How Far Can We Trust the Media?

How Far Can We Trust the Media?

The average Briton currently consumes roughly 8 hours and 41 minutes of  media every day, while only sleeping for 8 hours and 21 minutes according to communication regulator Ofcom - 4 hours of that is the consumption of television media and entertainment. Furthermore, the same study showed that six-year-olds have the same level of technological knowledge as most 45-year-olds; not only are we consuming more information each and every day, we are also learning how to consume it and where to find it at a far younger age. Further evidence for this is increasingly surprising- the 16-24 demographic are capable of consuming 14 hours of media in a 9 hour time period by multitasking - and your parents said you were lazy! 

With an unprecedented level of information at our fingertips, and an increase in the supply of our entertainment and media it's important to ask: How far can we trust the media? These, after all, are the people who teach us almost everything that we know (despite the best efforts of teachers) about the modern world. The truth isn't particularly promising.

In 2008, the BBC documentary series 'Panorama' aired a piece claiming that the Bangalore- based suppliers of Primark's clothing were using child labour in order to create their various products. Not only was this story proven to be 100% slanderous, the footage that they used in the show was STAGED. The BBC, an iconic household name in British people's hearts, who we pay television licence to in order to access their content, has openly lied to us. But this isn't the end of it- BBC News used a photograph from Iraq in 2003 to portray a Syrian massacre in 2012 - one might argue this is just lazy journalism, but if our journalists are willing to cut corners in order to provide easy stories and we know that they have lied to us before, what's to say that they don't doctor information all of the time? 

For example, BBC Newsnight were complicit in the spreading of false child abuse claims about the politician and adviser to Thatcher, Lord McAlpine. This in turn saw the resignation of  the BBC's Director-General George Entwistle. Stories like this ask whether or not the BBC is an organisation of objectivity. Now, before I make you explode, I know that it's outstandingly easy to call the BBC left-wing sympathisers but considering the manner in which they have doctored stories to highlight child labour, war atrocities and paedophilia, one has to wonder how trustworthy the BBC truly is. Moreover, we must be wary of a left leaning political bias which, one could argue, exists within the organisation. Objectivity in our media gives us the ability to think organically. The nature of a newspaper's 'spin' on a story colours our view of any possible event, and it's all down to the political stance of the provider, as well as that of the consumer.

Let me be frank. No trial of the media is complete without the barmy army of the right-wing press. With multinationals like News Corp owning multiple British newspapers such as The Sun and The Times, 50% of the American Foxtel News-Corp and almost every significant newspaper in Australia, it's no wonder that there has been a general homogenization of the right-wing press since the mid 20th century. News International, a subsidiary of the  News Corp corporation, was infamously engaged in phone hacking, police bribery and the exercising of improper influence within news stories. Whilst this seems wrong in itself, the journalists recorded the phone and text conversations of dead British soldiers and victims of the 7/7 bombings in 2005 - a distinct lack of humility has been shown by these journalists and rightly led to the closure of the News of the World newspaper and forced News Corp to back down from their attempts to purchase BSkyB.

Unlike the BBC, newspapers have no obligation to at least present themselves as objective, which generally leads to the right-wing going bananas with it all, and the liberal-left moaning about almost anything they can get their hands on. With The Sun posting taglines such as 'Evil in the name of Islam MUST STOP' it is relatively easy to point out the right-wing, anti-immigration agendas presented to us by The Sun and similar newspapers. Not only are comments like this inflammatory, but are also subtle hints of the institutional Islamophobia of the traditional Judeo-Christian Right. On the other hand, papers like The Guardian have equally outlandish messages- a recent example being a column by Dawn Foster which reads 'Leaked Tory plans to cap child benefits have the whiff of eugenics about them' on the basis that it condemns the poor by lowering child benefits once they have two children. Counter-intuitively, columnists like Dawn desire to reduce our Carbon Footprint whilst increasing the world's already vast population. Dawn's vacuous 'pie-in-the-sky' school of perplexing 'Greenisms' don't do any favours for those looking to create objective views on key policy issues. 

Every time that we access media of any variety, the information presented has been carefully selected and recreated in order to present 'Photoshoped' versions of the news. In the same way that Photoshop artists use 'signature' effects, particular writers and editors will always add a much nuanced edge to the information we consume. If you look hard enough, you can find the contrapositive or opposite of any particular event- take the election debates for example. The right-wing were quick to slam Ed Miliband, most peculiarly for leaving his script for policy in his changing room, which they argued made him look 'robotic'. Simultaneously, the left were quick to point out that Cameron hadn't dealt particularly well with the interview, even though the pro-Conservative Paxman was asking the questions- remembering that he was in fact asked to become an MP by the Conservative Party (I'll come back to Paxo later).  

Despite all of the things I have said, there is an argument in favour for such a diversity of news- the difference in opinion shows us the spectrum of views within our society, and in fact can lead to more interesting revelations about the political landscape of the UK than the news itself. The Sun and The Daily Mail were the only two newspaper in the UK with a physical circulation above a million copies in 2015. The survival of these newspapers, despite the large transferral of circulation to digital media, indicates a strong presence of  right-wing politics in British society, which is almost certainly apparent in the support for both the Conservatives and more recently UKIP.

The vast array of news placed before us makes the ability to understand the world (in terms of hard solid facts) nearly impossible. Furthermore, the digital age makes every image or news story we read suspect; war becomes theatre for the masses, with political spins either condemning or praising military action, and famine becomes the latest magazine cover for a generic magazine. Our vast surfing experience has taught us to believe that not all of the information that we process is true and we become desensitised to it all. Every image or story we consume may have been staged, recreated or exaggerated for political agendas. Not only this, but the increasing importance of advertising and marketing within British media overwhelms us with possible interpretations of any given event or product. News channels may collude with the beauty industry to suggest that the weather will be 'hot hot hot!' in order to increase the sales of sun-tan creams. We just simply cannot examine every single article of information that we are presented with and know with certainty whether or not the product has an ulterior motive.

To this extent, it is extremely easy to follow just one newspaper- you know roughly what you're going to get, whether you agree with the writers and the topics that you are likely to encounter. This is where we see the big danger- unconscious consumption of media will lead to marketing brainwashing, a lack of intuitive, independent thought and most importantly a lack of objectivity. This is what media companies want us to do: turn on, tune in, drop out. A key example of this would be the almost infamous Newsnight. But what we don't think about whilst we watch Britain's most cynical man host this sacred cow institution are these things: the spin the BBC wants to put on any story, Paxman's political biases (unintended or purposeful) or the news that the BBC wants you to hear. Not only do news corporations put spins on our news, but they careful cherry-pick it in order to embolden their views and agendas. 

So, are we to blame the media corporations for making us subjective consumers of imperfect information? Of course not, if anything, our general laziness and high self-worth are to blame. How can a society which spends more time consuming media than sleeping be expected to ever step back and 'think'- we are already using almost 17 hours of a 24 hour day consuming media and sleeping, so how are we ever supposed to analyse and evaluate the media which we consume? As a society which increasingly spends it's time rushing to nowhere, our consumption of media becomes less and less objective- we learn to accept the views of the writer because we don't believe that it would be time well spent to think objectively. 

This in essence is the animus of the problem. Media producers want to push certain views, and they know that consumers are increasingly more willing to accept the news that they read to be true; the modern world has taught us to be more critical of information, but the effort required to sift through and evaluate the quantity of information that we process is simply too taxing. Regardless, the media companies aren't concerned. We get our news, and they achieve their goals. 

So, to answer our question: no, we can't trust our media. Moreover, we can't trust ourselves. We are simply lazy consumers- we would rather be told imperfect knowledge in huge quantities than precise information in lesser quantities. Whilst I would like to say that humanity can rise above this and that the public will become more critical consumers of information, it seems increasingly unlikely. I suggest that you just bear in mind that it may be more beneficial to you if you consume crucial information in less quantity, with higher objectivity, than a mixture of cat videos and 60 second updates in your eternal quest to conquer the internet.

The Immigration Game

THE IMMIGRATION GAME

In the run up to the 2015 General Election, it is fair to say that immigration has become a dominant issue, tantalising the tip of every interviewer's tongue. A large number of people are actively seeking tougher anti-immigration laws, arguing that the UK is becoming overcrowded. But here's the thing- if a politician is asked what they will do to deal with immigration, most will spew out a copy and paste generic answer such as 'Immigration does a lot for our country, but we need to control it'. Satisfactory I suppose, but why has immigration suddenly - over the last few years- become such an important and inflammatory issue for so many Britons?  

Besides the economy and the NHS, good immigration policy is one of the primary methods of gaining political support in modern Britain- the Labour party infamously launching their 'Controls on immigration' mugs earlier this year. After the industrial boom of UKIP in the last few years, polls suggesting UKIP support may be as high as 18%, party political agendas have quickly evolved to reflect the perceived increase in a public outcry for tougher immigration laws; the Tories plan to clamp down on Health Tourism, bogus colleges, dodgy work placements and implement a new civilian test, whilst the ever accommodating Liberal Democrats pledge to 'secure our borders' and tighten up on Visa exploitation.

Political leaders are talking about how 'tough' they are when it comes to immigration, and that their party is the 'only party' which can solve the problem. Essentially, they all say they are going to lower immigration, so it seems that the mainstream British parties have amalgamated into a cytoplasmic immigration-consensus blob. To be brutally honest, you can't blame them! A recent poll by the University of Oxford's 'Migration Observatory' show a general consensus for stronger policy on immigration, with 55% of respondents wishing to reduce immigration 'a lot'. 

Many Britons are bombarded by messages from the right-wing press telling them that immigrants have 'Stolen all our jobs' (The Star), that we're 'right to worry' about asylum seekers (Daily Mail) and that 'One in five Britons will be ethnics' by 2050 (Daily Express). The press churns out the same stories that it always does- the profitable ones. We all know that a paper tagged with the headline 'Immigration endangering our future' is going to grab the attention of the British population more effectively than 'Muslim communities condemn ISIS'. We know that one story is spun negatively, yet we still chose to read it- why?. The drudgery of 21st century living is overwhelmingly apparent, and the technological ages' ability to provide instant gratification and entertainment has desensitised us to the everyday acts of dignity, which is many respects are more poignant than the scare-stories of the Murdoch Monopolies. People like to believe that there is something happening in their lives, and moreover, that THEY are involved in this pivotal event, even if it is the seemingly dull topic of immigration.

In even stranger circumstances, it is the elderly who tend to be the most afraid of the 'oncoming wave' of immigration, even though they are the least likely to be effected; they aren't competing for jobs with migrant workers, or against a 21-year-old Polish plumber to live in Anglesea Heights Care Home.The graph below showing how apparent the difference in opinion varies with age.

Furthermore, opposition towards immigration is highest in areas which are home to the lowest level of migrants. Take, for example, the recent triumphant by-election constituency of Clacton in October 2014, now represented by UKIP's Douglass Carswell. According to the last government census, fewer than 1/20 of Clacton's population are migrants, yet the primary reason for the change in MP, according to UKIP, was the 'fear of invisible immigrants'. Unless  boats full of desperate North Africans who are seeking sanctuary  in the UK have been constructing a secret underground city beneath the town or asked Harry Potter if they could borrow his famous cloak, it seems that this level of fear towards migrants is unjustified. Obviously one could argue that it's only natural that in places such as London, where diversity is dominant in the cultural animus of the city, opposition to immigration will naturally be lower, and that the constituents of Clacton are yet to go through the 'diversification process'. But in reality, it's highly unlikely that immigrants are ever going to replace the populace of the white, middle class Clacton town. Considering that 2/3 of London BAME (Black Asian Minority Ethnic) constituents feel as if minorities living have been through more difficult economic strains during the recent recession, in a city which is highly tolerant of immigration, it seems unlikely that the foreign hordes will set up camp in Clacton town.

It seems then that we have reached a strange point- if the right-wing press and political class are telling us how important immigration is as an issue, whilst the British public cry out for tougher immigration policy, who is responsible for immigration hysteria? Think of it like this- immigration policy is a ginormous Edwardian steam train, with the British people at the helm and the political bods shoveling the coal into the fire. The British people are demanding that immigration policy has to go further and faster, so politicians implement tougher immigration policy more frequently and at faster rates. 

Mr Farage has led us to believe that the sway in public opinion is due to the 'Purple Revolution' and that the view is a reflection of increasingly high levels of immigration. Mr Farage is correct to say that there is an increasing level of immigration - there have been statistically significant increases for immigration among non-EU citizens (up 49,000 to 292,000) between 2014 and 2015 showing concern even for those most in favor of immigration.

But here's the big problem- did this really fuel a public led demand for tougher immigration? Is it even a new phenomenon?

In 1978, a survey conducted by the research firm Gallup discovered that over 70% of the British public believed that the nation had been 'Swamped' by immigrants, even though net migration in the same year stood at -50,000 : there were more people saying bon voyage to Britain than entrants to the UK! Furthermore, net migration had been negative since 1965. What do we learn from this? Well firstly that UKIP's rise to power seems far less impressive- waves of anti-immigration seem to be cyclical in the same way that that the British economy goes through natural cycles of recession and boom, with views on immigration having questionable correlation with the level of migration. Secondly we learn that, as much as we would like to believe that it is the politicians who are to blame (which I shall come back to later) the British public are primarily culpable. You may remember me earlier talking about how important a sense of excitement, a sense of being alive was in capturing the interest of the British population. We are complicit in the consumption of The Immigration Game- that's all it is to politicians; they are able to change their official view on immigration policy as and when they wish, as and when you ask for it. Politicians, as much as we would like to blame them, are only facilitating our demand for stronger immigration policy. Whilst they should educate the public about the true nature of immigration, they have no obligation to do so and are happy to supply at the level at which we as a society demand, as if they were some behind-the-bikeshed drug dealer.

This begs an even greater question- why do we have such strong views against immigration as a society? Do I dare even say it, bring up the elephant in the room? Is it possible, God forbid that Britain is ever so slightly...racist? Well, a recent YouGov poll indicates that this slightly shocking statement may be true.

51% of UKIP supporters believe that the government should encourage immigrants to 'leave Britain', even if their children are British citizens by law. Despite UKIP's best attempts to suggest  they accept that the children of migrants are equal British citizens, with such a significant number of supporters being so passionate  on the issue, is it only a matter of time before this sort of Xenophobia becomes public policy? Not only this, but a quarter of British adults agree with the statement. This, however you try to twist it, shows that something is inherently wrong with our society- as a civilization which prides itself on  its diversity and progressive policy, why does such a large level of antipathy exist among a quarter of our citizens? Is it possible that, and I can't believe I'm saying this, fringe parties such as the BNP *vomits profusely* will see a similar rise to power in the coming years? 

I don't have the answers, but rest assured neither do the far right and their increasingly toxic views on immigration. A vast majority of the immigration debate has been melodramatically negative, highly vindictive of the British press and the right-wing political class.

I'm going to introduce a house rule into The Immigration Game, it's called 'The other side of the argument'. Why is immigration good, why should we treasure its existence? Well, University College London predicts that new migrants add £5 billion a year into the tax pot- and before you scream 'they took ours jobs', I highly suggest you watch the documentary 'Poles to Peterborough' which highlights the general laziness of British workers and the exceptional work ethic of immigrants in the UK, as well as the repulsive nature of the work that they take up- the vast majority of sewer workers in London are first generation immigrants. Furthermore, a Briton is far more likely to receive benefits than any immigrant, as seen in the chart below. 

Immigrants also receive less in benefits than the 30,000 Britons living abroad, still covered by our benefits scheme. Unfortunately, humans like to create scapegoats in order to escape the truth of what's really happening in the world- American lobbyists claim that climate change is a lie and that it is just a repetition of the 'natural cycle' whilst the icebergs melt at unprecedented rates, gun lobbyists claim that the removal of guns inhibits Americans rights to freedom, whilst the US has the highest level of gun crime in the world, video games and rap music are to blame. The British public needs to sharpen up and learn the facts- immigration is not as bad as many want to believe it is. It may be boring to say it, because it removes the suspension of disbelief that the modern era has enshrouded us in, but it is critical in the realisation that if we reluctantly stroll towards meaningless, inequitable immigration policy that we may end up living in a place we no longer want to call 'home'. Politicians also have a responsibility to educate the British public, but it is not in their interests to do so - their primary concern is your vote, regardless of whether or not what you believe is true or whether it is the just thing to do. 

All I ask of you is this: educate yourself, learn as much as you possibly can about the true value of immigration, and if you are still enticed by the arguments for tougher anti-immigration, then at least you can justify your argument. 

A big influence in the writing of this article was a piece by Mehdi Hasan in The Guardian- though I don't think he got it quite right, I did use some of his statistics in this article.