Do we really need "progressive" commentators?

Earlier this week Owen Jones wrote an opinion piece for the Guardian entitled ‘We can no longer pretend the British press is impartial’. Some sections of the internet responded with a collective ‘no shit Sherlock’, but this reaction is a little unfair. After all, we should encourage scrutiny of the corporate media. The problem with Owen’s piece is, when we examine its scope, there is a glaring omission. An omission so blatant you have to question whether Owen is really fit to call himself a “progressive” writer.

Owen Jones

Jones attacks the usual suspects of the “rich mogul”-owned press for their deference to power – the Sun, Telegraph, Mail, etcetera. He also presents interesting evidence to demonstrate a pro-business bias at the BBC. He even goes so far as to decry the inability of some to see the systemic nature of media bias. So what about his own employers, the Guardian? They are neither mogul-owned nor the BBC, so they do not fit in to Owen’s critique. He has excused them by omission.

Either Jones is being disingenuous or he possesses a level of political ignorance that surely raises questions about his suitability to be a “progressive” political journalist. A rudimentary understanding of Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model of the corporate media shows how the advertiser-funded Guardian functions to support powerful interests in much the same way as the media outlets Jones has chosen to attack. Jones’s inability to reflect on his employer’s role in reproducing the conditions of capitalism seems to be a fatal blind-spot in his political vision.

The systemic nature of corporate media bias means that even the most progressive voices, such as Jones, are compromised by the fact that they are embedded in the system they are purporting to critique. So what about the emergent alternative progressive media, such as The Canary and Novara Media?

These outlets have undoubtedly played a key role in the bringing about a resurgence of left-wing ideas in British political discourse, but they have their limitations. An over-attachment to “brand” or “personalities” can compromise the radical positions of such outlets. Take Novara’s disingenuous response to their commentator Aaron Bastani’s decision to share a platform with rape apologist George Galloway. A truly progressive organisation would have listened to the criticism and taken it on-board, but Novara’s actual actions resemble a poorly-executed PR exercise. This has lost them a great deal of trust and for many has compromised their position as a progressive media outlet.

The problem here is that insightful political thinkers soon turn in to “celebrity commentators” whose voices are elevated above all others and who, when they inevitably fuck up, are more interested in defending their elevated position than reflecting on where they might have gone wrong. This belies an unhelpful attitude at the heart of both “progressive” political commentary: that ordinary people are unable to interpret political reality for ourselves; that we need clever, slick pundits to tell us what’s what. This isn’t just insulting: it actually undermines our struggle for liberation.

The Brazilian critical educationalist Paulo Freire says: “pedagogy of the oppressed is a pedagogy which must be forged with, not for, the oppressed… in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity.” This is true not just in the sphere of education, but also for how ordinary people interpret and respond to the realities of life under capitalism. When progressive thinkers are elevated to the position of “commentator” they are no longer able to forge ideas with us ordinary people, but they continue to talk for us. This is the case for both Jones and Bastani, and other commentators like them. We have no use for them.

The “progressive” commentator is a relic from a corporate media system which functions to stop ordinary people from imagining and constructing a better world. As the corporate media system slowly collapses we have an opportunity to dispose of these relics once and for all. We ordinary people don’t need anyone to speak for us.

x

“Was he on your radar?” - media vultures descend on South Manchester

“Was he on your radar? Do you know about his links to gangs?”

These were the questions the two journalists from Panorama asked us. I work at a small community centre in South Manchester. It has been an understandably difficult week for our local area after the bombing: police raids, controlled explosions, helicopters and drones, rumours and hearsay. Then there’s the press who have swarmed our neighbourhoods, demanding answers to questions that it’s not their place to ask.

On Thursday these two BBC journos dropped by uninvited, insisting on an audience with our youth work co-ordinator. He’d already said that he didn’t want to speak to the press and, besides, he was in a meeting. But they wouldn’t take no for an answer. They felt entitled to camp out in our reception until we dished enough dirt to satisfy them. When we pointed out that it wasn’t our priority to help the press to once again smear our community, they reacted dismissively: “we’re not the red tops just looking for a sensational quote. We’re making a proper documentary about the bomber.” Quite.

The first question to ask is: if you’re making a “proper” documentary, why is it going out on Monday evening, less than a week after the bombing? If you’re going to take a considered look at how a young man could do something like this, why the hurry?

And the second question: if you’re going to treat South Manchester fairly, why come right out with a question about gangs?

We kicked them out.

Trying to make sense of this tragedy is crucial, but it’s a long-term process. The news-cycle is short: even if the press ask relevant questions they’re not going to stick around for the answers. I can’t imagine Monday’s documentary will draw any useful conclusions. The community here is still coming to terms with what has happened – how can these outsiders, working to a deadline, make any sense of the situation?

The press aren’t really interested in the truth. They want broad emotions and simple narratives. On Thursday morning I visited St. Ann’s Square to see the floral tributes that have been appearing since the bombing. I was foolish enough to think I could have a moment of quiet reflection. Instead I found the memorial entirely surrounded by news crews from every corner of the globe. You couldn’t approach the sea of tributes without walking in to somebody’s shot. I noticed a few individuals stood nervously at the edge of the square clutching flowers, clearly needing to mourn… just not in view of the whole world.

There’s no journalistic reason why a piece to camera three days after the bombing had to be done here. What’s wrong with, say, Albert Square? The gothic Town Hall makes a beautiful backdrop, whilst Manchester’s citizens could be left to grieve in peace. But no, these journalists – all of them! – decided to depict Manchester in mourning because that’s what sells. Our city’s pain reduced to a commodity. Twenty two dead and scores injured, but journalists have a job to do. It’s all business and it’s got fuck-all to do with truth.

And if those two BBC clowns are anything to go by, you can be sure that’s what you’ll see if you tune in to Panorama tonight. The tired racist clichés about South Manchester that have been selling papers for decades. Guns and gangs, disaffected youth and dangerous streets – now with the added spice of terrorism. This isn’t about examining the complexity of how something like this happens. It’s about cashing in before you have to roll on to the next tragedy. When we do start to make sense of it all, you can be sure the media circus will no longer be in sight.

A lot has been said this week about cuts to police numbers but other questions are going unasked. Why have so many of our community resources been lost in the last few years? In March we were shocked by the sudden closure of Ladybarn Community Centre, a move the council is refusing to explain. Last year Hulme lost its Aquarius Centre. Millions of pounds have been slashed from council youth budgets. The national press have been eager to report on the bomber’s alleged links to gang violence, but what about the brutal economic war that has been waged on our city in recent years? At the end of the day, complex stories obviously don’t sell.