From the single “Automatic North” (2022)
Malcolm X’s famous quote is roughly sixty years old, but even he would be astonished by social media’s corrosiveness on political discourse. The nasty, polarised response online to this new round of Israeli-Palestine hostility has clarified that all media platforms are, to varying degrees, used by individuals and governments to spread misinformation.
Now, when I say social media, I’m referring to the artist formerly known as Twitter. Its format of instantaneous feedback has made it the epicentre of news reporting (in-between all the ad trash for Wish-like scam sites). Throw in a huge number of users and scant moderation and this makes it a petri-dish for any version of a story to be crafted and ratified as truth via online populism. Sure, free speech, but here’s the cost of doing business this way – in real-time, facts become indistinguishable from opinion, so both are malleable and “what you believed to be true at the time” becomes absolution to justify holding any position, even if it’s later debunked. Fact checking takes time, and waiting for clarity sidelines you while the conversation is happening. There truly is no truth anymore, it only matters what you can convince people to believe there and then.
Corporate legacy media is certainly not the antidote, with many adopting editorial positions influenced by or to appease lobbying, advertising and private financing. As a consequence; people seek editorialised news which caters to their political outlook, particularly as they believe contentious stories are not reported on with good faith or impartiality. This mistrust of mainstream media and the social media muddle emboldens politicians and governments to think they can get away with gaslighting and using doublespeak even in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary. Take Keir Starmer, he said Israel had the right cut off water and power to Gaza on LBC. A few days later, aware of this stance being a sufficiently unpopular, albeit not technically incorrect, you’ll note, instead of just talking an L and admitting he got it wrong “Sir Keir” tried to weasel his way out of it with a denial.
We expect this kind of duplicity from politicians when seeking election, but the IDF claiming Hamas beheaded forty babies on the seventh of October was a sinister and macabre manipulation of a tragedy. American president Joe Biden mentioned it as if it was fact, but had to offer a retraction. Suitably, worryingly, nobody surrounding the man in charge of a country with the world’s most powerful military thought to check if it was true, or they did and didn’t care.
Christopher Hitchens once stated a claim made without evidence can be dismissed, but on social media lies spread and become imbedded; even weeks later on Twitter those who support Israel’s assault on Gaza are still parroting that these beheadings really happened. We know children and women were killed, usually that’s grotesque enough. But releasing details of excessive cruelty and brutality roused enough support in the right places for Israel’s retribution narrative and military plans to achieve it. Just look at the initial reinforcement from the political classes, “Israel has a right to defend itself”. Defending itself means attempting to displace over a million people and killing nearly (by most estimates) ten-thousand civilians. Tactically this approach can be described as interesting, in reality it looks incompetent militarily, but worst of all it’s opportunistic.
The bombing of the Al-Alhi hospital was another egregious example where mass death became propaganda in lieu of certainty and facts. Credit to Channel 4 for questioning the claims from both sides, including the IDF’s doctored evidence to attempt to absolve themselves, querying the number killed by the rocket attack and challenging Hamas to produce evidence they claimed to have that it was an Israeli missile.
All the squabbling in the media over petty embellishments, linguistics and who’s guilty and who’s to blame, is in of itself another means obfuscating and distracting us from the immediate need for a ceasefire. The objectiveness of calling for one isn’t a sexy hot take, won’t get you attention and it feels futile as it won’t solve the Israel-Palestine debacle, similarly I don’t see one for this morass of cleaving to media misinformation we’ve arrived at, other than to opt out of it. In typical Twitter fashion I offer only my observations, no solutions and act entirely in my own self-interest by choosing to leave it.
My idea to quit Twitter is stolen from Sam Harris. His motivations differed to mine – he explained on one of his podcasts that the platform adversely affected his mental well-being, especially as a public figure who had become habitually wedded to using it for feedback to his content. Now, you could say using Twitter for this is his mistake, but, be honest, tell me you haven’t found yourself wading through Twitter’s moronic litterbin of conspiracy theories, myopic mental gymnastics, whataboutery, abuse, trite three-word tweets such as “Israeli’s are scum” and thought, what’s the point of being part of this? What does it solve?
Perhaps there is validity to the argument that the less you’re exposed to news stories and how people react to them on social media the more objective and measured your response to an event is likely to be. It’s an appealing theory. When considering this and the time I’ll also save just from browsing Twitter, it sounds too good to not give it a try. Goodbye and good luck to the rest of you.
From the compliation album ‘Jah Rock Style’ (2005)
From the album ‘Moment Of Truth’ (1998)
Ahh, Russell Brand. He was once a darling of progressivism. But his act became tired years ago and or he of it, leaving him as a tawdry Cause célèbre that exists as copy for the Daily Mail’s repulsive gossip webpage – and yes, it’s one of the most visited websites in the world, of course it is.
Full disclosure, I didn’t watch the Dispatches episode about his alleged misdeeds and I lauded him for his political engagement around the time of the Paxman interview. The latter was nearly a decade ago, and I’ve taken little interest in him or his recent activities. A cursory glance suggests he now hosts a podcast that indulges in the kind of shameless conspiratorial themes Alex Jones is infamous for. Brand is certainly more erudite, but this is not exactly a comparison any sane person would appreciate.
With these accusations Brand is now back at the centre of attention and appears to be thoroughly enjoying himself. His acolytes, as per Andrew Tate’s, will buy that it’s all a conspiracy, Machiavellian corporations orchestrating an attack to crush Brand’s little millionaire upstart YouTube channel. Those who dislike him will be inclined to believe the allegations for a variety of reasons, some inconsequential or banal, others sinister; his arrogant quips, lewd standup routine, his fashion sense, that there’s always been rumours of him being a wrong’un (and that they always knew he was this Svengali type, and just needed a smoking gun), the accusations of grooming a sixteen-year-old, in particular, are skin-crawlingly despicable, or that Brand may be cynically cultivating an alt media persona purely to maintain relevance and for profit.
Social media’s proliferation means it’s now assumed a Gonzo role in these stories. Stating whether someone’s guilty happens instantaneously, eventually forming polarized factions. For those who don’t opine there’s frustration in non-engagement as we’re fully aware that our passiveness is utterly ineffectual. In the absence of a legal adjudication or the prospect of one invariably one side’s “truth” and what’s acceptable prevails as the zeitgeist. For instance, YouTube demonetized Brand’s videos on the platform. Was this due to the nature of the allegations, or the perception that the majority believe him to be guilty? Perhaps both, but it certainly wasn’t Brand’s content on the channel.
That the Brand exposé arrives before criminal charges is an indictment of the Police and Crown Prosecution Service’s ability to do their jobs. The poor rate of sex crime convictions and difficulty in prosecuting them means that even if he’s actually guilty, I’d be surprised if Russell Brand ever spends a day in prison. So, it’s completely understandable that these women see the appeal of weaponising social media and the press instead, even if the latter has a poor moral reputation as a profession. It could get Brand deplatformed in enough places (and may already have), and dragging him across the coals of cancellation to professional banishment, depriving him of enough of the things he clearly craves most; relevance, fame and money, is not quite getting square for rape or grooming, but it’s at least something.
Using the social and print media scrum as a pseudo jury to supplant the wrongs made by the justice system isn’t a new phenomenon, but it isn’t a good solution. See Jimmy Saville. While we the public like to think we can have some control over the outcome of who gets negated and to what degree, we don’t have the resilience or discipline to see many moral positions through. Take Ched Evans, a footballer convicted of rape in 2012. There was a backlash to him attempting to join Sheffield United shortly after his release. Evans served thirty months. He should have served longer, but preventing him from playing football for a time achieved what, exactly? Not a lot, as Evans resumed his playing career in 2016 and has been playing professional football for the last seven years.
Mason Greenwood is a more recent and better comparison with Brand, there was compelling evidence in the public sphere of a crime but no conviction. Manchester United tested the waters with rumours that it wanted to keep Greenwood at the club. The subsequent furor was deemed too commercially damaging to the club’s brand and so Greenwood is now playing for a mid-tier club in the Spanish top flight. The United fans who wanted him banished get their wish, but now he’s someone else’s headache and in another country the opposition to him playing football has died down.
Most often we see instances of this phenomena being wielded disproportionately and irrationally just for people having opinions. Most seem to agree Róisín Murphy’s new album is excellent (it is), but the problem is she opined that puberty blockers shouldn’t be given to gender non-conforming kids just before her album’s release. Some didn’t agree with it, or were worried that it may land as being sufficiently unpopular that they’d get blowback for platforming her. What to do here? In an act of futile virtual signaling the BBC decided to ignore the existence of her album despite it being in the top five selling albums the week it was released. At least they picked a side though.
I think this form of appeasing one group with censorship stinks. I’m reminded of a line from the TV series The Americans. Two KGB officers are talking in a car while surveilling someone under suspicion of espionage, one says “I don’t think they’re guilty of anything”, the other agrees that’s there’s no evidence so that’s probably right but opines that “sometimes they just decide if someone’s guilty”. Christopher Hitchens had this right – in the absence of certainty or an answer people will often plump for a conspiracy or junk theory. Not knowing and accepting that sometimes there is no definitive outcome, and that allows for differing perspectives, is too unpalatable. This has now mutated into a more insidious, uglier solution in the culture, a real desire to see folk silenced or punished arbitrarily and I don’t mean for takes that are clearly daft or purposely provocative; Holocaust denial, slavery was good for black folks or the Earth is flat.
I’ll concede I’m guilty of this inclination. Richard Keys is one example. There’s enough circumstantial evidence (namely the cause of his humiliating departure from Sky Sports) to suggest that missing-link arms is a grotesque anachronism, a weird chauvinist. It wouldn’t surprise me if he spends his evenings masturbating to videos of women being beaten up and indulging in racist rants on 4Chan. I have no evidence of this being true, but concocting your own truth always helps in the absence of hard evidence. I’m also not taking to social media asking for him to be sacked and removed from public life just because he comes across as a bit of an arsehole.
As for Brand I have little sympathy with what’s happening to him. He’s rightfully under scrutiny as he’s accused of serious crimes, not for being an opinionated entertainer, and he has the means, platform and following to defend himself if he gets to face his accusers in court. Let’s hope that happens, because it’s the only kind of verdict that can provide moral clarity in a culture that’s increasingly absent of it.
Wichita Lineman Was A Song I Once Heard 
You must be logged in to post a comment.