus reducing the requirement for profits, and protecting the journalists themselves. Ideally, such funding will not be allocated by governments, but rather enshrined within a constitution, and upheld by each successive government.
Ultimately, these are non-market solutions within a market system. It may be eventually necessary to do away with the market system of economics as a whole, and embrace a gift economy.
Regardless, fuck Murdoch.