The whole world is talking about the Murdoch affair. One of the world’s most powerful men has been exposed because of the way The News of the World was dealing with news, politics and private lives. Not only did journalists indulge in hacking mobile phones and computers; they destroyed lives and families for the sake of « scoops » and money. The tabloids have always had a bad reputation for spreading gossip, rumors and even unverified news. It appears that some journalists lack even the slightest sense of ethics when it comes to the way they get their information. For them, newspapers should satisfy popular voyeurism in every possible way. It makes money; it gives power.
Rupert Murdoch, as owner of so many tabloids around the world, had clear knowledge of what was going on under his authority. He knew, endorsed and promoted it until it was exposed because of the shameless attitude of some journalists. These practices have not been limited to ordinary news stories or coverage of pop stars: they are closely linked with politics, governmental and security issues. The Director of Scotland Yard has been forced to resign. The Prime Minister has had to explain what kind of relationship he had—or did not have—with the Murdoch Empire. It is frankly hard to believe there were no connections, no influence, and no objective alliances. Before the last elections, we learned that Murdoch had shifted his support from New Labour, and his old “friends” Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to the Conservative Party, a shift that was likely to cost New Labour the elections. Today we find ourselves with the Conservatives in charge while the Murdoch media’s support for David Cameron is an open secret.
Murdoch’s power to make and unmake politicians and destinies is well known. The Australian press baron was able to use his “serious” newspapers to give credibility and substance to his tabloids. He is not alone; we have only to look at the bizarre situation in Italy where Prime Minister Berlusconi owns outright more than one third of the country’s TV channels and press. Despite the scandals that swirl around him, he is still in power. The owner of tabloids and TV stations can destroy an adversary’s reputation with a simple rumor. He can also protect positions and status when corruption and immoral conduct have become blatantly obvious. Media is power. Often called the fourth estate, it may well be even more than that today.
Ordinary citizens are looking on as these stories unfold before their eyes. What they see confirms what many have long thought: the world of the media is as corrupt as the world of politics. The focus is money and power, not ethics and humanism. Nothing to worry about though, this is the world we live in. There is a sense of helplessness within civil society: one powerful man, Rupert Murdoch, may have been exposed, but how many others are hiding, and getting away as he himself might escape when the storm blows over. There is so much power and wealth in the media universe that it appears impossible to reform, or to make the powerful owners accountable. They seem to be the only actors in our democracies who enjoy absolute freedom.
But we risk making the same mistake with media as we are making with the economy when we talk about “democracy” in our societies. In our globalized world, there is a new ideology of fragmentation that is distorting debates about our rights and freedoms. Debates about the democratic models in the political sphere are completely disconnected from both the economic and media universes, as if we were talking about three different things. In the global economic order, our democratic political systems are more and more restricted from within. But it is pointless to discuss political, civil and even academic freedom of speech or human, civil and political rights within our democracies without taking a comprehensive approach to the powerful connections that exist between liberal democracy, liberal economy and free media. Our fragmented approach is misleading us. It is pointless to demand more ethics in politics if there are not more ethics in the economy and the media. Pointless to clean our doorstep while the house behind it remains
The owners of transnational corporations and national (and international) media have the power to build or destroy political destinies, and even entire systems. It is clear, for instance, that economic and media interests are making money on security: citizens’ rights are reduced, but the chorus of politicians and journalists have convinced them that it is all for their own good. A strange, convoluted logic. We are reaching a point where today’s democratic, uncritically accepted and fragmented political systems are working against the very democratic values they claim to uphold. Ordinary citizens and even intellectuals are caught up in an inextricable contradiction that is eating away the substance of democracy from within. We are faced with a comprehensive crisis, one that needs a comprehensive ethical approach to be resolved. The longer we avoid this critical question the longer we avoid one of the most profound challenges of our time.
Mais regardez le scandale Norvégien, accompagné d’un scandale journalistique. Savez vous, qu’elle a été la prmière hypothèse journalistique « du Monde » en France ,sans aucune connaissance de cause « Islamisme ». Mais comment peut-on écrire cela sans aucune preuve? Comment le journal « le monde » peut-il malheureusement donner une image de lui aussi fautif et dépravé, suivant ainsi certaines idéologies politiques Françaises. A chaque fois que attentat, il y a, on accorde cela avec l’Islamisme et on réctifie ensuite les pages des hebdos. Le journalisme n’a pas lieu d’être si l’on n’est pas sûr des preuves et toute hypothèse si obligation il y a, doit se faire avec évidence et non un jeu sur les mots qui induit en erreur. Et j’en profite aussi pour dire que si Zola a accusé jadis la France d’inégalité contre Dreyfus, ce juif innocent; aujourd’hui, moi et tout musulman l’accusent et présisement accusent ses parties de droite et de front national, d’être à l’origine de l’attentat en Norvége. Le criminel Norvégien a avoué cela en personne » j’ai fait cela contre l’Islam », qu’il juge comme dangereux. Mais on peut se damander si cet extrémiste chrétien ne montre pas justement que le chrétianisme à bien ses extrémistes, ses terroristes. Et où est le Pape dans tout cela, pourquoi ne condamne t’il pas d’emblée les faits alors qu’à chaque fois que terrorisme il y a , les chefs des grandes mosquées sont les premiers à condamné. On se demande qui est progressiste dans tout ça et qui est retardé? Oui, j’accuse la France, de stigmatiser ses musulmans et de pousser ses voisins européens à le faire. J’accuse le bleu blanc rouge de vouloir répandre le rouge dans certaines routes européennes,loin de ses sillons racistes. J’accuse la France , J’accuse la droite française de laisser carte blanche aux extrémistes européens. J’accuse la France de recevoir des mérites des « durs », des « malades », à l’exemple de ce flamand saugrenu et ne cachant pas son admiration pour Sarkozy. J’accuse la France de mépriser ses propres trésors, sa constitution,la déclaration des droits de l’homme et des citoyens et de les changer à des fins racistes; le voile en 2004, la burqa il y a peu de temps, le cliéntélisme avec la famille du président, la protections des corrompus:Eric Woerth, le silence sur ses propres hontes: Michelle Alliot Marie et Ben Ali et ces exemples sont juste le last but not least. J’accuse la France de jouer volt face, d’être dogmatique,hypocrite et checher l’anomalie. De vouloir la fermeture à une époque où l’ouverture ne doit se discuter. Cette France que j’accuse, c’est seulement son gouvernement, cette France que j’accuse, c’est seulement les droites soi disant « républicaine », soi-disant « démocratique », ce Front National au front pâle, au front honteux, aux idées racistes. Cette France que j’accuse c’est aussi tous ceux, toutes celles qui suivent ce courant. Au reste de la France j’apelle à l’égalité, à la fraternité et à la liberté. Enfin j’accuse cette France d’accuser les innocents à des fins diaboliques, contre « l’humanisme ».
dommage qu’il n’ya pas la traduction en français.
Mohammed Benzakour (Moroccan Dutch writer and polemicist) once wrote that we should read the newspaper but never believe it. But since still we have to rely on that same media, one could ask if people are enough equipped to deal with a media of which we know it is being manipulated for all sorts of purposes.
How weird and interesting to see our “democracies” criticized by you. Would you be looking for (more) trouble?
Because in our Western societies, well, no one can deny we have democracy. No one can dispute our right and good intentions to export, if not impose, democracies to ignorant people, unable to run their own lives, let alone their own countries.
We must have a duty to take every opportunity to boast about our own “values” and vent our dissatisfaction or horror at such barbaric people(s) still hanging on to their own lifestyles in this blessed 21st century when, patently, no one has done better than the big “US”? (Read “us” as opposed to “them” or “US” as in U.S. (A)… Same difference…)
Really?
How blind are we all here? Thankfully you speak out, although the eternal accusations of double speak will tone down the efficacy of your eloquence… I’m sure. How pathetic and cowardly they all are…
This righteous attitude is, of course, tiring and as laughable as unjustified. Western countries imagining their right to “teach” others lessons, apparently, if not democracy, after the colonialist bloodshed that they are not even able to speak about and obviously certainly not acknowledge…
Western countries imposing the world economic order through neoliberal strategies furthered by the most outrageous cynicism…
Western countries criticizing the practices of dictators they support when they themselves make a mockery of what democracy really is…
Thinking ourselves in a democracy because we are voting every now and then for a PM or a president who will then do the contrary of what his (sadly much less of “her”, how advanced are we…) campaign or party stated, is one of the biggest jokes of current Western societies and our own delusion. After voting, we can of course all go back to sleep in our blessed democracies. We let them get away with murder and that is true whichever meaning you consider.
We have more brain power and responsibility than that and it would be high time to both act and react. Yes, the media feed us official rhetoric. Aren’t there any other news we can watch, books we can read, and journalists we can track down in newspapers columns? What are the “Democracy Now” programmes, Fisk, Chomsky, Zinn, Klein, Arendt, Baillargeon, Genereux, Said, Sen or Stiglitz of this world for, then?… if not to open our minds and broaden our views? And there are others of course… Who can help us to understand how this fragmentation and this distortion prevent us from seeing that they all have the same interest in numbing us with fear, lies or useless drivel. If we cannot act against them just now, why not start the opposite way and get information elsewhere if the recognized media have all, but a few, lost any sense of what their jobs entail, what ethics mean and what it is for, how they have a duty to contribution more than ratings and voyeuristic scoops? Of course, it takes a little time, a little will, a little openness… But for peace in societies we are responsible for, to make ourselves heard in nations run by governments which betray the people they work for and in the name of, and for our children, isn’t it worth it? Maybe, then, we can talk about democracies; and between ourselves first, before spitting lessons we do not even understand in the cradle of enlightenment and modernity… Even if that were true, how can we hope to be taken seriously when we take stock of what we have made of it?
Does anyone care that the current “propaganda” is fuelling the world with so much fear that the most basic human rights are being contravened with our blessing? Yes, the nasty bearded guys have no right cos’ they all want to kill “us”. Now. On “our” land. Some believe this joke. Yes, there are security issues and there are villains but the latest one was blond and blue-eyed and, yes, Christian. Doesn’t it bother anyone that the world population’s conscience of, and desire for, equality and justice are being eroded so that governments can pass « emergency », undemocratic, unfair, inhuman laws without us reacting massively? Is anyone interested in the fact that there is nowadays more economic incentive for war than for peace? Maybe no one is. Maybe just one (fake) blond, green-eyed girl who is sick of dirty tricks in a dirty world which generates lucrative contracts to build crap that never serves or benefits any of those who deserve it and still pay the price for it: price in lives, in rights, in well being, in the wealth found in difference, in humanity.
Mr. Ramadan, what is the cure for that kind of sickness?