115. IS THIS A POST ABOUT WILL SMITH SLAPPING CHRIS ROCK? - Independent Media, Established Media and Power

A few weeks ago someone suggested on Twitter that I write my next post about the relationship between the established media and power. “Is independent journalism a counter to the established media or just a rival for its central position?” It was an interesting suggestion because in the modern context it is hard to judge what actually counts as “independent journalism” anymore given that everyone now has a platform on social media and many use it to do the traditional job of a journalist - researching, exposing, and commenting on world events - with much of the established media choosing to base its stories and news-cycles on what is trending online.

It is also difficult to define “established media”, as this too seems to differ depending on the demographic you are asking. For many younger people the well-known news websites have never crossed their browsers. For many older people, the idea of getting the news from anything other than a paper or television broadcast seems obscene. It is entirely possible that “established media” means different things to different people, and that what has traditionally been considered as “the establishment” is its own echo-chamber of dinosaurs roaring at other dinosaurs on a slowly dying rock in the path of a quietly hurtling asteroid.

In other words, the question “Is independent journalism a counter to the established media or just a rival for its central position?” is a problematic one to answer, as it assumes that there is such a thing still as an “established media” and, in contrast, an “independent journalism” that can be separately defined from the daily cacophony of self-published punditry of a million social media feeds.

But even if we accept the given terms, it is hard to make a clear delineation between what it means to “counter” the established media without rivalling for its central position. Either there is a media landscape whereby one is dominant and the other provides and independent counterpoint, in which case the purpose of providing such a counterpoint, if not mere sophistry or the vacuous opposition of high school debating competitions, must be to oust the false narrative and win out the conversation, thereby becoming a rival to its central position. Or the two medias work in parallel to the point of irrelevance. Echo chambers or bubbles where the narratives and concerns of the other side are of such little concern or relevance to the stories being told elsewhere that they can be completely ignored.

I would argue that if independent journalism is not attempting to rival that central position then it can only ever fail to counter the established media which already holds it, making it largely redundant as a counterpoint. As long as the loudest narrative is that of those in power, then counter-narratives whispered on the sidelines will continue to be drowned out. If they become loud enough to be heard, then they become the part of the established narrative and will inevitably become consumed by the established media. This is especially true in the modern era, whereby much of what might be called “established media” bases its headlines on stories that are trending online, with much of what is being “independently” generated online taking its lead from the narratives of “established media”. Some days the tail wags the dog, others the dog wags the tail.

Take the so-called “Partygate” scandal, for example. A mainstream British story about the UK government breaking the lockdown laws they made the rest of the country follow. For a week or so it was all everyone could talk about in the “established media” and online. Independent journalism either a) ignored it and focused on other issues where “Partygate” had no relevance (with such issues likely garnering little attention because the majority of people wanted to know what was happening with “Partygate” rather than other, marginal, issues); or b) they acknowledged it but dismissed it for, or incorporated it into, some larger narrative of government corruption of which this was just another - entirely expected and not worthy of much comment - example; or c) provided a counter-narrative defending the government’s alleged actions. If b) or c), then independent journalism was still beholden to the focus of established media, and defined itself in terms of the agenda set by the establishment. If a) then either the divergent focus had no bearing on the dominant issue, and provided no challenge to established media power, or it still remained shackled to the dominant narrative because the absence of “Partygate” in the journalism felt like a failing.

Most days you are either talking about the same things the established media are or your failure to talk about them marginalises you into irrelevance, niche or fringe.

This is no small thing. Many have commented on the way in which “Partygate” itself became sidelined once the Russian invasion of Ukraine began to, rightly, dominate the headlines. The established media has always found it difficult to focus on two things at once. What had previously been the potential end of this government was now barely worth talking about. Just as, prior to the lifting of covid restrictions, daily data dumps of the latest horrors of the pandemic took priority but, once the decision had been made to “live with the virus”, the ever-growing data-set suddenly took a backseat.

Of course independent investigations into “Partygate” continued, as I’m sure it does into stories of what is happening in Ukraine that we are not yet hearing but which will one day fill grim books. The covid infections are at an all-time high and, yes, there are journalists looking at that too. But the conversation we hear ebbs and flows based on what the established media decides to focus on each day, even in the independent sphere. When an independent journalist, for example, complains that the focus has gone from issue A to issue B and that issue A should retain its importance, they are still participating in the pivot towards issue B as issue B is now how they must frame their concern with issue A. Or, the independent journalist continues to focus solely on A. Maybe gathering data, maybe posting stories in obscure publications or barely-seen websites, perhaps working on a grim book for the future. But if what they do ever gathers enough interest or momentum to become important to others beyond the niche echo-chamber and challenge the official narrative, then, by definition, it must become part of the established media’s narrative, rivalling it for central position.

All of which is a long way of saying that this week all anyone seemed to want to talk about was Will Smith slapping Chris Rock at The Oscars. The video was posted everywhere. Everyone had an opinion - mainstream journalist or independent - and everyone had a hot take. Jokes were made in the millions. Memes, gifs, and even philosophies were born from the incident. Arguments about standing up for those we love from mean-spirited jokes to arguments about toxic masculinity. Even a playground fight in the school where I work was qualified with the comment: “but it’s hard to tell kids not to solve their problems with violence when they see celebrities slapping each other on the news”.

But I swore to myself that I wouldn’t add to the chorus and write a Philosophy Unleashed about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock, no matter how tempting.

So I haven’t.

Have I?

Author: DaN McKee

My book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE  and from all good booksellers.  Read my Anarchist Studies journal paper on Anarchism and Character Education here. For everything else DaN McKee related: www.everythingdanmckee.com