‘Independent’ media – by name only
by jess Monday, Apr 13 2015, 10:47am
international / prose / post

I have a question that refers to the meaning of ‘independent’ and a claim that the so-called alternative or independent media is not what it purports to be.

The mass media or western propaganda apparatus defines the content of the so-called independent media, plain to see, simply compare the topics/headlines of both. Yes, the direction in the alternative media usually opposes the direction of the mass media but that is reactive and to be reactive is to be led as the mass media determined topic remains.

Goebbels knew full well that the most important aspect of propaganda is to dominate the social discourse and close the door to deviation from a predetermined course; he saw contrariness as a secondary issue as he was always pleased to determine the material that dominated cultural narratives therefore formulating/capturing cultural consciousness.

If the audience tires of the mass media it looks to the ALTERNATIVE media for alternative content, ideally, content that has no connection whatsoever to the content that is pushed by the mass media. How often does that occur?

Take the illegal bombing of Yemen for example and the reactive discourse of the so-called ‘independents.’ Would it not be an improvement and more attention-grabbing to discuss the global reasons for the toleration of sovereignty-breaching crimes, which would include a range of breaches from Yugoslavia in the 90’s, through to Yemen today. Focusing on the specific, in this instance Yemen, does not alter the topical content, which is desired and designed by mass media propagandists.

Offer the people a new narrative direction, something refreshing and entirely divorced from mass media content, people are tired of the same ol’, same ol’, negative shit, it’s irrelevant whether it’s pro or con.

Change is effected only by new directions in cultural consciousness. Regarding all mass media content with aversion is good policy.