Is manipulation from the mass media creating mass myopia in its audience?
A lively party or a night on the town with some friends and acquaintances. Some drinks, some laughs, catching up and sharing good company like friends should.
Your friends are well educated, with a humanities degree tucked under the arm, and confidence to express a world view as self-assured as it is socially palatable.
Inevitably, after a few fermented tongue looseners, the conversation turns to the recent events in Europe, and more broadly, the mass migration currently engulfing the continent.
“It’s very sad what’s happening with the refugees”, choruses mimicking a well versed theatrical ensemble. Compassion, empathy, and celebrating diversity; a show tune-like prose which rolls past the teeth with thoughtless ease.
But what becomes of the performer who sings out of time and off key?
“What kind of refugee goes out on New Year’s Eve, and congregates in a large group to harass, abuse, and rape young European women?”, one may interject with genuine inquisitive tone.
The face staring back is likely to be one of sheer bemusement, or outright disgust. You’ll observe the moving cogs of the mind, through the glazed windows of the eyes. “Intolerant, bigot, Nazi”, such insult options pop to the surface like scripted ‘common complaints’ responses in a call centre.
“What about the demographics? most of them are young men, not women and children”
“That’s just right wing racist rubbish, sir”.
“Police authorities across Europe say they are struggling with a rise in violent crime”
“May we suggest you stop trying to spread fear?”,
“Anti-immigration parties are increasing in popularity around the continent”
“Can we you offer you a discount on an upgraded empathy package, perhaps?”
Again, and again, and again, your arguments bounce off the carefully constructed wall of in-group ostracism. Conversation lurches into the manufactured intellectual void of political correctness. The barrier goes up, the accusations of racism fly, and nobody learns anything except that there are ‘nasty’ people with ‘dangerous’ views, even within their own social circles, who dare challenge the so-called compassionate and progressive world view. The view which also happens to be the one treated as absolute and unquestionable truth.
A routine most likely re-enacted across the western world, in any ‘multicultural’ and ‘progressive’ suburb one cares to mention. From the soy bean cafes, to the university libraries, and throughout the favored bourgeoisie nightspots. A broken record of arrogant intolerance masquerading as supreme virtue plays so loudly, contrarian vinyls need not apply.
The world has never been so awash with information available at our fingertips. Yet for so many, the cognitive safety blanket of belligerent utopianism is a preferred to the intellectual environment of truth in debate. And this manufactured myopia is defended to the last with righteous, fraudulent empowerment.
The western ideals of free speech, free enquiry, debate and independent thought are being undermined by a dictatorial media class of cultural elites, determined to shield their constituents from the realities of a story book ideology resting on largely unproven positivity.
4 days after the mass attacks on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, German taxpayer funded broadcaster ZDF, was forced to apologise to the general public for its decision not to report the coordinated assualts which have since become worldwide news.
Not only is this a gross dereliction of journalistic duty and ethics, it feeds the blasé beast of non interest which has festered to the point of complete denial in large portions of the European populace. Before the story became widespread, people took their complaints to social media, where they were met with accusations of bigotry and deceitful conspiracy. The ignorance of those who seek to demonise opposition to EU ‘open border’ policy, was armed by this reporting anomaly. The agents of empathy proudly proclaimed that reports of attacks on New Year’s Eve were “non-events”, mostly the creation of “far right extremists”, trying to whip up xenophobic sentiments.
Consider for a moment how people form opinions. An opinion is essentially a conclusion one comes to after consideration of available information, and thus, is ultimately reliant on the validity of the information fed into it. As with a mathematical equation, if you put the wrong information in, you’ll take the wrong conclusion out at the end. Does it not stand to reason that an opinion formed from incomplete information, is likely to be inadequately resourced and therefore lacking in insight?
It would be like trying to play a game of chess, with half of the board covered from view.
How can we expect the public to be well informed and across such events, when the access to information is deliberately blocked and manipulated by the institutions charged with the responsibility of showing it?
This question perhaps naively assumes that the goal of journalism is still to produce a well-informed public, rather than push an agenda onto them.
If no negativity is shown, does it even exist?
Perhaps not in the ‘progressive’ hipster dominated Meccas of the major cities. Perhaps not in the living rooms of the perpetually offended, being intellectually chaperoned by their favored media sources. An intolerance to reality that might only be matched by a loyalty to blissful social irreverence.
When the cover up of multiple sex attacks in Sweden was exposed earlier this year, the argument seemed to focus more on avoiding a ‘right wing backlash’, rather than the mass betrayal of public trust which became frighteningly apparent in the aftermath.
Once any news provider chooses to avoid reporting matters of such national interest, for fear of political dissent from a prevailing narrative, it ceases to be a news provider, and instead becomes the propaganda arm of whichever body politic it seeks to protect.
One might ask; why is the current influx of migration treated as the sacred cow of debate? And on what grounds is the new arrivals’ psychological well-being, placed ahead of the physical safety of the citizens of Europe in terms of priority?
If the aim of political correctness is to protect people from hurt feelings, then its proponents are forced to make an embarrassing concession. That being, the determination of public discourse has been become the sole responsibility of the emotionally unstable, the politically immature, and the belligerently ignorant.
Although the definition of ‘progress’ in a political context is hotly debated, systemic political correctness championed by a neutered, agenda driven media, is more a throwback to the darker times of human history, as opposed to the more enlightened and progressive ones. When this concocted reality is thrust upon an ignorant audience either unable or unwilling to demand better, the result is a political and rhetorical environment in which the only direction society can go, is backwards.