Re: Is this a fair analogy of ML criticism of Monbiot et al?

Posted by John Hilley on November 5, 2009, 12:12 am, in reply to "Is this a fair analogy of ML criticism of Monbiot et al?"

A useful point, though the analogy needs to be considered more particularly as part of the same corporatisation of media dissent and charitable action. Pilger offered some pretty definitive pieces on the subject at the time of the G8/Make Poverty History circus in 2005. Many of those serious left criticisms were, and have, actually been directed at the celebritisation of charity and its proclaimed aid efforts. Recall that some of the more critical aid organisations, such as Action Aid, also rejected the shallow claims made by Geldof/Bono at the conclusion of the Gleneagles G8 - ie, Geldof's shameful "ten out of ten" markings in support of Blair/Brown on aid etc. And to be entirely fair, one of the people railing openly at Geldof, Bono and the Richard Curtis cabal during Gleneagles was Monbiot himself. If only he would exert the same kind of criticism at the Guardian and other media hypocrisy. The point about the celeb hijacking of the aid/poverty issue is made rather usefully in the latter part of the film Starsuckers, which I saw the other night. It documents rather neatly how the corporate media obsessed over the whole Live Aid extravaganza (generating, as listed in the movie, massive increases in all the stars' record sales) while the already agreed G8 sellout on aid/debt went largely uncovered and unchallenged by the same media. Another interesting caveat from this movie: the BBC's commissioning of Geldof's own media-linked company to produce a film about the events - with the same predictable, sanitised outcome. So, the analogy is helpful, if we view it in terms of how corporate imperatives, whether through the media or charitable organisations, are framed, represented and realised. John --Previous Message-- : Firstly, everything in this query of mine : depends on the correctness of my : understanding of the ML criticism of lefties : who regularly publish in mainstream media, : e.g. George Monbiot (GM). : : If anyone chooses to respond, they might : need first to correct that. : : My understanding of the criticism is this: : GM (and others, e.g. Naomi Klein, Mark : Thomas) publishes articles which, by : mainstream standards, posit very radically : left-wing arguments in The Guardian. : This plays into the hands of The (corporate, : conservative) Guardian because, using such : smidgens of left-wing analysis, they can : argue, ‘Look, we are not a supine, : establishment- and corporate-friendly body : of homogeneous journalists; we are diverse, : dissenting and combative.’ (But, of course, : the opposite is the case.) Therefore, GM is : effectively providing cover for this : deception. : And this successful deception encourages : complacency within news-consumers because, : consequently, they feel that they do not : need to go beyond ‘left-wing’ papers (e.g. : Guardian, Independent) to be able to read : left-wing analyses. Therefore, disastrously : (for the causes of justice, poverty, peace, : species-survival, etc.), they are not : exposed to full-bodied left analyses to be : found elsewhere, e.g. ZNet, Counterpunch. : : Assuming that is a correct understanding, : then is the following a fair analogy? : : Charities are often criticised by the Left : for analogous reasons. For example, the Live : Aid campaign will contribute nothing overall : to alleviating poverty in Africa. Indeed, it : plays into the hands of the UK government : (UKG) because it (UKG) can give massive : support to that campaign, using it as cover : for the claim that it does indeed care about : ‘eliminating that scourge from the : continent’ (as Blair put it, I think). This, : then, conveniently obviates the need for our : government to implement policies which : really +could+ alleviate poverty there – : policies that would outlaw: arms deals, : asset theft by corporations, mercenaries, : unjust terms of trade; that would impose : low-prices on pharmaceutical corporations; : etc etc. Thus, overall, a campaign like Live : Aid exacerbates rather than alleviates the : problems that it claims to want to solve. : Live Aid conveniently (to the UKG) helps to : distract people from real solutions because : it gives the impression that real solutions : are already being pursued. : : Thus, it seems that criticism of charities : by the Left – for being embedded in popular : culture and the culture of ‘the government : fully supports these fine efforts’ – is : analogous to criticism of left-wing : journalists for being embedded in mainstream : corporate newspapers. : :

Responses: There are no responses to this message. « Back to thread

Post a Response