The Haranguing Of Media

Recent politics has seen various attacks on the media, along with various angered responses by media organs. The outcry over these is notable, but partially decentralised - as media organs often are - and hence can seem like a bunch of noises rather than an unequivocal pronouncement. Of course, when left to themselves the media have often been quick to smear or attack political figures. This has often taken the form of 'shock,' perhaps because after staying camped in the Middle East for a decade attacking the media (or, for some in British Labour, Israel) is an incredibly egregious political action. It might come as a surprise to some that the Western governments have been so mild and peaceful of late, that an attack on the media counts as a shocking divergence. Nonetheless

The media is an organ which mediates interactions and experiences, but it is predominantly corporate or associated with bourgeois organs. It is hence best viewed as a propaganda outlet, as the bourgeoisie has ultimate authority over this mediation. Hence, caution about it can be important. 'Propaganda' might be a simplistic term here, as it does not simply promote but seeks to colonise existing experiences and actors and twist these in accordance with corporate ends. As it mediates experiences, or attempts to alter the audience's experience of the world in corporate directions, it goes somewhat beyond propaganda.

When we discuss 'propaganda,' there can be some confusion over the term. Stalinist 'propaganda' is known for its often disputed portrayals of happy people and activity, but Western pop culture very frequently portrays such scenes as a mode of promotion. Indeed, Western culture is saturated with such portrayals, which also serve to condition how the area is portrayed. Many music videos or posters will portray paid 'crowds' acting enthusiastic about the singer and song, but this is an accepted mode of promotion. This all manufactures an image of general contentment within the West, which was not present in countries which dissent even slightly from the predominant Western system. It is predominant in countries which 'go with the flow' of international capital. The bourgeoisie of course have had primary access to these means of happiness, and occasional portrayals of excess indulgence merely serve to glorify them. Nations which were often subordinated to far-away countries, like India, have more ascetic tendencies - in part because they cannot simply relax and go with the flow. Conversely, when the bourgeoisie - with their thirst for gain and the means of universal consumption - are portrayed as living life precisely correct within the circumstances, this is merely a bourgeois viewpoint.  Countries like India hence had socialistic tendencies to their independence movement, but these were limited. Ultimately, their freedom was made a near-certainty by the second Great War. Yet it seems perverse that during or even a decade after this British colonialism it should be Soviet propaganda that seems bizarre.- given that the British also tried to promote their Empire as nations might do. The Soviet Union was nonetheless forced to take these frequent portrayals of artificial happiness in Western pop culture, and direct them towards the state which had become a major cultural organ. The general result of this is that 'happiness' in these contexts can be portrayed in a way mediated by corporate outlets, and culture is expected to go along with this.

Hence, you have an 'artificial' realm of corporate living and emotions, which becomes the dominant culture. People are expected to accept that these corporate-mediated emotions are genuine, and get caught up in such enthusiasm - by implication, to shape their emotions in accordance with this. Hence, capital manufactures its own social role. However, when these forms are adopted by an organ with an explicit direction they might appear mechanical or robotic - yet this is merely a general property of them. Hence, the media takes its place in a vast apparatus which allows capital to mediate emotional and artistic content, and hence direct this in accordance with its general position (and interests) in the social apparatus. The social apparatus itself forces people's actions and interests into certain moulds, and identifies their interests with that of capital. They are hence brought into servitude in an 'organic' manner, which can hence perpetuate itself. Hence, the media is supported in its endeavour by many things, and dealing with the media as such without dealing with various cultural outlets is to attack the media but leave its influence intact. Hence, even Trump has been forced to not only attack the media, but also the cultural forces backing their opposition. Trump's campaign is not only its own themes, but also draws on general themes that also occur in more radical campaigns such as the sense of a 'rigged' or self-perpetuating system (a 'rigged economy' in Corbyn's phrasing, which has much to praise about it), and an inimical established order. This is slightly incoherent for Trump, who can hardly claim a 'rigged system' without compromising themselves, and leads with a necessary favour towards companies granted to his family. They are hence brought to draw despite themselves on a more analytic and resistant approach to the critique of the social system, one which is more suspicious of hope and piety as solutions to social problems. They should hence not be seen as falling simply into a single political category, rather they are at times forced to rely on cynical and radical themes.

Their campaign hence, rather than being 'radical,' has little unilateral direction. It is forced to make up for this by largely eschewing a focus on domestic politics, which it reduces to a few happy-go-lucky phrases. In the process it diverges from fascism, of course, which was highly concerned about domestic organisation - and Nazi Germany had to re-construct from a damaged and stifled post-war nation, so their focus on organising the nation was pronounced and allowed them to act surprisingly effective in war despite adverse circumstances.

Of course, such earlier movements were not most dangerous in major nations. They took place in a world hampered by colonial empires, in a Germany treated the same way. The ability to direct the nation, which came to them as 'raw material,' gave them a deceptively effective war-time modus operandi despite their being a re-building nation and a fairly 'young' Reich.. The colonial Empires had a lot of nations that like Germany were kept firmly under, although the war would largely destroy the Western Empires. They were not opposed simply for invading Poland - the Soviets also did this, but it was not found highly concerning. Pointedly, the Western powers were not happy with a Germany that was developed unless it developed in a way mediated by and obeying them - hence, modern German 'regret' for the war should not be taken at face value, but rather in the sense that for many years they were subject to Western rule and hence took on these agendas. This quickly led to conflict between the West and the Soviet Union, neither happy to allow the other to steer Germany - the West increasingly smearing the USSR with a similar brush to the Nazis, and for similar reasons. After the war, then, Germany found itself colonised, but the Western Empires crumbled quickly everywhere else. The war made it difficult for them to sustain these imperial out-posts, and gave resistant nationalists an upper hand. In a way, Germany sacrificed its own independence, but at this expense many colonised nations gained their own.

Hence, the 'Cold War' and its perseverance should be seen in part as a result of the inconclusive nature of the war - neither side was truly satisfied, Empires were put under immense strain and besieged in their own nations, and neither side left without some sort of notable achievement. There was little room for celebration, despite the threat represented by Nazi Germany. It was still a time of unease left intact, and hence international tension. In this atmosphere, the dour Soviet Union flourished before laying down countless wreaths to Western capital and eventually killing itself - giving the West the fortune of a victory without going to the trouble of, for instance, declaring war on them or anything. It must go down as a subject of irony that 'internationalist' leftists who despise USSR nationalist socialism and would rather remain in a state of perpetual war with capitalist nations - as a nation that actively aims to change all of those and does not believe it could survive otherwise -, are also the ones who would be most resistant to the stringent organisation of socialistic areas. Theirs is a tragedy that would repeat were there world enough and time, but otherwise must conclude with Gorbachev's attempt at a flower-draped, happier Soviet Union.

In any case, the media is hence a further manner in which culture is mediated. It allows often hostile forces to twist the reception of an event, from the atmosphere to the context. As such, it is inevitable that movements will come into conflict with this, if they signify or incorporate notable antithetical elements. They hence distance themselves clearly from media organs, who would rather people just listen to them. It is hence important in solidifying such movements, limited as they are, to attack the media. Some might feel uncomfortable with a genuine movement in this direction, that is one which has any worth theoretically. Still, if there is to be any such thing, it will be forced to resort to such attacks. This movement is best seen as unrealised and often poorly understood by those in it. Hence, they can be fickle. This makes it more necessary to distance oneself from the media as a source of theoretical input and other lesser, subsidiary input.

Hence, the cynical movement against the 'media' is an important part of a movement's untangling itself from the web of manipulative culture generally. It frees its actions from mediation by established forces. We have already noted how, in the modern novel, the passivity of the characters is praised and given fantastical forms such as 'magic,' etc. If this is so, it is even more concerning in forms of culture that raise immediate reactions or touch directly on politics, as the media and for instance music have done in recent times. Trump had to face many cultural spheres where he was condemned. This is even more a concern for people who are genuine in their 'offensive' or 'opposed' rhetoric and don't seem completely out-of-place speaking them. Trump's campaign, with its attacks on a 'rig' and 'establishment,' is perhaps best described as awkward given the people delivering these messages. Nonetheless, the media were clearly not going to get a red carpet rolled out for them, and were in some ways a trivial target given the possibility of more evocative forms of official culture also continually pressing in a liberal direction. An election cannot be the focus of a political movement's conflict with the opposition, the abstraction which characterises it means that it is precisely at this point where they see no opposition but only indifferent 'voters.' A capitalist political movement can afford to merely adapt to the prevailing society, more or less. A movement with adverse tendencies must instead specify its direction. Hence, it must focus on distancing itself from things that would undermine or dilute it. Notable mediation is a difficult thing to escape, in its major Western centres. The 'political' sphere only occurs when these other voices are muted, their satisfied sounds subjugated to other concerns and social views. One must not degrade oneself into a servant, but rather seek to alter the terms that society offers.

The media is hence only one manifestation of a mediated and potentially hostile culture, which must be distanced from. When, for instance, culture or its promotion can dovetail with promoting opposition to your movement and cultural sources start to become more valued as political sources, one must attack them if one has genuine political motivation. Movements which are notably divergent must attempt to subjugate or undermine 'culture' in some manner, and after that may still be hated for decades to come. A gun must be taken to culture that risks bringing people into the mediation of concerning forces, or evoking opposed tendencies. In that sense, the accompaniment of radical themes with attacks on the media, though controversial, is an appropriate conjunction. Attacks on the media should not by themselves be found shocking. Politics is easily radicalised compared to media that still operate merely in a private, value-oriented set-up, and hence will often encounter shackles in it. However, these fields and their necessarily atomised forms cannot really comprehend politics. They should hence be distanced from, not allowed free rein there. If the political holds strictly to its own content, which it considers, it remains out of reach. The monarchical form was prone to notable insurrection, as it easily became reduced to domestic affairs - in one sense or another. Other forms have been more secure, and rarely troubled internally on a holistic level. They nonetheless often strive to give politics forms inimical to itself, despite its rugged determination to continue. Nonetheless, if cultural mediation becomes the threat instead, one is heading in a positive direction. While distance is important, it has at its heart the presence of actual critique of and dissent from this media and culture. The more it connects with this, the more dangerous it appears. However, ultimately the critique of it should not be treated as shocking or outré, and one must rather strive to give this critique a suitably radical form.