You may have heard some grim things about the state of free speech in the UK. If not, here's one.
In these circumstances, news organizations make one of two choices. They simply ignore factual things because it is legally too dangerous to speak truthfully about them. Or they lie about factual things because it is legally safe – and politically opportune – to speak untruthfully about them.
The so-called “liberal” parts of the media, including the BBC, tend to opt for the former; the red-tops usually opt for the latter.
The government itself is taking full advantage of this lacuna in reporting, injecting its own self-serving deceptions into the coverage, knowing that there will be – can be – no meaningful push-back.
While it may sound off-topic, this is why I don't have a lot of patience with liberal protests directed at Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump is unsubtle, in British terms a kind of panto tyrant. This ridiculously oppressive law, among others, was enacted under colorless timeserver Keir Starmer. All around the developed world, the good technocratic leaders have been doing likewise.
If my calculations are correct, here in the US the Democrats are about two years from inflicting oily sociopath Gavin Newsom on their voters. Does he seem like someone who will protect the Constitutional right to dissent, especially on the Mideast? Keep dreaming!
1 comment:
While it's true that the media, left leaning or right, has been less than honest about reporting actual facts what they've really been doing is making things up. Yes, it's true they lie as noted by Jonathan Cooke. We can see proof of this every time we look at a media website. There have always been laws against support for terrorism (remember the IRA) in the UK but the interpretation has grown steadily to the point where standing in solidarity against active genocide is punishable by law.
In an article in Unherd last November Jonathan Sumption wrote about Britain's Free Speech Paradox. You may have read it yourself but it's well worth looking at again.. or at least one paragraph:
Knowledge advances by testing conflicting arguments, not by suppressing them. Understanding increases by exposure to uncomfortable truths. In a world of free expression, some of what people say will certainly be wrong, hurtful or even objectively harmful. But the principle which we would have to accept in order to justify censoring these statements is more damaging than the statements themselves.
https://archive.ph/lMnSc#selection-735.568-735.967
As far as Donald Trump is concerned you know we agree with you. It's one thing to disagree with particular policies or things said but rants will get one nowhere. Anyone spouting TDS absurdities only leads us to seeing them as irrational.
Hmm.. Gavin Newsom vs JD Vance will be an interesting contest. Just remember, no matter who's running for office the government always wins.
Post a Comment