On Consensus in Media

 

Russell Brand

Here is a recent wise quote from Russell Brand, paraphrased for brevity: “A consensus in mainstream media is not a verification. It is the opposite. The more you see the mainstream media making a point of claiming something is true, the more likely it is false.”

For “mainstream media,” I would substitute the term “broadcast platforms”: any information channel that is directed at a broad general audience. A more obvious example of a broadcast medium in this sense than even the traditional television networks is the education system. But it will also include newspapers at the local level, and large-circulation magazines: a National Geographic, a Scientific American, a Rolling Stone, a Time Magazine.

These are likely to be spreading false information, because these are the platforms on which it is most profitable and effective to spread false information. So if any powerful interested party can exert control of one, they are likely to do so for their purposes. Most probably, the government; but also business interests, professional groups, and other special interests with a lot of money to advertise.

If there really is a consensus on something, it should go without saying. Nobody needs to belabor the fact that the earth is round. So if a broadcast medium is repeatedly pointing out that something is true, this is almost in itself proof that it is not. You are looking at a propaganda campaign.

What about a “consensus of experts”? Good question. I would add that group who claims a consensus, or any organization that claims to govern by consensus, is really a dictatorship. Consider those elections in Eastern Europe in which the leader used to reliably poll over 90% of the votes. That’s consensus. It is not a good sign. It really means a situation in which nobody dares object to whoever has the strongest arm or the loudest voice. So beware any consensus of experts too.

We are all fortunate that the broadcast media are dying. It is a brave new world, in which what was long hidden should begin to appear in the light.

Kamala Chameleon and the Big Lie

 

Look! The Moon is Green!

Kamala Harris has by come commentators been nicknamed “Kamala Chameleon,” because she seems to tell every interest group whatever they want to hear. She is against fracking; she is for fracking. She is against a border wall; she is for a border wall. She wants to confiscate guns; she is for the Second Amendment. 

This, since she herself raised the comparison, is something else she and the Democrats have in common with Hitler. This is why historians have trouble classifying Nazi ideology, have trouble defining what Nazism actually was. As William L. Shirer observed in following Hitler’s rise, he would simply promise every crowd whatever he thought they most wanted to hear.

This makes sense, because Nazism’s core value was simply power, ultimately power in the hands of one man. Like the modern left, it saw all of human society as a power struggle. The goal was (and is) to get more power for yourself, not to advance anyone else’s interests. So you make whatever promises will achieve this. Once in power, you then do as you like.

Another way in which the modern Democrats echo the Nazis is in their embrace of the propaganda technique of the “big lie”: that if you keep repeating something often enough, it comes to be, or be accepted as, truth. This is the fundamental ideology of postmodernism. It is why they can assert that men become women, and vice versa, by saying so, and it must then be illegal for anyone to say otherwise. They use the big lie on the hustings again and again, asserting the Russian collusion hoax, the fine people hoax, the Vance sofa hoax, the Liz Cheney firing squad hoax, the drink bleach hoax, and a dozen others, knowing they are debunked.

Lies My Country Told Me

 

The War of 1812 as Americans Remember It

A Chinese student wants to talk of Nancy Pelosi. Apparently she is trying to start World War III.

I took the tack that China really shouldn’t care, since Pelosi was just visiting, not declaring Taiwan independent. Why assume hostility? For that matter, why care if Taiwan is independent? America has no problem with Canada being independent.  But I had a hard time getting him to move on.

A colleague laments how everyone brainwashes kids.

Including our own countries and our own schools. I grew up convinced that Canada had trounced the US in the War of 1812. News to the Americans I met in grad school. Canada was involved? They understood that they had trounced the British. 

In China, I was similarly taken aback to learn that North Korea won the Korean War.

So were they brainwashed, or was I? 

A bit of both. I learned from these experiences.

I remember a group of Chinese teachers studying with me in Canada at a time when there was concern over North Korea getting nukes—before they actually got nukes. Without thinking, I lamented the problem. And the response was sharp: “Why does America think only they should have nuclear weapons?”

I had to think long and hard about that one. I think they have a point. Perhaps if every country had nuclear weapons, war would be eliminated as a possibility altogether.

I was in Saudi Arabia when Osama Bin Laden was shot by the US Navy Seals. My officemates were enraged at this murder by the evil Americans. I managed, “Well, at least he died bravely, with his boots on. Not like Saddam.” 

That seemed to satisfy them. I was not the enemy.

An Arab student wanted me to agree that Hitler was really a good guy. At least he did something about the Jews…

My awkward counter was, whether you agreed with him or not, you had to admit that he was a failure, and left Germany in worse shape than he found it.

Again, that seemed to satisfy him. Although I felt guilty for not immediately defending the Jews. It gave me a lot of sympathy for Pope Pius XII.

One of the advantages of the expat experience is that it tends to expose the biases you have been brought up with.

I think the Koreans and the Filipinos are pretty good on this score. They’ve been lied to by their governments so often and incompetently, that they rarely believe anything from anyone. We Westerners may be easier marks.

Church Service Organizers

 

CBC’s The National last evening reported that two “church service organizers” in Calgary were arrested for violating lockdown orders. Global News reports the same.

“Church service organizer”? Why the awkward phrase, instead of the standard term, “pastor”?

Perhaps because the two were not ordained by any recognized large Christian denomination?

This is not required. Merriam-Webster defines “pastor” simply as “a spiritual overseer.” The Oxford English Dictionary has “A person who has the spiritual care of a body of Christians.” “Pastor” is the correct term here. 

Democracy Dies in the Washington Post

 

History repeats itself in detail.