While complete objectivity is impossible, oppositional
journalism expresses a certain degree of cynicism with regard to power, and
thus in that posture can avoid many partisan traps. All power and all power players
are suspect and their claims need to be investigated and challenged.
Oppositional journalism will also recognise there are multiple sides to a story
and multiple interests and their various concerns and angles ought to be
explored – and such explorations will contextualise the proclamations and
actions made by those in power.
And oppositional journalism shouldn't be cynical when it
comes to just one party or one side of the political spectrum. All power is
suspect and all power is corrupting and therefore in the quest for truth, an
opposition driven by a healthy cynicism can be a good thing. Others would go
further and argue for the good of society and even for democracy to properly
function, oppositional journalism is a necessity.
This is quite different from what could be called media
opposition – which is to simply oppose a particular ruling faction or regime.
Their motives are not truth-based but activist and in support of their own
faction or financial backers.
Please notice a lot of activist journalism also fails the
oppositional test. Many of these journalists – who occasionally produce good
work – are nevertheless motivated by a specific agenda that drives their
narrative and interpretation of events. And thus when true oppositional
journalism arises – like the information put out by Wikileaks, many activist
journalists become hostile. They're not oppositional but activist-reformist.
They don't speak truth in the face of the
system, they use partial-truths in order to angle for control of the system. If they had the reins they would
cease to be oppositional in any shape or form. They're aspiring to Establishment
status but since they don't currently have it –they can pose as anti-authority
or oppositional rebels. And thus they are very uncomfortable with that 'truth
come what may' attitude expressed by people like Assange. Assange is willing to
see the whole system collapse in his pursuit of truth. I'm not trying to
ennoble him but rather draw the contrast between him and the activist
journalists that actually hate him. They are not willing to 'pursue the truth
come what may' but rather support the premise of the system and merely want to
change it. Oppositional journalism is willing to say – that if the system can't
hold up in the face of truth, then it's a system that doesn't deserve to stand.
Again, objectivity isn't really possible but because of this
many have simply tossed the very notion to the wind. This too is a mistake. Of
course as Christians we are bound to honour Christ and we cannot approach the
world on neutral terms. But neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing.
We're not morally neutral but we should attempt to tell the truth as accurately
as possible, even if it hurts, even if it makes people we like look bad. Truth
honours Christ who is Truth. Facts have to be put together to come to the truth
and this is no easy task. In other words truth has to be framed and interpreted
and thus that's where our Christianity must trump all other commitments. But as
Christians are to be people of the truth, we shouldn't fear an objective
accounting of space-time events. But when Christians dive into politics and get
caught up in the quest for power, the truth will always be subordinated.
For example many Christians believed their moral commitments
required their reporting on Bush and the Iraq War to be supportive and thus
many professed Christians spun the truth and in other cases embraced lies and
glossed over evil deeds and other realities that pointed to the deceptive
machinations of the administration. Their Christian rejection of neutrality
told them that they needed to support the president and thus objectivity in
their reporting was discarded.
Objectivity requires telling the truth and in that case the
principles of oppositional journalism were sorely needed as the regime lied
with abandon. Indeed all wars involve lying and cover-ups, something every
oppositional and investigative journalist understands. Democracy can't function
without truth, not that we care a great deal about democracy or believe in its
promises. Nevertheless Christians should be interested in the truth – and all
the more so when false teachers stand up in pulpits and repeat the lies of an
administration and promote its propaganda. In that case the truth is
desperately needed. Our interpretation is not neutral and in fact may differ
considerably from the mainstream of society – in fact it ought to. However, a
rejection of neutrality should never mean an embrace of deceit. Rather a rejection
of neutrality will mean that in telling the truth we're always going to step on
someone's toes, we're always going to be in opposition and when Christians try
to get into government and control information (and start wars) through lies
and manipulation – they will always come into conflict with journalists operating
on oppositional principles. It follows that any Christians reporting or
offering commentary on said governments and their actions will also find
themselves at odds with that state and its official propaganda.
The Establishment or Mainstream Media is profit based and
largely owned by elements within the Establishment. It is not oppositional but
rather in most cases is collaborative. These Wall Street entities rely on
ratings and business concerns which drive the kinds of stories they tell. The
Establishment or Corporate Media also needs access to remain credible. The mainstream
press can land interviews with top officials. It can send its reporters to the
press conferences. Alternative media outlets are not granted this access. If
they are, they've probably compromised and are abandoning their previous
ideological stands.
Oppositional journalism and media are going to ask the
questions that transgress the acceptable boundaries and the consensus. They
will challenge the claims and the very narratives of government and thus very
few government officials are going to be willing to tangle with them. Why would
they? What advantage is it to a political figure to answer tough and
complicated questions – to be under the spotlight? They have no interest in
that.
The Mainstream media turns oppositional only in the face of
scandal, a public wave of anger or revulsion, or when the Establishment itself
turns its back on someone. In some cases they certainly play a part in
manufacturing scandal or even in fomenting public emotion and anger – in which
case the architects and agents of the Establishment are playing their part and
using the media as a tool. It's manufactured opposition. We see this in the
various false exposés which are (in many cases)
facilitators of cover-up and examples of whitewash.
We know from law enforcement and intelligence whistleblowers
that there are journalists who work for major outlets that are essentially
mouthpieces for the Establishment. In some cases the very briefs put out in government
agency circles are released (in slightly edited form) by said journalists who
then attach their by-line. In other words they're hacks who are plugged into
the system and yet are instead presented as 'experts' on national security or
some other pertinent topic. A figure like David Sanger immediately comes to
mind. They're not true analysts or experts but rather salesmen for the agency
they actually represent. In some cases they are literally assets, paid agents
of the CIA or some other organisation. Operation Mockingbird was revealed in
the 1970's and it lives on – the most recent permutation was revealed in the
story about the many retired generals appearing on news channels and offering
commentary on security related issues. They were not actually retired or even
semi-neutral observers but actually part of a programme meant to promote the
Pentagon's angle. The generals were on the payroll, receiving edited briefs and
talking points. And don't think these folks aren't clever – they can
manufacture phony debates for the audiences, debates which assume the critical
point and never question the underlying principles of US actions.
Interestingly the New York Times revealed the story in 2008 –
during the waning days of the Bush administration. Was this a case of real
investigative journalism? Maybe. It does happen and such stories do appear in
the newspapers of record. Or, did the revelations indicate a policy shift? Or,
was the exposé fueled by factional rivalry – the endless
tug of war between the different elements of the National Security State? It's
probably a case of 'all of the above' – and yet you can be sure the Times kept
back elements of the story that represent a larger or existential threat to the
order. While there is a conspiratorial element to these practices there are
nevertheless real internecine struggles and factional conflict. The mistake
many would-be conspiracists make is in thinking the Establishment represents a
micro-managing monolithic group. It doesn't and this plurality and factionalism
leads some to question whether there is an Establishment at all. There
certainly is, and it is and can be very powerful and yet it's not as
black-and-white as some would have it.
The mainstream media isn't liberal or conservative – it represents the spectrum of the
Establishment consensus. The state system, Wall Street and the Pentagon are
sacred. Within this circle there's room for debate and there are factions at
war but they're all committed to the system and as such any truth that falls outside
their establishment circle or consensus is de
facto out of bounds and inadmissible. This is why our media in addition to
be driven by entertainment and other popular stories (human interest, hero
worship and therapeutic pieces) is Establishment-safe.
There are attempts by reporters to get 'scoops' and once
scandal erupts the story can begin to take on a life of its own. And sometimes
stories break through the consensus screen and cause the Establishment to
panic. But all too often I find the mainstream outlets are really engaged in damage
control and attempts to whitewash and spin the true nature of the scandal. The
real questions are not asked.
Oppositional journalism is a good thing. We appreciate the
truth and if it makes 'Christians' look bad or exposes their misdeeds – we of
all people should want to know. Of course that's not the sentiment of most
Evangelicals. Their political interests override the truth and if the truth
does not further their political agenda and how they would market it to their
audience- they couldn't be less interested. And yet if a Christian leader is
involved in some kind of sordid or shady deeds – the Church should want to
know. They should do something about it. Instead what happens? Usually the
Christian Right employs its hacks, lobbyists and propagandists to spin the news
and spin the Christian audience. They may call themselves Christian but they do
not operate according to a Christian ethic.
Oppositional journalism implies cynicism, investigation and as
such is careful to provide context from multiple viewpoints in order to flesh
out the story. Can't oppositional journalism lead to political action? Oh yes,
it certainly can and as Christians we're not interested in that aspect or
fallout. If other people react to the truth by taking action – that's not
really our problem. But again actual oppositional journalism will always
function on the edge of the shadows, in the back alleys and will always have a
minority audience. The truth is – the majority of the population that lives by
the system – doesn't want to see it challenged. Many don't actually want the
truth and as one movie character famously put it – they can't handle it.
Some oppositional journalists who are able to penetrate the
mainstream and get some momentum or even some powerful backing and become rich
and famous and as a consequence are likely to sell out – Bob Woodward
immediately comes to mind.
Others become respected and get plugged into powerful sources
and yet over time they make so many enemies, cross too many lines and in
refusing to back down - are driven out. Seymour Hersh comes to mind. The
sources he developed after My Lai made his career. He's also made some mistakes
and yet the man who has broken many major stories and revealed scandals is now
a virtual pariah and can't get his work published anymore. He's been reduced to
second-tier publications and alternative outlets. He's had to turn to Europe
and the online world to keep up his reporting. Hersh wants to tell the story
and doesn't care if he makes everyone angry. Again this is quite different from
activist journalism which may oppose the major parties and yet will clearly
'hop on board' if a certain party arises or if a specific candidate starts to
echo their positions.
Under Trump, CNN, despite the perceptions of some on the Left
– is not an oppositional outlet. Instead it has turned to the position of just
plain opposition. CNN represents powers within the Establishment that view
Trump as an existential threat to the system. Some view him as a traitor and
while all presidents lie – Trump is a pathological liar and his lies are of
such magnitude that he's destroying the credibility of the US state both at
home and abroad.
What CNN is doing is not journalism but rather it has become
an outlet of opposition and as such it gives airtime to activists who take a
similar stand. It's interesting because the 'opposition' position as opposed to
oppositional journalism opens the door for some of the fringe activists who
normally wouldn't be granted access to mainstream channels. This doesn't mean
that everything that is said is wrong. By no means. The same is true of RT. Now
once the winds shift, outlets such as CNN will abandon the posture of
'opposition' and thus the activists will be returned to the fringe.
CNN has actually adopted the same model as FOX and the
posture it took with Obama. In fact FOX has largely played the opposition role since
its founding. Its purpose is to oppose the DNC and to promote the GOP and
certain factions within it. Its role is sometimes that of 'opposition' but of
course FOX (and now certainly CNN) have nothing to do with oppositional
journalism. RT on the other hand does actually produce some decent material –
but it destroys its credibility, not in its anti-Washington posture but in its
sometime embrace of the silly, in giving air to the snide and base commentary
of people like Lee Camp and in the occasional use of Ailes-like tactics –
utilising provocatively dressed women as a means of viewer enticement.
Oppositional Journalism is needed but rare. Again, true
oppositional investigative journalism is not agenda driven – it's willing to
follow the story wherever it goes. As Christians we should appreciate this as
the information is needed and useful and as we're not political, as we have no
stake in the game – we don't use the information to threaten the state but
rather inform us as to what's happening around us. It aids us in discernment.
This is all the more important when politicised Christians ally themselves with
certain factions and their talking points find their way into our pulpits and
permeate Evangelical media circles – in the name of 'worldview' no less.
I consider oppositional journalism to be a noble and even
necessary profession. There are dangers and obviously some (as mentioned
previously) have been corrupted. Some end up become agents of whitewash and
their journalism is really false exposé.
Others that have aggressively pursued this task have at times
paid a price. Hersh has paid a price but his is relatively small when one
considers the tragic stories of figures such as Gary Webb, Danny Casolaro or
even Dorothy Kilgallen. Truth telling is hated by powers that would rely on
lies and evil to manipulate the course of events and the masses – and I will
admit the information can sometimes be so explosive that its mere revelation
will have political consequences. The stories these journalists were telling
represented an existential threat to the system and as such they were destroyed
and likely murdered as a result. And of course that's what actually happens
when truth is introduced into the matrix of lies. It's like a virus. The world
system seeks to destroy it – this is also a lesson for Christians who seek
power. They think they can appropriate the world system but they willingly
ignore the spiritual nature to the world order, the present evil of the age and
the god of this world. The powers that be hate truth and will always war
against it. That doesn't change when Christians form alliances with these
powers.
While I'm not suggesting the aforementioned journalists were
Christians they nevertheless provide an example of speaking truth in the face
of power.
If Christians are people of the truth, it follows that the
response of the world will always be rooted in the same hostility that's
directed toward anyone who challenges the system and its narrative. That's why
all of us who follow the One who is Truth – will always face persecution, even
more so than the investigative journalists out there. Those that abandon Christ
and seek power and seek to provide a sham-sanctification of the world are in
fact allying with the dark powers that be and they become enemies to the truth
– and eventually enemies to those who serve the One who is Truth. And that is
indeed where things stand at present.
See also: