Journalism is dead…
On Monday July 5th, we all saw why.
For 16 months the government & its scientific advisors have avoided any kind of scrutiny. The Downing Street press conference sham is evidence; where “journalists” ask narrative-driven, pre-prepared & sanctioned questions.
When have you ever heard them ask about the China lab leak? About natural immunity? About the risks of the vaccines? About the flawed PCR tests? About the cost/benefit analysis of lockdowns? About the impartiality of SAGE? About the planned lies and fear? Never, is the answer.
Those questions are only ever asked by the public on forums like Twitter- never by journalists – & even then Big Tech censor many of these important questions.
The result has been the rise of the Covid cult (?), of covidians, a movement steeped in ideology rather than science.
The result has been a government, public health scientists, & public institutions like the NHS free to make any claim they want, as ridiculous as they want (asymptomatic spread), without challenge or recourse.
A society without the free exchange of ideas is no society at all.
The News Media Association says “by holding power to account and shining a spotlight on wrongdoing, journalism acts as a powerful force for good.”
The American Press Institute says journalism’s “first obligation is the truth” and they should be “as transparent as possible.”
Yet in the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer, almost two thirds say journalists “purposefully try to mislead” or are “concerned with supporting an ideology.”
Certainly a hugely sad and damning indictment of the failings of journalism in today’s major global economies.
Then something strange happened, something out of the ordinary.
A journalist, a mainstream one at that, actually did his job & asked one of the uncomfortable, probing questions that should have been asked months ago. I am, of course, referring to @richardm56 yesterday. Madeley was hosting a discussion between SAGE behavioural psychologist Susan Michie and political commentator @DominiqueTaegon.
Michie has been a paid up member of the Communist Party of Britain for over 40 years, and before then the Communist Party of Great Britain. She is politically active & in March 2018 spoke at a public meeting saying that communists should be “working full tilt” for the election of Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Her party is described as “far left” & is the only UK party allowed to use the hammer & sickle on ballots.
She regularly appears on BBC, ITV, Sky News, Channel 4, and just about every other mainstream outlet you can think of.
Here she is not just praising China’s approach throughout the past 16 months, but calling it “exemplary” when talking about the confinement of children.
Given her open & extreme political leanings, given this virus originated in China along with many of the draconian measures, & given her position as a behavioural psychologist, surely any logical & investigative journalist would question her on this?
Yet none have. Until now. Madeley finally put this challenge to Michie in a direct but polite way, stating: “if your politics actually informs your sense of control, it’s not just the medical arguments, you have a political bent to want the state to tell people what to do?”
Her answer was very revealing. Instead of refuting the point that her extreme political beliefs and open admiration for communist states could have influenced her decisions as a behavioural psychologist, she sidestepped the link like any career politician. “You invited me on here as a scientist,” she said.
Yet it wasn’t this reaction that was *most* revealing, it was the cacophonous outrage of Michie & her SAGE colleagues AFTERWARDS that revealed far more.
Egged on by them, she called for a “public apology” & (weirdly) intimated that Madeley’s line of questioning was misogynistic.
Of course, the usual suspects drove the blue heart cultists into a self-righteous frenzy, accusing Madeley of misogyny, a personal attack, a hit piece, & urging their religious following to “boycott GMB” in an outrageous show of defiance.
But what were they defiant against?
All Madeley had done was ask a wholly relevant question, in a polite & courteous manner, even ending with “that’s a perfectly fair answer, thank you for that.”
It wasn’t an attack.
It wasn’t a hit job.
It was a perfectly fair challenge, and what all journalists should be doing. If anything, their reaction proved everybody’s point about how reactionary, easily-influenced, & politically-minded these so-called experts really are.
Call me old fashioned but shouldn’t scientists be calm & mild-mannered individuals? Not acting like political activists. As Samuels points out, Michie’s politics are completely relevant to the conversation.
Being a communist and supporting totalitarian regimes like China, cannot be separated from her desire for govt control over people’s lives “forever”.
It’s *absolutely* in the public interest. Michie is not an epidemiologist or a virologist. She is a behavioural psychologist, whose expertise is in influencing human behaviour. Many would say influencing human behaviour in a deeply damaging and destructive way.
The reaction from Michie & Co is fascinating. Why? Because it demonstrates just how low UK journalism has sunk. And just how much of an easy ride these public health “experts” have had. At the first sign of scrutiny, they call for boycotts, block dissenting voices, and play the misogyny card. It’s truly embarrassing. But also, equally, terrifying.
What are they hiding?
Why can’t they grasp the concept of public scrutiny?
And, more broadly, how have we allowed ourselves into this position when unelected scientists are dictating every aspect of our lives?
Who the hell do they think they are? We’ve become so used to state propaganda, & so desensitised from the truth, and of Western values of free speech & open debate, that when a journalist actually does his job, the brainwashed literally froth at the mouth.
That is how far our society has fallen in just over a year. However, in every darkness there is light. Through that one question, we saw a glimmer of light that journalism can be saved from its terminal decline.
“Journalists should never be seduced by sources, intimidated by power, or compromised by self-interest.” Indeed.