The homepage on my computer when I log onto the internet is the Guardian newspaper online. I've been a little perturbed of late as I've been monitoring (how ironic considering I am against ID cards, you literally couldn't make it up!) the section at the bottom of the site, that show what are the most viewed stories of the past 24 hours & the past week.As you can see by the screen shot I took at lunch, this list is particularly telling as to what 'Liberals, leftists etc' enjoy reading about these days. Or more to the point, enjoy looking at. If you take a look at the most read stories of the past week, you'll see some stories about the Chelsea v Barcelona game, pictures of a Panda breeding centre and how to master festival fashion which is largely a collection of pictures (because seriously girlfriends, we DO NOT want to turn up to a muddy field looking like every other top shop wearing/pop idol audition hopeful do we! Patchouli? With these shoes? You have to be kidding me...).
Regardless, the fact that number 5 in the list is even in the news, is incredibly telling/depressing. The news of a divorce between some overly tanned tits (ahem...not my finest hour, but I'm getting into the spirit of how a mainstream journalist would write) is deemed more interesting than this. Sorry, that is real news...my mistake. Lets try that again. More than this! The Guardian now pays people to write about 'Shelly The Giant Oyster'...wow...
This got me thinking about a recent piece of news I read whereby Rupert Murdoch stated that "The Current days of free internet will soon be over", in that he is going to start charging people to read online versions of the newspapers that he owns. The fact that in Britain this includes The Sun, The News Of The World and The Times, has absolutely no bearing on me as I consider them worthy of being nothing more than fish and chip wrappers, albeit online digital fish and chips...But after my initial sceptical reaction of assuming that this would be Murdoch's way of gaining more control over the internet and censoring its content (start at home) as a way of limiting what the public can find out, well I was still left with that scepticism and belief that 'the upper tier' will inevitably want the internet to be governed in this way, but my frustration lessened towards the concept of paying for the news.
In this argument, the rationale is that you would pay for a printed newspaper, so why not an online version. There is the common assumption that if it exists online, it should therefore be free, and this has spread further than just reading material in that you can chart the demise of the 'Record Industry' from file sharing downloads affecting record sales. Although this isn't such a bad thing. The 'Record Industry' has been putting out shit music for years and wasting money on bands with no longevity, so I can understand largely why the public is tired of paying for mainstream crap. Regardless, if you're savvy enough, manage your band correctly, tour properly, whore yourself out to every shoe, t-shirt and energy drinks company, you can have a good career. Well done. Underground scenes will always exist and occasionally, some of the bands from these subcultures will rise to the top, so it at least breaks the monopoly on manufactured main stream music, which of course is a good thing. But this isn't about music, this is about what we read, or inevitably, what we chose to.
I do recognise the irony in all of this though, in that this blog is pretty much read by less than 10 people, therefore many people either choose not to read the inconsistent ramblings of a 31 year old man, or more realistically, people just don't know it's there to read. If people did know of it's existence then I'm sure the former column of 'choose not to read' will be added to and I'd still be left with the aforementioned 10 people. So thanks guys.
Online American Newspapers such as the New York Times have been charging for content for years, but then there's still no guarantee that the content would be improved or even accurately reported, as John Pilger states in the video below with regards to the NYT. However, I was drawn to an article by David Simon, creator of The Wire (best TV show ever...) who is an ex journalist of many years, and as I am not, I thought it would be better if you read his account of the 'pay for news' discussion. I find it very interesting and if I could guarantee I'd be reading something that I regard as being of worth, then I'd more than likely pay for a subscription. But what is actually 'of worth'. It's subjective to to the individual, which comes back full circle to showing that on this particular day/week, the readers of the Guardian Online deemed 'How Does Microsoft Windows 7 Look' as 'of worth'. At least you may be more prepared for an 'online' virus.
I'm going to finish this post with a video by one of my favourite journalists, John Pilger. He talks about his book 'Freedom Next Time' and the experiences that lead to it being written. He's a veteran journalist and has reported from all corners of the globe. His dissection of the mainstream media is incredibly fascinating and worth paying attention to, plus it's a far more detailed account of this topic than I'll ever be able to give. I'd definitely recommend that any of his books are worth picking up if you are unfamiliar with his writing.
It's interesting though. I've always connected with the saying 'Don't Believe Everything You Read' (religious texts, yeah guys!), in that I would rather report and experience it myself, but this isn't always possible, especially as I can't experience or report on the things I want to read about. Plus, I'm not exactly sure how realistic or plausible it would be for me to turn up in The Middle East with my Canon 450d and turn to the nearest person and say
'Hi guys, I'm here to report on and take some photos of the American/British Military base's that are situated next to the oil pipelines stretching down to the Caspian Basin. I read that the blood of the earth is being secured as quickly as possible, hence all these 'wars', because the majority of supplies peaked in the 70s and what with Saudi Arabia finally stating that their output has dwindled, they're OPEC's biggest exporter don't you know, it's not going to be very long until the general public learn that the lifestyles they're accustomed to might not be that sustainable within the next few decades...phew! Can you show me who the best person to speak to would be so I can just have a wander round and take a few snaps? You'll take me to them? Fantastic! What? I've never put on a blindfold before when riding in a taxi in London, but if you say so. I certainly don't want to insult anyones cultural traditions. Why are you burning my passport? Ahhh it's a religious thing, I totally understand. I'll get a new one from the British Embassy before I leave won't I. What's that? Waterboarding? Oh definitely, I surfed a little when I lived in Australia. Righty ho and off we go"
...so we're left to trust our instincts as to what we ascertain to be believable. We're at the mercy of other peoples words as to whether we choose to decipher them in a way that we regard as palatable. Everyone wants to believe in something, whether it's the belief in a non-belief, the belief that you're not being told the entire truth by the mainstream media, or a belief in the accounts of a person you've never met before, in this instance John Pilger. Maybe you believe that you're so good at Karaoke, that you're an undiscovered singing talent. It's all escapism. Providing it doesn't harm anyone, what does it matter.
I know there have been a lot of links on this blog, but I honestly think, that if you have the time, it'll be worth checking them out. Maybe it won't. In which case, I hope you have a nice day.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha
xx
No comments:
Post a Comment