6th January 2023:
I want to talk about the relationship that Extinction Rebellion (XR) have with the mainstream press, because it's something that has always disturbed me. I mean, the group gives out a lot of narrative that it considers the mainstream media toxic, and at times it even takes direct action against the mainstream media, like the actions in 2021 that blocked the printing presses and stopped the delivery of newspapers (amazing actions, by the way, would love to see more of that). It does all that, yet at the same time it is basically in bed with the mainstream media, it devotes almost the entirety of its activism towards engaging with the mainstream media, and if it were human it would basically be having sex with the mainstream media, and they would be considered a couple. It is difficult, therefore, for me to accept the idea that those involved in XR really do understand just how toxic the mainstream media are. Much as they give out what appears to be a sound and well understood critique, it seems to me to be much like the kind of talk that political parties, government organisations like the police, and corporations give when they talk about their commitment to racism or sexism: it just sounds a bit bull-shitty, because we all know that these organisations are institutionally racist and sexist. If they weren't, they wouldn't need the policies in the first place, and having the policies at best mitigates the sexism and racism, and drives it underground, but it doesn't deal with it. In short, the real deep inner work is not being done, and the problem still exists.
So I kind of consider XR like that: it gives out what sounds like a good analysis of just how toxic the mainstream media are, but it is still glued to it, and in bed with it, and basically legitimises it, and so it is still a part of it, and hasn't done the inner work necessary to free itself from this 'people and planet' killing industry.
I watched today an interview on YouTube between a Just Stop Oil activist and a presenter on LBC, a popular commercial talk radio station. During the show the activist superglued himself to the microphone, and gave the presenter a good run for his money. on the face of it, a radical action, but the downside to all this is the activist has effectively raised the ratings of LBC, and the profile of the presenter, and in that way has basically legitimised LBC as a news outlet for people to listen to, including people who want a more radical content. What about an activism that totally shuts out the mainstream media, just as we shut out the likes of Shell, and develop our own alternative press? Nobody in XR would think of working with Shell, so why do they think it's okay to work with the mainstream media?
I want to critique the idea that many campaign groups have that says that activism means working with the mainstream press, as that is how you reach the general public. I want to say that legitimising the mainstream press by using them for publicity to reach the general public is self defeating, because in doing that you are legitmising them as a credible news source, and thereby maintaining those structures a newsworthy in the eyes of the general population. Surely that is doing far more harm than good? I mean, you may get your 10 minutes on national TV, but what about the rest of the 24hrs of broadcasting? Your 10 minutes of activism serves to legitimtise a propaganda channel as a vehicle of truthful and honest, unbiased reporting, or as a source of entertainment. Thereby the rest of the content is validated too.
Can we have a deeper analysis that looks at the winder repercussions of gearing your activism towards getting an appearance in the mainstream press, or cultivating a relationship with them, or being concerned with how they portray you, or how you come across in them? People say that they use the mainstream press so that they can reach a wider population of people, but how much of that is really the case, and how much of it is a hidden motivation that seeks attention and craves publicity? After all, isn't quality more important than quantity? Do you really think you're going to make any radical difference to the general population, that you're going to be able to drive any real, deep, structural changes, that you'r e going to achieve a revolution or a rebellion or a major behavioural change, as long as that population is glued to the mainstream press? That means that the general population remain mind controlled by the toxic narratives that the media industry spew out on behalf of their corporate and governmental sponsors. That means that the toxic press will always have a grip on the minds of the greater population, and thereby able to negate anything and everything you try to achieve through them. I mean, isn't that the truth, a fact?
Can we not just shrug the toxic media off, and totally block them out from our activities as grassroots campaigners? How about we utilise only the alternative media, and develop our own media, and block the toxic ones out. What message does that send to the general public? What happens when they want to find out what is going on, but can't get anything on their mainstream media channels? At least then we have presented the public with a real grassroots alternative, and not just encouraged them to sit with the toxic media. At least then our activism becomes real, and has integrity, and we are screening out those industries and organisations that are killing life on earth, and the future of humanity. Isn't that important to do, even vital, the very bedrock of any genuine activism? And isn't any activism that fails to do that simply an extension of the toxic media, the good cop as opposed to the bad cop, and thereby not any real solution at all, but just the planet-killing status quo re-packaged with a green environmental sheen?
And never mind the fact that the XR activists themselves are glued to the mainstream media on their phones and devices. Can we have an analysis of the toxic influence that they are imbibing, of the toxic culture they are endorsing? Why are they legitimising these organisations as news sources? Why are they still glued to them? I turned off all national media some 15 years ago now, and I have to say, it was like turning off a toxic source of radiation that was shining in my face. Suddenly my life was a lot better, the relief was palpable, and my mind was not filled with the disgusting garbage that passes as content for the mainstream media.
And that is part of the problem. You see, people think that they are intelligent, and that they can listen to the mainstream media and filter out the toxic garbage, and just digest the real content. But they are kidding themselves. They are just media junkies. They are as hooked as anyone else to the lies and bullshit that these outlets serve up as media. Whether they seek to condemn the lies and bullshit or praise them as truths, they want to keep feeding at the trough. And what's more, it's not just the narratives. Even if you are intelligent enough, have enough time, and find enough alternative sources of information to weave your mind through the complex maze of propaganda and deception, you are still imbibing the influence. I mean, I may know that Santa Claus and Christmas have got nothing to do with Coca Cola, but if I carry on drinking the garbage, I am imbibing its influence and it is continuing to harm my body, mind and consciousness. it's not just the narratives, its an influence, and we imbibe it unconsciously, that is how marketing influences work. That is what people really fail to understand, and that is why I turned it off 15 years ago. And believe me, I can see the difference between myself and others who haven't turned it off, even if they are intelligent and can outwit much of the propaganda, they have still unconsciously imbibed an awful lot of behavioural and attitudinal harm that they spew out unconsciously.
The degree to which members of XR, and other groups who linger on the radical fringe, like the Socialist Workers Party, are glued to the mainstream media, truly sickens me. It is foul, unhealthy, disgusting, and they think they are above it, yet they don't see that the influence is within them, and that it affects everything they do, and that in many ways their own content, attitudes and behaviour mirror the toxic media which they are constantly imbibing. They don't see it because it is mirrored in what they are watching, and in the culture they have absorbed themselves in.
No doubt most environmental campaigners will ridicule this blog, and say that shutting out the mainstream media is madness, and will achieve nothing. But that's like me going to the meat industry conference and talking about veganism. It's a hostile audience, I will get ridiculed, and my ideas will be thrown out without any thought. If I take it to a vegan conference, however, people will listen and take note. There is no doubt that the higher quality consciousness is at the vegan conference, and not the meat industry one, who turn a blind eye, for example, to the suffering of animals, or the environmental cost.
There is a similar dynamic with XR and the toxic media: the whole mindset is toxic, and any idea of shutting out the mainstream media is ridiculed and thrown out without thought, and a blind eye is turned to the suffering and the environmental ecocide that the toxic media wage. No ethical standard is applied to any involvement with the media, because apparently ethics does not matter with the media. Such a crass and shameful attitude can only come about because they themselves are toxic, they are the mainstream media, but just painted a different colour. Nonetheless, shutting out the mainstream media and cultivating healthy media is the better choice, the healthier choice, the higher path. Legitimising them and jumping in bed with them is not.
And that is the other thing. You know, one reason (one out of a great many reasons) I would never engage with e.g. the BBC simply because of its endorsement of the Iraq war. That alone means I enact a lifelong ban of never engaging with the BBC media in my activism, until they make good on what they helped to do to the Iraqi people, and report the truth on it. They are a toxic bunch of lying and deceiving collaborators that have no place in a decent world. Why don't more people have media integrity? What about the collusion of the media with the oil and gas companies, or in pushing an anti environmental agenda, or in ignoring the plight of Julian Assange? Apparently, that can all be ignored, because for XR it's mainly about attention, and not integrity, but is it integrity or more attention grabbing headlines that the world needs? Is it more media prostitutes or alternative media that the world needs?
I just partook in an hour long Zoom meeting that Just Stop Oil organise weekly on their website, in order to build their campaign. The host, proud of her involvement with the group, reeled off all the media accomplishments, such as a poll saying that 92% of the population now had 'name recognition' of the group, and that as a result of their media publicity 1.5 million more people now registered a bit more of an interest in Friends of the Earth. Okay, and one week later the same poll shows that 2 million people now support total war with Russia, or that 10 million people now prefer two cars instead of one, or 3 million people prefer David Beckham's last haircut to his new one. It's mindless ephemera. And who cares less about 'name recognition' unless you are seeking attention? Is that one of the ways to achieve a systemic reduction in climate change, to get name recognition for Just Stop Oil? Or is that just attention seeking with a thin veneer of pseudo-academia painted over it for good measure?
A grassroots activism that shuts out the toxic media, and that supports the alternative media, and that develops its own media, is an activism that is genuinely building a new world, a genuine alternative system, a truly healthy culture. What's more, the public then have more of a choice on what world they want to be part of, whereas at present they have little choice. The other kind of activism remains rooted in the toxic world, propping up the toxic media and its vile and deadly influence. It is only when a movement has made that journey and disengaged from the toxic media, that it can truly claim to be an authentic voice for change, and to have created a genuine space for radical transformation to occur. Until that happens, it remains compromised, regardless of how many 'front page' headlines they get.