Journalism — especially about important matters — is not a profession. It’s a calling. Or else, if it’s not a calling, then it is public relations; it is propaganda, “PR” — done for the purpose of receiving pay, not really for the purpose of conveying truth. But propaganda isn’t journalism at all. It’s not merely fake ‘news’; it is fake ‘journalism’. Corporate-owned ‘news’ is that, but so too is government-owned ‘news’. That’s the problem: journalism, as it exists, isn’t what people think it is, and expect it to be. What is called “journalism” is actually now just a branch of the PR profession, and doesn’t deserve to be trusted more than that.This historian-writer does well until he tries to come up with a solution. He essentially argues that "there is no alternative" and he uses empty, incorrect concepts like "aristocracy" instead of capitalist ruling class. Maybe he, too, is one of those upper middle class academics who is so well paid and taken care of by the ruling class, that he avoids offending them too much by throwing in such meaningless terms.
In order to be a staff journalist, one must adhere to the propaganda-aims of the individual(s) (the employer) who control(s) the given ‘news’ medium.
The aristocracy controls both Parties. And the government. And the press.What is so hard to understand about independent alternative media that is funded by the people? What is so hard to understand about revolutionary activism?
And that’s the problem. Nobody has figured out a solution for it. And America’s press won’t allow even its existence to be published. So, the public cannot understand why they cannot understand.
What can be done to solve this problem that the press hide from the public? Might there be a way for some members of the press to become part of the solution, and no longer part of the problem? Would that even be possible? If not, then how can the public ever come to understand what the problem is?