misinformation – Observations and Misunderstandings

For anyone who has read many of these over the near four months it must have been now since the first one, they will have realised I don’t hold the mainstream media in very high regard. This piece is only going to further the previous sentiment. I was listening to the radio in my car earlier, for the last week or two it has been on in the background when I go anywhere, BBC Radio Five to be specific about the channel, and they were just like ever day it would appear, discussing the Coronavirus. Now this is not a piece on whether the virus is real or how dangerous it is or isn’t, but I would like to focus on it’s coverage in the media.

Last week all they were talking about was how deadly it was and how it was going to kill everybody. They obviously did not say that last point but this was implied by the heightened and sensational coverage they were giving it. There were episodes describing how to wash hands and the necessities of perfect hygiene, some of which I actually mentioned in a piece last week. Today in response to the populace freaking out and stockpiling anything they can from the supermarkets, they held a phone-in on the this issue with people calling in who stockpiled and those who disagreed with it morally. The point was they were being critical of people stockpiling and questioning what was leading people to do it.

Clearly the official line and message they were being told to push was no longer that you’re in danger, run for the hills or fear bacteria everywhere, you’re completely in you right mind to be neurotic; it was now that stockpiling is out of order, unjustified and you’re a bad person for doing so. Phone-in’s it appears are simply ‘Comment’ sections on websites or Twitter for those with ears, of course it is moderated but it helps to be heard if you’re a little sensational. A few people called in to defend their stockpiling, but finally one person called who reminded the presenter that the media must expect people to do this when all they’ve been hearing for the last few weeks is that they’re either going to die or be quarantined for eternity. He called out the very people he was talking to. They brushed it off with some kind of non-answer topic changer and the debate carried on.

It couldn’t have been more to the point. People who suggest this virus may not be as deadly as we’re being told are called irresponsible but we don’t seem to be hearing much about the irresponsibility of a media machine creating panic simply for click-bait and attention. How are people supposed to make sensible and informed decisions on something which could turn out to be deadly for them or their loved ones if they never receive balanced and credible information from what for many people is their only source of news. To sensationalise and then not only act surprised once people panic but be critical of them because it sells more stories and airtime. How people believe a word these charlatans have to say is beyond me. Why I still listen is even further beyond me.

Revisionism in history is nothing new. From the dawn of record keeping people have been telling the stories of the past and re-telling them with their own unique take. From the days of the oral tradition with the traveling bards to the father of western historians Herodotus, we have simply had to take what was recording. In modern times we are able to revise this history, and this is not to say that history was never changed in the past, but with the development of technology in the last few hundred years the stories of the past have been recorded with an increased frequency. Prior to this events could be recorded and the re-recorded depending on the necessities of whoever the new status quo was within society. In modern times exactly the same happens but with the advent of first the printing press and then it’s contemporary equivalent the internet, the ability to hide events from the populace has grown increasingly difficult. The existence of a compliant media propaganda machine and an education system selective in it’s teachings still do much of the work of creating an ignorant populace but with technology evolving at ever faster rates it will be interesting to see what course establishment counter measures take.

China is an example of one way of dealing with the spread of information with certain sites blocked, disruptive opinions deleted and a general hardline approach to the spread of information. In the west we have the alternative approach, allow people access to information but discredit it as crackpot, hide it away from search engines and ultimately take a more distracting approach. It is hard to imagine which one will turn out the more successful. History has shown us you can’t keep people oppressed indefinitely but also they’ll eventually stop being distracted by the magic trick. Do they both then add certain aspect of each others approach, well only time will tell.

The point of this though was not to get into a piece on internet freedoms, but instead write about the manipulation and revisionism of certain characters within our own history. I previously wrote a piece on the myth of the barefoot doctor Li Shizhen, an example of China’s revisionism, and we have done the same with figures from our own past like Winston Churchill; responsible for leading the country against the Nazi’s on one hand and directly responsible for the death of three million people in the Bengal famine with the other. Can you guess which part of his life we are taught in school?

Today I listened to a very interesting podcast on Emmeline Pankhurst. It is undeniable that she was responsible for one of the greatest social changes in this country since the industrial revolution. Through her direct action, determination and network of followers women received the vote, some of the things they pulled off during the struggle were incredible and I’m in awe. However what is not always taught is that she was a classist. Throughout this struggle she wasn’t actually fighting for universal suffrage as is taught about her in modern times. Her intentions were never to get working class women the vote as she believed they were better being led by those above them in society. Arguably she was only ever fighting to get the vote for women of her social standing and above. She actively fought against the spread of communism which was in those days more about the emancipation of the workers than the spread of Soviet authoritarianism. When she moved to Canada in later life she then fought against ‘non-white immigration’ before returning to Britain, joining the Conservative Party and standing for them as an MP much to the horror of her daughters.

That is not to say her achievements are unworthy and she did some great things which should be recorded and educated but it is important not to ignore the less savoury, or the parts which don’t fit the idealised narrative. With technology and the spread of information, as well as misinformation only increasing, it may just be time to redevelop a little trust back between society and those directing it. If not we can only envisage the inevitable suffragette style movement to follow. People are fallible, get over it.

Tag: misinformation

A Media Corona Love-In

Historical Revisionism