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 |
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
