WHETHER poli-sci textbooks admit or not, the media is central to an accurate understanding of modern democracy. The elephant in the room of all modern political discussions, the role of the media is almost never discussed in the UK. In America the elephant finally became visible to enough of the population to affect real world events with the 2016 election. Later that elephant broke its bonds and went rogue with the issue of “Fake News”: the pivotal question of whether the media is actively lying to the population in order to pervert the outcome of elections. Such is the power of the modern media to affect thought, that should this be proven true then it nullifies any idea of democracy.
The British, as befits the world’s most docile citizenry stared on uncomprehendingly. Yet the issue of whether the media is actively and purposefully lying to the population to determine an agenda outside of the official political forums is the most important issue of the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries.
Much like economics textbooks are littered with fatuous assumptions about the supposed rationality of everyone in the free market place (one Saturday afternoon spent shopping with a woman should explode a lifetime’s worth of economic theory), political textbooks assume that social movements, issues, personalities, and laws emerge with the consent of a well-informed basically intelligent population. Certainly, questions are sometimes raised about this fictional electorate but the overall foundations of the system are not, nor does there ever seem to be a realisation from the educated section of the population that the majority really have no clue what is going on aside from broad emotional impressions, sensationalism and appearances. The mainstream media (MSM) has always been well aware that by and large their audience is lazy, ignorant and unconcerned with the truth and tailor their stories accordingly. So the question of how much real power any elected politician or party has, if the media has already “manufactured a consensus” hostile to whatever they are trying to do, is important. If the whole country has been programmed by the media to believe that “socialism” is a swear word, for instance, or that the “free market brings smiles and holidays”, then it really doesn’t matter what kind of spin you put on what you are doing, you will never get elected with the “wrong” policies.
The British media is usually scrupulously underhanded in its bias. There is the illusion of dissent or an opposition. There is supposedly a broad spectrum of opinions in the newspapers, but on certain issues the monomania of the media can be terrifying. Immigration is one example of this, where no dissenting voices were allowed, and powerful and morally disgraceful techniques of equating reasonable opposition with Nazism were used to ostracise and silence opposition. With characteristic brazen hypocrisy other titles in the British media would then monetise their own victims’ plight by running various stories about “political correctness gone mad” (even the title is slanted, of course, since political correctness cannot go mad it is mad. This appeals to the only kind of dissent the British practice: “things have gone too far”, they never question whether they are on the right track in the first place: that would involve breaking ranks after all).
Which brings us to the perception paradox: free market and democratic dogma says that there is a free media and that all opinions are represented. Those opinions or views not represented are of course, not worth representing since they are anachronistic/hateful/too marginal/ill thought out/ too personal and so on. In other words, dissent is controlled like a deranged Victorian vicarage tea party where the favourite word used to silence dissent is "unacceptable". Who determines what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is another matter. So, for many years on British television anti-EU guests on political panel discussions would always be in an obvious minority as a visual reminder that this was a “fringe” opinion to the audience. This was deliberate and not accidental.
Because the fact is that these consensuses are not naturally forming. They do not emerge from the grass roots up but come from the top down. They are constructed subtly at first through entertainment - which is still the fastest way to access the public's subconscious - and later on become more overt through slanted discussions on television until finally they emerge into full blown social and political phenomena. But because the British state is on paper a pluralistic society, people ignore these obvious facts and deny what should be obvious to anyone that simply because they are emerging in different places, does not mean that they come from different sources.
Where then is the central source for the sociological and political manipulation of the population? There can be only one source. That source would have to have the following characteristics: it would have to have secrecy within which to operate (if the illusion of plurality is broken then the consensus will not form as people will be warier and more guarded in their cultural consumption habits). It has to have institutional permanence as manipulating elections and society by definition requires long term vision and the ability to plan and operate over many decades. It requires a guaranteed source of funding, immune from the business cycle, which means in practice a state agency and a state agency with immunity to budget cutbacks. It would need people spread across many different areas of public life who could further the agenda while appearing to be simply interested employees. And it finally needs some power of sanction to punish whistle-blowers, discipline recalcitrant employees and eliminate potential troublemakers. Finally it needs the motive of permanent power and a monopoly on that power since competition would mean exposure and frustration of goals.
The intelligence agencies are the only organisations which fit this bill. No other agency state or private has all these characteristics.
This German journalist explains how. He died of a heart attack shortly after making this video by the way.