Two excellent articles by Anthony Jay detailing the decline of Britain as it adopts the views of the "biased" media (MSM to us in the colonies)
The first is from Adriana Lukas writing at Samizdata:
The media ideology
A marvellous article by Antony Jay in today's Daily Telegraph confirms what has been obvious for some time to anyone reading political blogs and pundits - the BBC is biased. And not only that, it has its own ideology that Antony Jay calls 'media liberal ideology'. His article analyses impact of technology, history and perspectives on individual and institutions that defined the BBC and with it the chattering classes. A must read as it provides a solid backbone to our rants against the BBC politics. Here are a few morsels that should give you a taste of the piece.
Of people working at the BBC and particularly on Newsnight, which he produced for several years.
I disagree with the final sentence of the following quote. There is never too much freedom or too much variety, nevertheless the distinction is brilliant. Saying that there is too much freedom is like saying that there are too many notes in Mozart's music... which ones would you like to remove? But I digress:...we were not just anti-Macmillan; we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.
...there have always been two principal ways of misunderstanding a society: by looking down on it from above, and by looking up at it from below. In other words, by identifying with institutions or by identifying with individuals.
To look down on society from above, from the point of view of the ruling groups, the institutions, is to see the dangers of the organism splitting apart, the individual components shooting off in different directions, until everything dissolves into anarchy. Those who see society in this way are preoccupied with the need for order, discipline, control, authority and organisation.
To look up at society from below, from the point of view of the lowest group, the governed, is to see the dangers of the organism growing ever more rigid and oppressive until it fossilises into a monolithic tyranny. Those who see society in this way are preoccupied with the need for liberty, equality, self-expression, representation, freedom of speech and action and worship, and the rights of the individual. The reason for the popularity of these misunderstandings is that both views are correct, as far as they go, and both sets of dangers are real but there is no "right" point of view. The most you can ever say is that sometimes society is in danger from too much authority and uniformity and sometimes from too much freedom and variety.
The second is from this PDF report: Confessions of a Reformed BBC Producer by Antony Jay.
This is a long article (20 pages PDF) but it is so well written that I am going to give you the first seven paragraphs - a little bit to read but spot on and excellent writing:
I think I am beginning to see the answer to a question that has puzzled me for the past 40 years. The question is simple - much simpler than the answer: what is behind the opinions and attitudes of what are called the chattering classes? They are that minority characterised (or caricatured) by sandals and macrobiotic diets, but in a less extreme form found in The Guardian, Channel 4, the Church of England, The Observer, academia, show business and BBC News and Current Affairs, based in Islington, Hampstead and Notting Hill, who constitute our metropolitan liberal media consensus, though the word 'liberal' would have Adam Smith rotating at maximum velocity in his grave. Let's call it "media liberalism".
It is of particular interest to me because for nine years (1955 - 1964) I was part of this media liberal consensus myself. For six of those nine years I was working on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme. My stint co-incided almost exactly with Macmillan's premiership, and I do not think my ex-colleagues would quibble if I said we were not exactly die-hard supporters of his party or his government. But we were not just anti-Macmillan; we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.
And of course it was not (and is not) just the BBC. Our views were shared by many of our counterparts in Fleet Street, by people in publishing, the Church of England and the educational establishment, especially the universities. It was (and is) essentially though not exclusively a graduate phenomenon. From time to time it finds an issue that strikes a chord with the broad mass of the nation, but in most respects it is wildly unrepresentative of national opinion. When the Queen Mother died the media liberal press dismissed it as an event of no particular importance or interest, and were mortified to see the vast crowds lining the route for her funeral, and the great flood of national emotion that it released.
Although I was a card-carrying media liberal for the best part of nine years, there was nothing in my past to predispose me towards membership. I spent the early years of my life in a country where every citizen had to carry identification papers. All the newspapers were censored, as were all letters abroad; general elections had been abolished - it was a one-party state. Citizens were not allowed to go overseas without travel passes (which were rarely issued). People were imprisoned without trial, and the government could tell you what job to do and jail you if you didn't do it. Some of my contemporaries were forced to work in the mines.
Yes, that was Britain. Britain from 1939 to 1945. I was nine when the war started, and 15 when it ended, and accepted these political restrictions unquestioningly. I was really astounded when identity cards were abolished. And the social system was at least as restrictive and authoritarian as the political system. It was shocking for an unmarried couple to sleep together and a disgrace to have a baby out of wedlock - it brought shame on the whole family. A homosexual act incurred a jail sentence. Divorcees would not be considered for the honours list or the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. Procuring an abortion was a criminal offence - a doctor would be struck off the register. Violent young criminals were birched, older ones were flogged with the cat-o'-nine tails, and murderers were hanged. Two years National Service was compulsory for 18-year-olds. Small children sat in rows in the classroom and were caned if they misbehaved. Drugs were confined to the surgery (and the aristocracy). And the bobby on the beat made sure the streets were safe at night. And for an England cricket captain to miss a test match by flying home to be present at the birth of his child would have ruled him out of serious consideration not just as a cricketer but as a man.
So what happened? How did we get from there to here? Unless we understand that, we shall never get inside the media liberal mind. And the starting point is the realisation that there have always been two principal ways of misunderstanding a society: by looking down on it from above, and by looking up at it from below. In other words, by identifying with institutions or by identifying with individuals.
To look down on society from above, from the point of view of the ruling groups, the institutions, is to see the dangers of the organism splitting apart, the individual components all shooting off in different directions, until everything dissolves into anarchy and chaos. Those who see society in this way are preoccupied with the need for order, discipline, control, authority and organisation. To look up at society from below, from the point of view of the lowest group, the individual, the governed, is to see the dangers of the organism growing ever more rigid and oppressive, with every individual freedom stamped out and every individual voice silenced, until it fossilises into a monolithic tyranny. Those who see society in this way are preoccupied with the need for liberty, equality, self-expression, representation, freedom of speech and action and worship, and the rights of the individual.
Wow... Go here and read the rest -- it is oriented towards problems in England but resonates strongly with our issues here with the strong stink of bias in our own mainstream media.
