Media in times of war

On having “the right” opinion

(4 April 2023) (rs) Currently, half of Europe is at war with the USA in Ukraine. Switzerland is not only involved in the “Partnership for Peace”, but also in the media, which marches in step with the big media houses in the USA and Europe. Only a few media today manage to work in a differentiated and independent manner.

“Westerlies”

Processes seen in our media: “Pacifists” turn into arms suppliers and warmongers. A church president of the Protestant Church demands more weapons. Former army abolitionists become “hardliners” against Russia and call for more weapons and less neutrality. Leading party representatives, who once saw themselves as guarantors of neutrality, want to soften arms export regulations in order to be able to supply weapons. – Other voices, however, are hardly present.

You can hear and read about all those who have turned around with the strong westerlies, who have now trimmed their sails to the wind: once against arms – now for arms; once for neutrality – now for an “adapted” neutrality; yesterday against arms exports – today in favour, etc.

Old convictions are disposed of

You rub your eyes in astonishment at who suddenly wants to take a “tough stance” – and finds plenty of sympathy for it in our media. This is allowed to be the case today because “everything is different”. Just like in our country, there is hardly any difference between north, west, east and south. It doesn't matter if yesterday’s convictions no longer count.

NATO media machinery

The NATO PR machinery is well oiled. News pools are fed with selected and elaborated news and “facts”. Media houses and tax-funded state radio stations almost slavishly make use of this news pool, although there would be other options. – Balanced reporting falls by the wayside!

The way it sounds in the media is now the way it sounds in the public. Anyone who says something contradicting in public is commented on with frowns or snorts, if not dubbed a “Putin-Versteher”. – It sounds quite different when only two or three people are discussing in private.

No more room for Rudolf von Salis

Neutral reporting, like that of Rudolf von Salis during World War II, would no-longer be given room on Swiss Radio and Television (SRF) today. These days, “information” is taken over unchecked, it is implemented to defame, discredit, denigrate and finally, to put it profanely: to lie. And so it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a highly emotionalised atmosphere.

“Fact checkers”, funded by big media houses, NATO and dubious sources, aim at maintaining fixed opinions. Greetings from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth!

Same old game: the good and the bad guys

If read, heard or watched over a length of time, the published opinion, pardon me the “facts”, are as simple-minded as they are catchy: “Russians and Chinese are bad – Americans, the West and we are good. Everything Russians and Chinese say or do is evil – what we say and do is good. Russians and Chinese oppress, lie and cheat – we do not. Anyone who listens to the Russians and Chinese, takes them serious or considers things similarly, is regarded to be either stupid, naive or even evil themselves. Anyone who doesn’t believe Russians and Chinese is clever, intelligent and good ...”

Though primitively disguised, it is highly effective. So, watch out! This is how propaganda in the guise of modern public relations works. The original methods of an Edward Bernays or Walter Lippmann have been further developed over a period of 80 years and are applied to the full today.

Intellectually spiced up

In the mass newspapers and in the regional editions of the “leading media”, the “facts” can be found quite blatantly. In the leading media they are spiced up with appropriate studies or statements by academics in order to satisfy the intellectual reputation befitting their status. The thrust remains the same: black and white, good and evil. Not simply Lieschen Müller but also Dr. Lieselotte Müller are supposed to think in step.

Alternative opinions

Few news portals and personalities today can come up with critical, in-depth or with differentiated opinions, analyses or reports. You have to look for them, but you can find them. They allow for looking beyond the prescribed horizon and developing one’s own opinions.

It is downright embarrassing if the “West’s values” has to be reminded that the formation of public opinion is a cornerstone of any democratic debate in a pluralistic society and that, to this end, the confrontation with all opinions remains to be a prerequisite.

Fight against “dissenters”

When critical media gain a certain degree of prominence, they risk being “edited”. A process actually only known from authoritarian regimes. In this way, a news portal or a personality is gradually defamed and stigmatised, even to the point of public annihilation. Such processes can also be observed in our country. As a rule, a defamatory report or a discrediting news item triggers such a process, often in conjunction with tax-funded state radio stations. The result is a ping-pong game between private media houses and state broadcasters. After a short time, everyone knows what to think. Just by denying a defamatory news item, it is in the focus of the public sphere ...

In order not to let the denigration fall back on them, the cornered person tries to fights back. However, if you are not a lawyer or can’t afford a lawyer’s office, you will be inundated with legal problems ...

Secret service operations ...

In the meantime, there are grounds to believe that some journalists take on typical tasks from the operational area of secret services. After all, the war alliance NATO is concerned with nipping the emergence of an opposition to its war course in the bud as far as possible or to control the opposition itself. How this worked and still works can be seen from the well-studied Stasi files or the propaganda practices documented from the Third Reich ...

… executed by the media

Certain news items carried, can result in dividing an emerging opposition. The broadly publicised demand of a left-wing GSoA [anti-army society, edit.] representative at the beginning of March this year had the same effect. He demanded that only Easter March participants with “the right opinion” should be allowed to participate but no “right-wingers”. Everyone must differentiate themselves from the “right-wing” peace activists. “Right-wingers” should not be allowed to participate in the peace movement. Again, the good and the bad. Yet, who determines what or who is “right-wing”? Your guess is correct! It is the leading media itself. It is determined with the help of compliant individuals from academia, politics and society. Now all that is needed is the corresponding influencers on the boards of the various peace associations and “divide et impera” will work. Divide and rule!

Times of war

Is all this just a coincidence? In these times, when NATO is investing millions in the “news” sector alone, it hardly is. It is neither about democracy nor about pluralistic opinion-forming, nor about “values”. It is simply about waging a worldwide war and making everyone march in step.

The question remains, will everyone march? There are too many who inform themselves from different sources, examine critically, compare and think for themselves. In a democracy, the next step is to get actively involved in the opinion-forming process. That’s exactly how you can recognise the current condition of democracy in the “West’s values”.

(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)