Preferences are opaquely linked to social origins and energised by social interests, but these are heavily symbolised as identity or cultural politics, which are seen as differenet from mainstream party politics. It is perfectly possible for the media to appear to be 'balanced' or 'neutral' when discussing options within this network of preferences and assumptions.
The notion of ideology is much richer, referring to a whole system of thought which predisposes the thinker towards certain beliefs and assumptions. These can be so implicit , or, if you prefer, unconscious, that they seem 'natural'. These days, thinking about one's assumptions is not popular anyway -- far better to go with feelings. Positions need not be entirely fixed because flexibility is needed to cover emerging situations, but they offer acceptable ranges of opinion, with the unacceptable ones not even mentioned, and sometimes not even thought.
Notions of democracy, Parliamentary democracy and the role of referenda certainly seem to be highly flexible.A PV is acceptable,but not the original referendum; a minority in a 'democratically elected' body can be encouraged to just revoke an unacceptable policy despite the party manifestos advocating it; the prized institution of a 'democratic opposition' can be abandoned for a GNU. But 'no deal' is never acceptable, and feelings of repulsion and fear of 'chaos' covered by pompous bullshit about the national interest, in which we now 'believe', will always eliminate that one.
So we come to the Guradian's self-aggrandising statements of its policy, and appeals for funding, included at the bottom of items on its website (eg here)
.. The Guardian is here to help guide you through whatever lies ahead. More people are reading and supporting our independent, investigative reporting than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford.
The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.
Every contribution we receive from readers like you, big or small, goes directly into funding our journalism. This support enables us to keep working as we do – but we must maintain and build on it for every year to come. Support The Guardian
Anyone reading this blog can surely see how partisan the Graun has been with this issue. Of course, occasional pro-Brexit articles have appeared, but the overwhelming weight of coverage has been Remainer. Articles can contain alternative opinions, but headlines are invariably shouty textual shifters. All the stops have been pulled out, from smears against (class or generational) opponents, to favourable quotations from (friendly) marchers and readers.
I especially love the appeal to 'those less heard', the imagined victims of oppression among the Millennial cosmopolitans who will be so cruelly damaged by Brexit by having to apply for visas. We have had various Project Fears covering expensive strawberries or late Amazon deliveries and ridiculous cultural lectures by writers and artists aiming to press new petit-bourgeois buttons.
The Graun has abandoned investigative journalism with these stories, uncritically reporting company or quango handouts (so much for challenging the powerful) or stories in more partisan publications ( the Irish Times for example) -- that way they can keep their own hands clean. of course.
I hope the genie is out of the bottle for good, with newspapers and the Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment