Information Wars and Mass Media

I.
The Context (skip if you already know) :

The mass media have long been the greatest impediment to change. Now it is they who are driving society further into disaster.

Until the global takeover of 2020 and subsequent years one could still underestimate the scope of the rot, the inertia of the masses and their gullibility.

Free speech, the cornerstone of science and the Enlightenment, is under massive attack. There are still ample other outlets in the alternative scene to document this, so I do not need to here.

In a properly ordered dispensation, there would have been safeguards and solutions.

All that can be done now is to spell out the principles of the Fourth Estate which have been betrayed.

Until the advent of the Internet, i.e. when print still reigned if not supreme, then significantly, there was a flawed model of finance through advertising of all genres, including classified advertisements, i.e. personal announcements, which were the lifeblood of the local press though not of the mainstream.

The mainstream has come to be financed by an ever diminishing group of large corporations and, worst of all, by government. It has been compromised utterly. Regularly, absurdities and obvious falsities are published without challenge or redress.

II.
Truth is paramount.
This said, things are often more complex than meets the eye. There is a need for context and a sifting to distinguish what is significant from whatever is trivial or irrelevant.

This can be partly achieved by directing attention at assertions and chains of thought which are obviously absurd or can be proven to be false, and by proceeding from there.

Lying in a court of law is perjury, with severe penalties including time in prison. The concept of perjury needs to be widened to include persistent and malicious assertions of falsehoods and absurdities by persons receiving public money. Such persons include not only politicians and government spokesmen, but also those journalists — or their editors — whose funding derives from government.

Funding for mass media which is free for all to access can come from small private donations. The subject here is news, i.e. current affairs, rather than entertainment, which may be fictional and therefore not bound by truth except in a metaphorical sense.

If these funds prove inadequate, there could be a requirement that citizens pay a minimum amount to a news outlet of their choice or forfeit this amount to a default recipient (such as a successor to the corrupt BBC or equivalent broadcaster).

The donations would be monitored by an audit company sworn to secrecy, i.e. with appropriate safeguards for confidentiality.

Since we have witnessed massive deception coerced by large corporations, and especially big pharma, channelling their advertising expenditure to recipients in order for these to engage in censorship, there is a need to counter-act this deception. A first step would be to end the tax deductibility of advertising expenditure. Any money spent on advertisements would have to come from the dividends of the shareholders.

III.
Professional accountability
The professional standing of journalists and their editors across the mainstream is in ruins. There will be some working for the few remaining local newspapers who have retained some decency but, by & large, paid journalists have lost credibility and respect, much as many medical doctors and scientists have similarly fallen into disrepute.

“Citizen journalists” are all well and good, but in a rebuilt society there will be a need for investigative journalists of the old school and even for some who know how to write well.

These people must receive proper payment, which needs to be in line with that paid to professionals in other areas where tenacity, skills and competence are required. Professional work may be defined as that which requires a lengthy familiarisation with a large body of knowledge and induction by more experienced, established colleagues.

Professional journalists who betray their remit by engaging in propaganda should, in future, be excluded from receiving such substantial payment. The principle of freedom of speech applies such that they cannot be prohibited from spreading absurdities. But they should not be allowed to profit from them.

Who should rule on such cases? Certainly not the many judges who have themselves been complicit in evil, being a law unto themselves.

Should fellow journalists decide? Here there is a danger and indeed likelihood of groupthink: in all walks of life, typically, anyone rocking the boat is thrown overboard, while there is protection for the status quo.

Let professionals from unrelated areas decide. A mix of architects, translators and mathematicians would scrutinize the alleged misdeeds and issue a judgement, which could be appealed to a similarly disparate committee.

Note: This principle was advocated and expanded on in my 2015 German book, which is presented at www.klasseverantwortung.de. The website includes an English section.