Born and raised in Doncaster, England, I was pulled from school when I was aged 11 and taught at home by my mother, who battled education authorities to do so. This anti-establishment education meant I was barely able to scrape by through further education and into higher education, with supporting statements from Doncaster College media tutors who felt I had a fairly unique understanding of their subject, leading me to be accepted onto a three-year media degree at Barnsley College, dropping out with just a few months left in order to go travelling a bit, work for Rotherham Council as a youth and community worker, and eventually set up my own not-for-profit media projects, and I ended up screening my guerrilla documentaries in different countries, and delivering talks about the related issues.

One such speaking engagement was at the University of Huddersfield, where Bruce Hanlin, lecturer in journalism and media, invited me to give a talk to his students because, he told me, “Your ‘alternative’ and varied way into the media might look more realistic at a time when the established media are in retreat and job opportunities at a virtual standstill.” In the talk, I touched on topics such as journalistic integrity in an era of elitism in journalism, and how the BBC’s cloak of “impartiality” protects it in suppressing voices of dissent – after all, as Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” But importantly, it was interesting to me that, for this talk, I was seen as part of the “alternative” media, but very telling that Hanlin also used the term “established” media. I think this can be useful.

As part of my development of SilenceBreaker Media, I have worked with numerous volunteers, often students, and one I recently met talked about her media research looking at both the weaponisation of the media and the victimisation of the media – as a reflection of the current climate. I found this interesting.

Another talk I gave was as a brand-new Fellow of the School for Social Entrepreneurs, where rather than discuss what SilenceBreaker Media would be as a not-for-profit entity, I instead told two stories from my area as examples of the need for “alternative” media: the BBC’s manipulation of footage that falsely portrayed striking coal miners in a negative light in 1985, and The Sun’s coverage of the Hillsborough disaster that told lies about the Liverpool FC fans, 96 of whom died. Both of these examples of deliberately misleading media narratives demonstrate acts of propaganda for authoritarian brutality. Noam Chomsky once stated that “Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.” With The Sun newspaper essentially banned from the city of Liverpool and readership in decline nationally, trust in the BBC has decreased as well.

And so the research of that student I met with becomes particularly pertinent, because the weaponisation of the media and the victimisation of the media have become linked. As faith in “established” media has fallen, authoritarian world leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson have exploited this and in turn complained about “fake” news – calling an exposè or a story “fake” because they just happened to disagree with it, or because it challenges their authority itself. This gaslighting has left the public confused, and more vulnerable to further misinformation – for example, the supposed saviour of social media itself for dissemination of information has been controlled by Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook, on which, in the run-up to the recent U.K. general election, a staggering 88% of Conservative Party posts were “misleading.” (Facebook did ban one of their ads, but only because it infringed the BBC’s intellectual property rights.)

Aside from the data-mining, advertising revenue-raising, private corporate social media models of the likes of Facebook and Twitter, the mass media in general is in the hands of very exclusive interests: just 5 companies dominate around 80% of British news media – Guardian Media Group, Telegraph Media Group, Reach, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, and the Rothermeres’ Daily Mail and General Trust, the latter three of which dominate more than 80% of the newspaper market specifically, and the latter two of which have been notoriously right-wing historically (though none of the above, by any stretch, are even remotely left-wing in any way, shape, or form); Murdoch was an ardent supporter of Bush, Blair, and the invasion of Iraq, for example, while the Rothermere family had their newspapers back the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, and their editorial narrative hasn’t shifted much at all since.

It’s wrong, then, to refer to this elite group of establishment interests as “mainstream” since they aren’t accountable to the general public and don’t represent them or even their views. Taxing the rich; increased workers’ rights; rent controls; free university tuition; universal healthcare; a Green New Deal; de-privatisation of key industries…too often – in polls too numerous to cite in their entirety here – such policies have proven popular with the general population in both the U.K. and the U.S. while the mass media messaging suggested the exact opposite. In 2016, polls showed that the British public were actually quite keen on socialism, and this was reflected by the 2017 U.K. general election results, which saw the biggest swing to the Labour Party since just after the Second World War and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s policies themselves remained incredibly popular.

This is why David Edwards and David Cromwell of Media Lens have often questioned the term “mainstream” when referring to this mass media. As Bruce Hanlin suggested in what might well have been an off-the-cuff remark to me, “establishment” media might be a more fitting tag. Because it isn’t just the corporations in control of much of the media that have retained a right-wing stance – as I suggested in my speech at the School for Social Entrepreneurs, the BBC have been just as guilty as The Sun, if more high-brow and fact-checked. But as we’ve seen from Orgreave, these facts can be cherry-picked, with plenty more omitted, to serve an establishment agenda – and when the job of a journalist is so immensely class-exclusive, it becomes inevitable that the voice of the working class mass majority in the country go unheard.

Both state-controlled and corporate-controlled media, then, are part of the establishment. They are the “establishment” media. So this suggests that, rather than accepting a counter to this as merely “alternative” and quirky – destined to be on the fringe – we instead need to represent the mainstream of the working class mass majority and become “anti-establishment” media. But how do we do this? What should anti-establishment media look like? And how would we define it?

First, we have to start by analysing the inherent traits of establishment media that lead it to failing us today.

These mass media institutions are either led by the state, or by corporations (or, arguably, both). A counter to this must feature a quality of public ownership. As seen with the union movement clashing with Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks – a “progressive” media company funded by advertising and venture capitalists in addition to donations and subscriptions – a private media model is immediately at odds with the anti-capitalist cause. A good anti-establishment media model would be free from the profit motive as well as state funding or ownership. A not-for-profit co-operative model would be an ideal way of ensuring this, with a commitment to such ownership encoded within its articles of association.

A related issue here is that even with a co-operative model, there is a risk that relying on traditional journalists from similar backgrounds will offer similar narratives as found in establishment media anyway – and, as seen with, for example, Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar laughing along with jokes about Jeremy Corbyn on TV shows and writing for The Guardian (a leading thorn in Corbyn’s side), there is a risk that journalists will still see such a co-op as a stepping stone to seeking opportunities with establishment media anyway. This is, of course, difficult to avoid, apart from perhaps offering a public declaration of intent to the contrary of such careerist manoeuvrings – contributing to a genuine culture of anti-establishment media that, at best, deters the careerist in the first place, and at worst, scuppers their quest for success in establishment media through association.

In addition to the journalists providing the work, though, there is also the issue that a co-operative model still does not protect the journalism itself from being co-opted by capitalist interests that could realign editorial narratives. If there’s one thing you can say about capitalism, it’s that it is highly adaptable: capitalism actually quite likes co-ops, and has co-opted many of them to still exist within the capitalist economy. And the survival of our planet as we know it, and the people who live on it, depends entirely on the unquestionable, unashamed, unequivocal commitment to ending capitalism. Time is running out. We must be “mainstream.” We must capture the zeitgeist that is the desire for a post-capitalist world.

This is what we’re trying to take on board as we move SilenceBreaker Media forward. What began as a not-for-profit limited company ten years ago – only to understandably take a backseat to the immensely successful FreeTech Project – is free once again to offer the above-mentioned solutions on offer in combating establishment media. The idea is to develop quality content committed to anti-capitalism, with a building pool of writers, and SilenceBreaker Media remaining donation-led to cover costs as a not-for-profit organisation until such a time as the writers’ pool is large enough and successful enough to enable it to formally become a media co-op.

I hope you will support us on this journey, mapped out in a way that sets us apart from almost every other media group out there – whether it be “mainstream” or “alternative.” We are committed to bringing you anti-establishment (and, yes, anti-capitalist) media in the weeks, months, and hopefully years, to come.

A community educator and lifelong anti-capitalist activist, Jay Baker (he/him) is the founder of SilenceBreaker Media and has written, produced, and directed documentaries in addition to writing for numerous newspapers, magazines, zines, and websites. His own website is at dukeofhardrock.com.

“Capitalism has long been defined by collars,” he explained. “Blue or white: collars have crudely demarcated belonging, status and position. A different collars is now taking on a defining role in contemporary capitalism: the crew neck. Like the collars that went before, this collar symbolises an underlying agenda and logic.”

This ‘crew-neck capitalism,’ argued Beer, “projects a certain image, of a non-hierarchical, non-commercial and carefree status.” It conjures an image of the casual attire sported by billionaire Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg up until his recent appearances before U.S Congress. “An apparently anti-elite elite is created that has positioned itself in a way that seems to render it immune to the anti-elite sentiment,” added Beer.

Zuckerberg is probably the poster-boy for this ‘crew-neck capitalism.’

While a student at the prestigious Harvard University, Zuckerberg created several innovative computer programmes that proved popular on campus, from enabling his peers to better plan their courses and study groups, to the arguably stolen and more crude Facemash, designed to enable students to pick the ‘best-looking’ person from a choice of photos, leading to a ranking system for ‘hotter’ students, separating the supposedly good-looking from the rest. This was the beginning of Facebook as we know it today – no surprise a cause of lack of attention, addiction, stress, jealousy, bullying, and suicide.

The structure of the site and its subsequent social interactions (or indeed anti-social interactions) are merely the tip of the iceberg, however, when it comes to the ice-cold world of Facebook – now a tax-avoiding multi-billion dollar corporation with its headquarters in Menlo Park, California. While joining the site may not cost a monetary fee, Zuckerberg’s a billionaire for a reason: the personal preferences and information each user has entered into the Facebook site has provided them with a perfect opportunity to conduct free and easy market research for advertisers, and in turn offer advertising platforms to market directly to those users based on not only their Facebook ‘profiles’ but even their browsing habits online that Facebook had been tracking after the user had left the Facebook site (and they were tracking you even if you hadn’t registered with Facebook, but had visited facebook.com; Facebook refer to you in this case as simply a ‘non-registered user’!) Meanwhile, Zuckerberg is planning a residential and retail area for Facebook employees to live on, right next to their work, raising all kinds of questions.

One employee who probably won’t be expected to live in Facebook’s own town is former Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg – he instead got his own £7million mansion just down the road after being appointed Vice-President for Global Affairs and Communications at Facebook. As part of that role, he will be assigned the task of tackling such public relations as the above, and also utilising his extensive political reach as a lobbyist, just what Facebook needed considering their recent scandals and battles with government officials.

Nick Clegg is the man who in 2010 formed a coalition government with David Cameron’s Conservatives, arguably the most right-wing government in British history, warned by Oxfam at the time about its Victoria era policies – a government infamously overseeing the dismantling of the welfare state and the opening up of the National Health Service to privatisation, while using the global financial crisis caused by the market deregulation of their friends as an excuse to shut down or sell off parts of the state entirely, introducing a devastating austerity programme that has been condemned by the United Nations.

David Cameron didn’t need Nick Clegg after 2015, when incredibly he won a majority against a pre-Jeremy Corbyn Labour party failing to offer genuine radical alternatives. But of course Cameron deserves some credit for his own performance: his smarmy public relations rhetoric came with his shtick inspired by Tony Blair, and his propaganda about pulling communities together and empowering them through his ‘Big Society’ was ‘BS’ indeed. Whenever a politician from the right, such as Ronald Reagan, talks about getting the state out of your business, it’s usually code for them continuing with a neoliberalist agenda while taking away any of your safety nets to save you from its devastating consequences. Cameron knew this, and he used the code well.

The Conservatives, with such a small membership, are still not the bringers of democracy and power to the people by any stretch of the imagination. The media talked about Theresa May being ‘next in line’ to the Conservative leadership after David Cameron’s resignation following his EU referendum which resulted in ‘Brexit,’ in direct opposition to his calls.

But it’s important to note that Theresa May herself has adopted the same techniques as David Cameron – the same trickery as Ronald Reagan. The same ‘crew-neck capitalism’ as Mark Zuckerberg.

While she believed her own hype – presumably by watching the Sky, ITN, the BBC, or reading The Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, or even Owen Jones in The Guardian – in 2017, May called a general election to take on Jeremy Corbyn, a man those around her, on screen and in print, were calling weak, but if they were honest, they were simply hoping it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Corbyn’s two massive leadership elections have defied the Labour establishment, turned Labour into the largest left-wing party in the entire continent, and proposed popular policies, all delivered by a man who had no leadership ambitions and dedicated his life to activism. “Are you a Marxist?” the BBC’s Andrew Marr almost tripped over himself to rush to finally ask Corbyn on his television programme.

May undid Cameron’s majority – or, rather, Corbyn did. Again, the media figures who gave grovelling apologies after Corbyn’s incredible election performance likely suspected that was the inevitability, hence their vitriol and smear tactics against Corbyn himself (that have started up yet again, and will – rest assured – continue until Corbyn and his game-changing politics are gone). Again, May herself maybe didn’t know; perhaps these people really are just that out of touch. But either way, she was browbeaten, and left with an even weaker government to try and handle the whole Brexit saga.

But her leadership speech at the Conservative conference after that election battering was delivered while wearing a bracelet bearing the image of Frida Kahlo.

Frida Kahlo, of course, was a feminist artist and activist who had a love affair with Leon Trotsky and was herself a Marxist. Andrew Marr never bothered to ask Theresa May if she was a Marxist – he already knew the answer. We all did. Of course not. Wearing that bracelet was all part of a technique still being applied by politicians seeking to co-opt symbols and images and even criticisms. It’s the ‘crew-neck capitalism’ Prof David Beer was talking about. It’s even why, when she’s a bad dancer, May’s advisors encourage her to co-opt the bad dancing itself and robotically strut on to the stage – even as she visibly dies inside – so that the corporate news sources can all talk about what a good sport she is, in the same way they did when Cameron and Clegg held a double-act press conference together after the 2010 election and had a good old laugh with us all before going about ripping apart the fabric of our society and increasing inequality.

What matters are actions. Not comedic press conferences, or self-deprecating dances, or bracelets, or slogans. Actions, based on policy, are what matter – and also what receive less coverage. We are forced to look beyond the headlines, behind the news ‘stories,’ in order to learn that, for example, so many of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies are wildly popular, as he pushes parliament to declare a climate emergency. Yet it’s the same government in power, one that does nothing after such a declaration. Just as it did nothing on Windrush, or Grenfell, or the food bank epidemic, or Brexit itself – a calamitous state of affairs with a crucial turning point for the future of the people of Britain, used instead too often for politicking.

So you may find it hard to feel sorry for the ‘crew-neck capitalists.’ Judge them on their actions alone, and you may feel no sympathy whatsoever for the likes of Theresa May.

A community educator and lifelong anti-capitalist activist, Jay Baker (he/him) is the founder of SilenceBreaker Media and has written, produced, and directed documentaries in addition to writing for numerous newspapers, magazines, zines, and websites. His own website is at dukeofhardrock.com.

The following year, Abby found a platform for her work by joining RT, who gave her a slot with her own show called Breaking the Set, which opened with an impressive intro featuring her taking a sledgehammer to a television set with CNN on it. In episode after episode of Breaking the Set, she dared to break the silence on subjects from Monsanto to Nestle, and from Barack Obama to Israel, playing no small part in RT’s expansion based on its perception as an ‘alternative news’ station, despite being funded by the Russian government.

In 2014, Abby made headlines around the world when she ended an episode of Breaking the Set by personally condemning the decision of the Russian government to proceed with military intervention in Ukraine. RT later admitted that her remarks were “not in line with our editorial policy,” yet claiming, “RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions.” The following year, Abby parted ways with RT “to focus on investigative field reporting.”

But let’s stop for a moment, and go back – way back, to the Cold War, when 1950s American culture was geared towards the increase of capitalist ideals in opposition to the overtly oppressive state communism of the Soviet Union led by brutal dictator Joseph Stalin, a useful tool for American business interests when seeking an example of what Americans would have to endure if they abandoned capitalism; it was capitalism or Stalinism, they presented, and it was a juxtaposition of binary options that would be utilised for decades to justify capitalism in all its forms, right up to more recent neoliberalism.

But it began in this post-war era, when U.S. strategist George Kennan stated, “We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. Our real task in the coming period is to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality…We should cease to talk about objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratisation.” He believed the Cold War was a battle of ideas.

Therefore, a key weapon was an anti-communist CIA front organisation: the National Committee for a Free Europe, which set up Radio Free Europe, a station that distributed anti-communist propaganda in order to help provoke unrest and uprisings. Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) was seen as such a threat to the Soviet Union that KGB agents actually orchestrated an attack on its Munich headquarters in 1981.

Of course, by 1990 the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the re-unification of Germany as a social democratic soft capitalist country. With that, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev pushed forward with his two key agendas of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring): promoting freedom of the press, and radically reforming the political system to becoming more democratic, with an independent constitutional court. Gorbachev embraced the principles of social democracy, its significant success in Scandinavia providing what he felt was “a socialist beacon for all mankind,” and planned a process of free market economics with key industries retained under public control alongside strong social safety nets.

And so these moves in Russia were not useful to American powers – again, for decades they had claimed that there were only two binary choices: Capitalism, or Stalinism. With their roll-out of neoliberal ‘Reaganomics,’ these interests in the United States would find it harder to enforce their approach – like ‘Thatcherism’ advocates in Britain with their slogan ‘There Is No Alternative’ – if the largest country in the world effectively transitioned into a social democracy, highlighting the successes of such a model in much of Scandinavia such as higher tax rates, larger public spending plans, strong welfare states, free universal healthcare and education, and liberal unionisation laws, with greater social mobility. Hardly radical, Scandinavia’s more equal societies were still products of a softer version of capitalism that American powers have ignored and even distracted from for decades, and the idea of Russia making a high-profile success of such a model, and potentially thriving after the Cold War had ended, must have had many of the elites nervous.

So, instead, these influences set about stopping such a peaceful revolution towards social democracy in the Soviet Union. The Washington Post and The Economist called on Russia to be made more like Chile under the brutal right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, who had opened up his nation to American and British capitalist interests and remained a good friend to Reagan and Thatcher who stood by him even after he tortured and murdered thousands in his own country. Presenting himself as a protector against old Bolsheviks, Russian president Boris Yeltsin cleverly formed an alliance with two other Soviet republics, effectively collapsing the Union, and thus ending the Soviet Union itself, forcing Gorbachev’s resignation. As Yeltsin announced to his people that the Soviet Union was no more, standing in the Kremlin with him was American economist Jeffrey Sachs, who called it, “The most incredible thing you can imagine.” It was a population of 150,000,000 in complete shock. Yet according to Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine, 67% of them would state they still believed workers’ cooperatives were the best way to restructure the centrally controlled economy that had existed for decades under the Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, the task to implement a strategy fell to president Boris Yeltsin, the most powerful man in all of Russia, and he was not interested in democratic discussion, debate, or processes. Moscow’s mayor Gavriil Popov said there were two options for him: “Property can be divided among all members of society, or the best pieces can be given to the leaders…(so) there’s either the democratic approach, and there’s the nomenklatura, apparatchik approach.” Guided by not just Jeffrey Sachs but also what Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta called “a team of liberals who consider themselves followers of Friedrich von Hayek and the ‘Chicago School’ of Milton Friedman,” Yeltsin preferred the latter approach, apparently promising to end economic uncertainty if politicians effectively reversed Gorbachev’s democratisation process and granted him a year of executive powers where he could issue laws by decree instead of bringing them to parliamentary votes – which, while the country was in chaos, he achieved, claiming “for approximately six months, things will be worse,” before recovery would commence, followed by stability, and prosperity.

When his year of special powers had ended, Yeltsin simply declared a state of emergency, which promptly restored them. Still the Americans openly supported him, president Bill Clinton claiming Boris was “genuinely committed to freedom and democracy,” and Clinton’s friend at the World Bank, Larry Summers, stressing that “privatisation, stabilisation, and liberalisation must all be completed as soon as possible,” with much of the Western media – from the Financial Times to the New York Times – portraying the Russian politicians in parliament opposing Yeltsin as merely old Bolsheviks, when in fact they were the true democrats in the conflict. Yeltsin’s later attacks on protesters, and the parliament building itself, also remain fairly unheard of in the West, simply because he carried out an agenda friendly to Western interests; Yeltsin sold off the people’s assets on the cheap, and for many of us in the West, the term “oligarch” for the first time became a household name, while 80% of Russian farms had gone bankrupt, about 70,000 state factories had been shut down, unemployment increased, suicide rates shot up, and the amount of people living in poverty had skyrocketed from 2 million to a staggering 74 million people, according to the World Bank’s own data. Russia was shaken to its core; an ex girlfriend of mine, a Russian who had grown up in Moscow, said she had never seen such homelessness and desperation than in the post-Soviet Union years, a major motivation for her leaving the country.

With media oligarchs – both East and West – firmly behind him, Boris Yeltsin also spent 33 times more than the legal amount allowed in elections in order to guarantee retaining power in the 1996 election, and despite all of his scandalous actions and approval ratings of as low as 2%, he hand-picked former KGB agent Vladimir Putin to take over for him in 1999, in return for being granted legal immunity for his many misdemeanours. Russia expert Padma Desai said the Russian people by this point “were ready to settle for a mild dose of authoritarianism providing further stability and steady economic growth, rather than opting for a Yeltsin-type liberal order that had aroused their expectations but largely excluded them from the hoped-for benefits.” And with Vladimir Putin, as we have seen, a mild dose of authoritarianism is indeed what they received, to say the least.

These horrific consequences are examples of the lengths neoliberals will go to in order to avoid any credible alternative to their project proving a success. Democracy, ultimately, is of course at odds with their mission for the 1%.

With democracy choked out in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West was now left with a completely different type of problem: no great threat to scare the population at home; no great horror abroad to convince citizens how bad any alternatives were. But that all changed on September 11^th, 2001, when the U.S. was under attack from planes hijacked by terrorists, most of them Saudi. Two weeks later, then-president George W. Bush Jr seized the opportunity to present a quest to defend American capitalism: “One of the great goals of this nation’s war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry,” he said. “It’s to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America’s great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.” Combined with this newfound domestic threat provoking panic-buying and stockpiling, this call for consumption effectively reversed an American economic recession within months, and military contractors made a killing in Bush’s subsequent ‘War on Terror’ bombing campaigns overseas.

Through several books, Naomi Klein has reiterated the argument that the tragic events of “9/11” were exploited to stifle debate about unrest overseas caused by previous American foreign policy, and this is exemplified no better than with Bush’s infamous declaration that “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists,” as he deemed entire peoples evil with the “Axis of Evil” tag used on any countries remaining in conflict with American interests – Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and additionally Libya, Syria, and Cuba. Uncritically embracing Bush’s narrative, American corporate media was overwhelmingly supportive of the invasion campaigns that followed, even more than usual, something investigative journalist John Pilger has frequently exposed.

When the Al-Jazeera news station offered an alternative perspective, it was bombed during the attacks in an operation the RFE/RL-targeting KGB might have admired. Unfazed, Al-Jazeera created an English language channel, and such was the demand for critical coverage of the wars that millions had protested against, it became a surprising success – today, while the BBC response to the New Zealand mosque massacre was to provide a platform to far-right representatives, Al-Jazeera are busy releasing findings of their brave undercover investigations of the same fascist faction. BBC News (as with the Daily Mail, The Sun, and yes even The Guardian) are on a downward spiral, with audiences turning away year after year, citizens seeking other sources of information.

Due to such rising demand, Russia Today capitalised, transcending its own language to an international audience as simply “RT.”

RT is an interesting entity. It was created in 2005 after the Russian government backed the creation of an ‘Autonomous Non-Profit TV News Organisation,’ with official Svetlana Mironyuk stating, “Russia is associated with three words: communism, snow and poverty…we would like to present a more complete picture of life in our country.” (As is typical of life in Russia under the rule of Vladimir Putin, she criticised his later decision to abolish her department, only to backtrack the next day, suggesting any criticism of his decisions destabilises the country). By this time, the West had largely backed off in its support of Russia, distancing itself from the destruction it helped to cause – and the resulting strong-arm dictatorship, oppression, inequality, and ‘oligarchy’ associated with the country as it returned to a super-power status able to butt heads with the U.S. once again. Western media has loved presenting Russia’s situation as one caused instead by either incompetence or corruption, with its oligarchs merely representative of this. In actual fact, the power of these businessmen is typical of global capitalism standards. But again, the key is to avoid acknowledging the inherent flaws and failures of capitalism at any and all cost.

Of course, in keeping with its original mission, RT has lacked a thorough critical coverage of domestic affairs under Putin’s regime, but deftly escapes it by re-focusing the attention of the audience on the seemingly endless examples of Western upheaval and hypocrisy, and the collapse of Western ideals, from American exceptionalism to neoliberalism itself and the financial crisis. This, in turn, has enabled RT – much like Al-Jazeera – to provide a forum for the alternative perspectives many people may have felt starved of during the ‘War on Terror’ and its aftermath.

With Western media seemingly hell-bent on avoiding acknowledgement of Western capitalism’s key role in destabilising Russia, they play right in to the hands of RT, who in turn continue their criticisms of Western capitalism as though it is an ideology exclusive to the West. And so, this allows a platform for perspectives barely aired in Western media establishments, such as the views of economics broadcaster Max Keiser, as evidenced by his career migration from the BBC, to Al-Jazeera, to RT, from which he can present a very different yet very well-informed perspective on global financial issues.

This rise in ‘alternative news’ has even worried the UK’s BBC which was very rightly – so I was taught in media school – set up as a public service to “inform, educate, and entertain” the British population (when in fact, as Tom Mills has documented at length, it “has always been formally accountable to ministers for its operation”).

On the one hand, then, RT was set up by the Russian government which has influence over it. On the other hand, the BBC was set up by the British government, which has influence over it. So what’s the difference, other than the fact we in the West have come to trust the BBC over the last century?

Well, according to Google’s disclaimers on their respective YouTube channels, RT is a ‘state broadcaster’ while the BBC is a ‘public service broadcaster.’ Which would you trust more: a channel provided as a ‘public service,’ or a channel broadcast by the government? (This has always been a useful choice of words, as former U.S. president Ronald Reagan demonised the government as overbearing and interfering, rather than a public institiution of democratically-elected representatives). That other monolithic technology corporation, Facebook, have also sought to differentiate, adding disclaimers to the investigative journalism work of In the Now because it’s owned and operated by a subsidiary of RT, whereas PBS, NPR, the BBC and even RFE/RL (yes, the former CIA operation) apparently require no such disclaimers on the social media website.

RT is considered unique by these Western corporations – and it wouldn’t be too cynical to suggest it’s because of double standards. Disclaimers on RT’s social media pages are forcibly added by the web owners because RT is operated under the Russian government, so therefore is a ‘state broadcaster’ rather than a ‘public broadcaster,’ and again this is a useful distinction. ‘Public broadcaster’ sounds positively fluffy, and this is terminology that is flipped on its head whenever – beyond Ronald Reagan – present-day politicians want to criticise public institutions (for example, ‘public services’ become ‘state services,’ ‘public ownership’ becomes ‘government ownership,’ etc.) Neoliberals have always been careful about their use of language in these cases, because if they can take public interests and repackage them as Soviet-style government interests, they can dismantle them and sell them off. Conversely, state-affiliated Western media, whether RFE/RL or the BBC, can be rebranded as ‘public’ institutions, and apparently independent.

Look up RFE/RL online and you’ll likely come across a declaration similar to this: “RFE/RL is registered with the IRS as a private, nonprofit Sec. 501(c)3 corporation, and is funded by a grant from the US Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) as a private grantee. RFE/RL’s editorial independence is protected by US law.”

Sounds nice, doesn’t it? But as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) have argued, “the head of RFE/RL is appointed by the head of the USAGM—a government official picked by the president. That’s a funny kind of ‘independence.’”

As for the BBC, Tom Mills further explained: “Governments set the terms under which it operates, they appoint its most senior figures, who in future will be directly involved in day-to-day managerial decision making, and they set the level of the licence fee, which is the BBC’s major source of income. So that’s the context within which the BBC operates, and it hardly amounts to independence in any substantive sense.”

So it’s been important to demonise the likes of RT in juxtaposition to the BBC, even though the West’s utter denial of capitalism’s destruction of Russia is what feeds RT’s anti-capitalist narratives, despite the fact that Russia is rampantly capitalist to this day. While this denial continues, no meaningful critique of RT can be carried out – and in fact, many much more meaningful critiques are taking place on RT as a result, where Thom Hartmann can interview Kate Raworth about distributive economic systems from a Marxist perspective, Max Keiser can call JPMorgan Chase’s CEO a ‘banking terrorist’ who deserves ‘syphilis,’ and Abby Martin can expose corporate abuses over and over again, something former anchor turned anti-RT activist Liz Wahl claimed to be “a narrative that I find to be propagandous and hostile toward the West.”

The battle of ideas goes on. It sometimes seems everyone in the West has a criticism of RT in comparison to the BBC. Former UK prime ministers Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher both set up massively influential think tanks. Blair’s praised the BBC as superior to RT, while Thatcher’s claimed the BBC was biased in favour of the left.

It’s a common myth that has been perpetuated for decades, in the U.S. and the U.K.: the ‘liberal’ media, a fiction that has long since been exposed time and again by Media Lens. But the idea that the BBC is anything other than conservative is probably the most absurd, since it’s actually been found to be in opposition to left-wing politics. “The available evidence on the BBC centre of gravity does not suggest a leftist tilt,” said Professor Justin Lewis of Cardiff University, an expert on the BBC. “On the contrary, its dependence on certain dominant institutions – notably in the business world and the national print media – would appear to push it the other way…The most plausible hypothesis is that the BBC has, under pressure, been pushed to the right.” In an op-ed for The Independent, Prof Lewis elaborated: “(The interests of) Conservative politicians who share the ideological suspicion of public service broadcasting…are also strategic, since political pressure – they hope – obliges the BBC to bend over backwards to avoid accusations of a leftist tilt…It is these accusations (the BBC) most fear.”

So what creates a reliable news source? And what definitive criteria make the BBC more reliable than others? Even The Guardian admit we’re splitting hairs when comparing the BBC and RT. And there’s a possible explanation for their own decline, as well. Award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald told Democracy Now: “I have a lot of respect for the reporters and editors there (at The Guardian). They do a lot of great reporting. But one of their big flaws as an institution is they develop personal feuds with people they cover. And when that happens, they dispense with all journalistic standards. So, one of the people who they have particular hatred for is Jeremy Corbyn. And over and over, they have produced journalistic garbage about Corbyn in pursuit of their feud.”

But personal differences are often influenced by political differences, and The Guardian are another pillar of the establishment. The list of excellent anti-establishment writers there who were ousted is quite something, from John Pilger to Mark Steel to Jeremy Hardy to Jonathan Cook. Media Lens have highlighted this purge, and it remains the reason so many journalists operate outside of that institution, with audiences demanding their sort of critique.

And this brings us back to Abby Martin.

About her work at RT and her rebellious on-air criticism of Russia, Glenn Greenwald had this to say the following day: “That that network has a strong pro-Russian bias is unquestionably true. But one of its leading hosts, Abby Martin, remarkably demonstrated last night what ‘journalistic independence’ means by ending her Breaking the Set program with a clear and unapologetic denunciation of the Russian action in Ukraine. For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead-up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?”

Media Lens made it even clearer: “To realise how incomplete and distorted is BBC News coverage, you only have to listen to the superb independent journalist Abby Martin, who has risked her life to report what the corporate media is not telling you about Venezuela. It is little wonder that, as she discusses, her important news programme, ‘Empire Files’, is currently off-air as a result of US sanctions against left-leaning TeleSUR, the Venezuela-based television network.” Conversely, they have added, “The BBC continues to offer a daily dose of propaganda.” On Venezuela, explained Media Lens, “We have witnessed a comparable BBC propaganda blitz centred around opposition claims that President Maduro has ‘eroded Venezuela’s democratic institutions and mismanaged its economy’. The BBC campaign has again been characterised by daily reports from Venezuela presenting a black and white picture of the crisis: Maduro ‘bad’, opposition ‘good’. The BBC has again promoted the sense of an escalating crisis that will inevitably and justifiably result in regime change.” And yet – following the aforementioned pattern – high-profile American news pundit John Stossel claimed Abby Martin “does government-funded propaganda for TeleSUR.” Because again, the West’s good guys have ‘public’ broadcasters, whereas the bad guys are controlled by political enemies in government towers.

Ultimately, as these media institutions maintain their position as guardians of power – even in the face of dwindling audiences and revenues – there will be openings for alternative sources of information that are in high demand. Not all of those sources will be reliable, but so long as hypocrisy fills the offices of the long-standing media establishments and they remain trapped by their traditional editorial and behavioural patterns, seemingly incapable of breaking off into widespread journalistic integrity in the interests of citizens, there will be room for RT, Al-Jazeera, and yes, The Young Turks and, sadly, even Breitbart and Infowars. This is the natural conclusion to a decades-long increasing abandonment of true journalism, the lack of honest, critical coverage of the West’s meddling in the Middle East and in Russia, where RT was born.

The BBC’s Andrew Marr of course dismissed the idea that he works for a conservative pillar of the establishment because he didn’t believe he had ever self-censored. Noam Chomsky had this superb explanation for him, which is a fitting conclusion:

A community educator and lifelong anti-capitalist activist, Jay Baker (he/him) is the founder of SilenceBreaker Media and has written, produced, and directed documentaries in addition to writing for numerous newspapers, magazines, zines, and websites. His own website is at dukeofhardrock.com.

Popular British newspaper the Daily Mail supported fascists in the build-up to the Second World War, and its owners – the Rothermere family – have maintained control of it to this day. It can be argued that they have certainly not shifted their ideology a great deal as it shapes its editorial guidelines, and opinion pieces (and even readership).

What isn’t up for debate, however, is its poor journalistic standards, not least due to its high level of sanctions from the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). IPSO is the main industry regulator of the press in the UK. Even Wikipedia has grappled with the acceptance of the Daily Mail as a reliable source of information. However, the state-of-the-art web browser extension, NewsGuard, rejected the Daily Mail as a trustworthy platform, only to reverse its decision after a Daily Mail executive met with NewsGuard representatives, who suddenly accepted that they “should not be over-relying on IPSO’s process for our judgement on this criterion.” So after meeting with the Daily Mail, NewsGuard suddenly decided the standards of the largest press regulation body in the UK was beneath them; not to be “over-relied” upon.

Yes, there are issues with NewsGuard as it positions itself over and above official independent regulators as arbiters of news, while developing relationships with corporate interests in the private sector. Gaining interest and support from the advertising industry whose clients are cautious about being associated with ‘fake news’ stories, NewsGuard is officially funded by the Knight Foundation, but its biggest corporate backer is public relations company Publicis, whose subsidiary Qorvis has provided propaganda for Saudi Arabia.

Award-winning propaganda critics MediaLens had their own valid concerns:

‘NewsGuard is run by news industry veterans and says it is trying to establish industry-standard benchmarks for which news websites should be trusted.’

Just look at that word: ‘industry’. Veterans of a profit-maximising, ad-dependent, corporate industry are judging ‘standards’. https://t.co/YKFuYTyzYs

— Media Lens (@medialens) January 23, 2019

So how are we to judge news? Obviously, an important part of news is not what is covered, but what is omitted. For example, it’s fairly easy to invoke fear of a neighbourhood to be simply dismissed as a sinister ‘no-go area’ when covering increasing crime statistics, while not, at the same time (or instead) examining increased poverty due to, say, jobs shipped abroad for cheaper labour, a failing welfare system, or government cuts – the latter coverage would invoke sympathy for the deprived community, and anger towards the rich and powerful, which would, after all, fit the original role of the news: “The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” said writer Finley Peter Dunne.

This vision has developed from the days of Dunne’s ‘Mr Dooley’ into a consensus among journalists. For example, the American Press Association cites nine principles of journalism, which are available for further scrutiny but which I’ll paraphrase here, for brevity’s sake:

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth; regardless of the outcome of the pursuit of truth, journalism has a responsibility to dig for facts and present them to a public informed so they may make democratic decisions.

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens; news organisations are only credible if they maintain a commitment to the public interest regardless of vested interests involved in that organisation, be they advertisers, shareholders, or owners.

3. Its essence is discipline of verification; while journalists themselves are not expected to be free from bias (in favour of, say, oppressed communities), they are however expected to be able to verify their information and maintain as much transparency as possible in their research methods, and these can overcome and keep in check such bias.

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover; so, they are to be unaffiliated with the parties they report on.

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power; journalism essentially serves as a watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens.

6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise; steering away from influences and prejudices, news media has a duty to present accurate facts fit for provocation of public discussion.

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant; media is about more than building an audience or even reporting on what are seen as important events – it’s about more than giving the audience what they want, it’s about giving them what they need.

8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional; truthfulness is heavily reliant on keeping news in proportion and not omitting important details.

9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience; journalists are still expected to have a moral compass and a sense of ethics.

SilenceBreaker Media is a non-profit initiative run by the charitable organisation, Libre Digital, which is operated and controlled by a Board of Directors who are from the community and who receive no monies through the company. SilenceBreaker Media is essentially a grassroots group of largely unpaid volunteers, often without an office (I’m writing this in a coffee shop), and while it has procured grant funding and overseen the production of documentaries, the delivery of workshops, and the development of a news aggregator app, it is still a small initiative with much work to be done and much room for improvement of journalistic scale and standards.

As part of a guerrilla documentary I made for SilenceBreaker Media when it was in its infancy, I looked at the reasons for a country’s citizens moving abroad. One popular destination for British people, for example, was Mallorca, Spain: there, I interviewed people who wanted a better life – some simply sought warmer weather, for others it was a chance to get away from ‘Blair’s Britain.’ Whatever the reason, each felt their rationale was simply exercising their right to freedom of movement to make a personal choice to live somewhere far away from where they were born and raised.

As I pointed out in the documentary, like many others from Britain, these people were not seeking refuge in the same way as Sudanese, Afghans, or Syrians were seeking refuge, of course – and yet, understandably, they felt they had every right to choose to visit, stay, or even indefinitely move overseas. Meanwhile, however, as I demonstrated in the documentary, the British press has had an unhealthy obsession with migration into the UK; its coverage has been disproportionate to the issue. These double standards suggest such views are a result of Britain’s colonial legacy and its associated racism, reflected in a media predominantly owned and operated by rich, right-wing interests who seek to help divide-and-rule. But it’s not just the Daily Mail and Daily Express that have been constantly covering the topic and demonising these people seeking a better like in the UK.

One week ago, alongside headlines of Brexit, U.S. President Donald Trump’s government shutdown reversal, BBC News saw fit to feature a special report on ‘illegal migrants.’ Roving reporter Colin Campbell visited various European ports to follow people desperately seeking refuge in Britain (a sensible move, since British colonialism also happened to spread the English language around the world, making it the leading language of international discourse, the third most-spoken language in the world, and the most widely learned second language).

Two things were particularly striking about this perhaps otherwise seemingly innocuous news report.

First, even though the causes of such displacement include such typically newsworthy topics as war and conflict, natural disasters, disease and climate change – and examination of causes provokes empathy in the viewer – no such causes were mentioned here; it was editorially decided that this piece was instead to be entirely focused on the high levels of asylum seekers arriving on British shores, and the bureaucratic challenges this creates for the UK system put in place by the powers-that-be (who are, ironically, often making decisions that contribute to such unrest in other countries).

Second, in a segment that seems to be missing from some of the clips available online, Colin Campbell actually called over to inform a truck driver that his cargo contained “four migrants.” It was an incredible moment: a journalist was not only getting involved in the incident he was reporting on – he was also exposing not the oppressors, but in this case the oppressed. We never had chance to see what happened to these poor desperate people, or ‘migrants.’ (Perhaps knowing that their constant categorisation of these ordinary people as non-British ‘migrants’ was controversial, the BBC’s web page on the report attempted a rather defensive explanation of their use of the term.)

Roger Simpson, PhD, a professor of communication at the University of Washington, has further examined the rules of engagement for journalists, citing the sentiment of journalist Maxwell McCombs (regarded as a founding father of empirical research) that, in fact, the dominant stance of modern journalism is one of professional detachment (which has actually been found to have a traumatic effect on the reporter when they have tried to refrain from helping people in oppressive situations – conversely, helping such people in moments of crisis has been found to possibly “contribute to the resilience and mental health of news workers”).

So, figuratively speaking, news reporters are expected to maintain a distance from a situation, and indeed a rule of thumb often used is, “Do not intervene in situations in which you might endanger a life.” What I found astonishing was that in their report, the BBC’s journalist in this case chose to intervene, but not on behalf of people in crisis. No intervention was even needed.

More than that, here the BBC could actually be found to be in opposition to not just one but almost all of the above-cited nine principles of journalism: They did not remain removed or independent from the situation, and they did not speak truth to power, instead reporting on the challenges faced by those in power from a bureaucratic standpoint as more people seek asylum in the UK, rather than monitoring those in power who either a) contributed to the displacement of these people in the first place, or b) set up a bureaucratic system that cannot easily accept or accommodate those within their rights to seek asylum.

The fact Campbell called a trucker’s attention to the desperate migrants in the truck is quite disturbing. Even simply sticking to basic journalistic standards and, well, doing nothing, those involved in reporting here could have made life easier for those people struggling for a better life: the reporter could have said nothing, and the truck driver could have continued on with his job in blissful ignorance. Instead, the BBC chose to make the driver aware, putting responsibility on his shoulders under mass television scrutiny.

Ultimately, who at the BBC decided that for a Friday night prime-time audience it was more important for a public with anti-immigrant sentiment to see a de-humanising report on ‘migrants’ rather than the cause of migration, and the displacement of asylum seekers and refugees? Rather than taking the road less travelled and giving its audience what it needed – presenting a much-warranted and important perspective on migration issues – the BBC chose the easiest option: it decided to contribute another piece in-keeping with the current flow of immigration narratives that are undoubtedly in dangerous territory.

So we are left to wonder what happened to those people the BBC pointed their cameras at and simply labelled ‘migrants.’ More than a tag, these real people of flesh and bone and blood flee poverty, disease, famine, drought, chaos, and conflict. They know their time here on Earth is fleeting, and precious, as it is for us all. They want a better life for themselves and their loved ones, and in this way – regardless of the corporate media’s passive or even proactive attempts to differentiate and dehumanise them – they are of course just like us, whether we watch events unfold on BBC news, or enjoy a cocktail in the bars of Mallorca.

A community educator and lifelong anti-capitalist activist, Jay Baker (he/him) is the founder of SilenceBreaker Media and has written, produced, and directed documentaries in addition to writing for numerous newspapers, magazines, zines, and websites. His own website is at dukeofhardrock.com.

While in its formative months, SilenceBreaker Media produced a guerrilla documentary that I worked on called Escape from Doncatraz, about the threat of rising racism and fascism on British Isles of controlled borders under a growing surveillance state in the post-9/11 era.

In the film, it was argued that part of the appeal of emerging extremists to communities battered by neoliberalism was the fact that these characters usually weren’t professional politicians. It was the beginning of a rejection of the careerists in Westminster. The film served as a warning that unless progressive, authentic, credible candidates were put forward, fascists could become a dangerously regular by-product of public apathy. Indeed, fascist BNP leader Nick Griffin made an historic appearance on BBC Question Time – long known for its prominent platform for a majority right-wing and centre-right views – and made the monumental achievement of evoking sympathy for him when he was juxtaposed against their usual political guests, who attempted to outgun each other on abusing him, since they couldn’t convincingly beat him on policy when it came to bread-and-butter issues like the postal service, for example. (We’ll return to the forbidden media topic of policies later.)

The apathy towards traditional party politics in Britain was only exacerbated with a scandal about MP’s expenses that dominated television and print media for months due to its often meaty, sometimes seedy, and at times utterly shocking revelations. It was initially exposed by an American: born in Pennsylvania but growing up in Washington state, Heather Brooke worked as a crime reporter for various newspapers before moving to Britain, where she was taken aback by the unapproachable and aloof nature of British bureaucrats and politicians.

After working on Your Right to Know: A Citizen’s Guide to Freedom of Information for Pluto Press in 2004, Heather Brooke began to request the details of MP’s expenses from the House of Commons Freedom of Information Officer, Bob Castle, but all she received were bulk stats and summaries rather than individual break-downs of expenditures. Fortunately for her, by 2005 the Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force, giving more power to her requests for specific data. However, her requests for details of salaries were rejected, information on second homes was denied, and even evidence of travel expenses was refused.

These attempts to procure such information were turned away time and time again throughout 2005 and into 2006, with such excuses as it supposedly being too expensive to provide the data. Unperturbed, Brooke continued to make requests and battled back and forth with the system throughout 2007, as it became apparent that there were concerns in the corridors of power. Prime Minister Tony Blair’s expenses were suddenly shredded ‘by mistake’ (and later, as Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman tabled a motion to exempt MP’s expenses from being subjected to exposure through the Freedom of Information Act).

While I was working on Escape from Doncatraz at this time, I interviewed human rights expert Shami Chakrabarti about state surveillance and invasion of privacy, which she stated was used by politicians under the terrible slogan of “(if you have) nothing to hide, (you have) nothing to fear.” Ironically, the politicians themselves were by this point having a really hard time applying their own slogan back onto themselves.

But of course, Brooke succeeded, and the expenses were eventually exposed:

Derek Conway had been using public money to pay his son for work that was never carried out; Caroline Spelman paid her nanny out of it; Eric Pickles got a nice second home paid for even though it was near his actual home; Douglas Hogg got his country estate’s moat cleared on taxpayer’s money; Sir Peter Viggers had a lovely little ‘duck island’ made for his garden pond; Jacqui Smith had the public pick up the tab for her husband’s pornography. This is just a few, but the greatest gem was probably this:

Anthony Steen spent nearly £90,000 of taxpayers’ money on his second home. If that’s not enough, he then said the scandal was simply due to the public’s “jealousy” of his “very, very large house.” He added: “What right does the public have to interfere with my private life? None.”

Heather Brooke returned to Washington, receiving a “Key Award” from the Washington Coalition for Open Government, in addition to further praise and recognition for blowing off the lid and shedding light on the proverbial viper’s nest. She has gone on to write several more successful books and articles.

The British press certainly dedicated a lot of time and effort to the scandal. It had great ingredients, from corruption, to hypocrisy and arrogance, to even pornography without it being on Page 3 of the daily paper. It not only dished dirt on powerful people as they so relished, but this time was also undoubtedly in the public interest.

Outspoken activist, actor and television personality Stephen Fry said, “Anybody can talk about snouts in troughs and go on about it, but for journalists to do so is almost beyond belief…I know lots of journalists…I’ve never met a more venal and disgusting crowd of people when it comes to expenses and allowances.” He added: “Let’s not confuse what politicians get really wrong – things like wars, things where people die.”

One anti-war activist and politician also happened to submit the lowest expenses claim in the country: £8.70, for an ink cartridge. He was almost unheard of at the time. His name? Jeremy Corbyn.

But the press lost interest in the subject when it became of little use to their big business owners any further. And in fairness, another, even bigger scandal, was emerging.

Along came the global economic crisis of 2008. Years of financial deregulation by neoliberal governments had led to a kind of casino capitalism, with bankers running amok. In Britain, money that couldn’t be found for the people was suddenly printed, and used to bail out the banks. What followed was what activist and author Naomi Klein calls “shock therapy” – the opportunity to inflict upon a confused people in crisis a series of financial measures designed to actually benefit the rich and powerful (often those who caused the crisis itself). Austerity was a perfect example of this: In Britain, with few alternative ideas having been found, encouraged, nurtured, or presented in political spheres, the Conservative government used this tumultuous time of uncertainty to sell off public services into private hands and remove social programmes, with a stunned population – still reeling in the wake of the crisis – largely accepting of these measures (at least, for the first few years until the “shock” wore off and alternatives were finally heard).

With all the news of the exciting financial markets of London and Washington, DC, what many of us forget was that it wasn’t just English-speaking nations that were affected, many different countries were – and some suffered, in many ways, far more devastating consequences.

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis summed up his experience:

The over-indebted Greek state was finding it impossible to roll over its debt. Had it declared its bankruptcy, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal would follow suit, with the result that Berlin and Paris would have faced a fresh bailout of their banks greater than €1tn. At that point, it was decided that the Greek government could not be allowed to tell the truth, that is, confess to its bankruptcy.

To maintain the lie, insolvent Athens was given, under the smokescreen of “solidarity with the Greeks”, the largest loan in human history, to be passed on immediately to the German and French banks. To pacify angry German parliamentarians, that gargantuan loan was given on condition of brutal austerity for the Greek people, placing them in a permanent great depression.

Referring to this time negotiating with European Union officials, he added: “I was locked in a confrontation with some of the most powerful organisations and institutions in the world, and yet the individuals making the decisions were, for the most part, caught up in a machine over which they had no control.”

This is why Yanis Varoufakis – like Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – has since that time campaigned for a ‘remain-and-reform’ approach to the EU: Both stated it was best to remain within the European Union, but it had to be reformed. This is why they pleaded with people to reject ‘Brexit.’ As touched on by our own Jane Watkinson in her recent piece on the EU, such a massive neoliberal institution cannot be countered easily by countries unless they’re part of it and can change it from within. As a bloc, it is absolutely gigantic.

So why did Britain choose ‘Brexit’?

The lost faith in politicians and their institutions – due to examples such as the expenses scandal and the bank bail-out – is self-evident; for years politicians told communities there was no money for their youth centres, libraries, and leisure facilities, no money for jobs creation, or social security, or free education or healthcare. And at the same time, they were finding money at the Treasury to help them clear their mansion moats and carry out gardening at Balmoral-like homes, they were finding money to drop bombs in the Middle East, and they were finding money to give to bankers who were giving themselves bonuses for crashing the economy. It was essentially – as tax justice expert Prem Sikka told me in Escape from Doncatraz – “reverse socialism…where the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer.”

But further than that, we can go back to the 1970’s and 80’s and the rise of both neoliberalism and the EU: as it turns out, a lethal cocktail – here in Britain, for example, the rise of inequality was matched only by the rise in EU integration, and with so many UK communities hit so hard economically, this – alongside the rise in xenophobic narratives from successive governments (both Conservative and New Labour) – meant the EU was an ideal place to direct anger when EU membership was put to the people via a referendum. Of course, as this was developing, corporate media only reflected the above-mentioned xenophobic narratives, rather than challenged them; they were more interested in immigrants, less interested in bankers – even less interested in the few honest politicians such as Jeremy Corbyn, because there was no scandal in that.

Ironically, a referendum on the EU was something promised by David Cameron as part of his Conservative campaign running up to the 2015 general election – a proposal backed not by Labour leader Ed Miliband, but Cameron’s coalition friends the Liberal Democrats, as well as the Green Party.

Lib Dem and Green enthusiasm for a referendum on the EU is particularly surprising upon realising that neither party then accepted the result of that referendum – indeed, the Lib Dems and the Greens now call for a re-run of the vote (in the seemingly futile hope of getting a different result). And yet the Lib Dems call themselves both ‘liberal’ and ‘democrats’ with no irony whatsoever, while the Greens said they only wanted a referendum at the time to “respect democracy.”

But ultimately it is the responsibility of Cameron’s Conservatives in government, and while in the run-up to the referendum so many of them promised the British people that they’d benefit from Brexit, after the referendum they then turned around and told them that, in fact, under every single scenario, ordinary people will suffer after Britain leaves the EU. This turnaround is staggering, even by contemporary political expectations, and it reveals that the Conservatives – funded as they have been historically by big private interests – may well be quite happy with the divisive chaos of Brexit, because it’s another way of reinforcing the message that ordinary people must inevitably suffer (while at the same time billionaires increase their wealth).

Amongst the Brexit battles, there has been much talk of ‘protectionism’ – but all this shows that it’s starting to become clear what is truly being protected by the whole process: financial elitism and the inevitable inequalities that come with it.

Yes, here we are. Few people remember the expenses scandal any more, and even fewer people talk about it. It served its purpose; it may have even successfully buried bad news. The press very rarely mention Jeremy Corbyn’s impressive track record – on expenses, or apartheid, or war, or the EU. They focus not on those things, but on personality, on leadership credentials – anything but policy. After all, his policies would mean a redistribution of wealth and power to the people. The entire system could be shaken: renationalisation of key public services, investment for communities, education, healthcare, and fewer military interventions. Incredibly, says historian Mark Curtis, “Corbyn would be the first anti-imperialist to win power in a major Western country.”

So even in Westminster, alongside the press corps, politicians have tried to manoeuvre in a manner ensuring that this current system is kept in place, and Corbyn is kept out, since his entry into Downing Street would mark an end to ‘business as usual’ for the press, the politicians, and the bankers. Part of the Brexit “shambles” that the press talk about (and even blame Corbyn himself for in his role as Leader of the Opposition) is actually partially a result of the machinations from across the parties to stand firm, immovable, and keep Corbyn out at all costs.

The Conservative government itself just suffered the greatest defeat in British history, with an incredible amount of Conservative MP’s voting to reject their leader’s Brexit deal. Normally, this would result in resignation(s) or even a complete collapse of government, but in another typical turnaround, the following day these same MP’s declared their confidence in her to govern – a perfect example of their dogged determination to do whatever it takes, even inflict further chaos and damage to the country, in order to keep Corbyn out. (It has even emerged that those in power may have also used government money on a campaign to discredit Corbyn.) The press barons, the big banks, and country club circuit expect nothing less – and they are confident they will survive, whatever disorder ensues. After all, they survived the expenses scandal and the bailout’s transfer of trillions of pounds of public money into private hands. They’re still here.

But that could all change, and it may even be certain now. Regardless of what happens next, the struggle remains one for a more democratic media, a more democratic system, and a more democratic society, something the mass majority seem to be in agreement on. The economic elites, as we can see, fear a redistribution of power and wealth across a wider population desperate for empowerment; the rich and powerful fear democracy itself, and with neoliberalism on its last legs, understandably so. They may well be simply staving off the inevitable.

A community educator and lifelong anti-capitalist activist, Jay Baker (he/him) is the founder of SilenceBreaker Media and has written, produced, and directed documentaries in addition to writing for numerous newspapers, magazines, zines, and websites. His own website is at dukeofhardrock.com.

Regardless of any American’s ideology, this categorisation is not only simplistic, but also inaccurate. And it’s high time we moved on from it.

First of all, let’s go back to the beginnings of each party. The Republicans, unsurprisingly, were formed from the guiding political philosophy of the United States itself: republicanism. This, as the term suggests, rejects monarchies and inherited political power, and – with its emphasis on liberty and unalienable individual rights – has fuelled the fable of the American Dream. It was in fact the Republicans who championed freedom of labour and freedom of movement, favourable to immigration and the end to slavery.

Formed in the 1850s and nicknamed the ‘Grand Old Party,’ or ‘GOP,’ the Republicans are however not the oldest party in American history: that status belongs to the Democrats, who can be traced back to the 1820s and opposed the Whigs and their belief in the rule of a minority over “majority tyranny.”

Meanwhile, the Republicans were still in many ways seen as progressive, campaigning on ‘pluralism’ for the benefit of many minority groups regardless of ethnic or religious background. Theodore Roosevelt, who many have argued held socialist principles, became president in 1901, and the Republicans supported trade unions and even the ‘New Deal’ of post-Depression Democrats led by that other Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. Many supported health care and welfare spending with higher taxation, and a free market.

Here’s where ‘liberalism’ gets confused.

First of all, while many Democrats considered themselves fiscally conservative, and others were for greater restrictions on business, Republicans have long supported the liberalisation of the economy to allow greater freedom for businesses, and Ronald Reagan successfully ran for the presidency on the platform of “getting the government off your back,” meaning liberalisation of legislation and regulation, harking back to the GOP principles of individual freedom. Of course, by this time, this approach embraced the more Social Darwinist ideology of ‘survival of the fittest,’ where the government was to be so little involved in your life that you were left out on your own with hardly any support if you fell on hard times. (Democrat Bill Clinton continued the trend.) Similarly, the Republicans have usually been extremely liberal on gun controls; it’s almost always Democrats calling for stronger regulations on firearms.

It’s not just on guns where the Democrats are hardly ‘liberal.’ On welfare and overseas military campaigns, for example, the Democrats have been far from hippie liberals wanting to sit in circles, hand-in-hand, singing ‘Kum ba yah.’ But when they appear progressive, they’re still very comparable to Britain’s Conservatives (and not Britain’s ‘liberal’ left-wing Labour) on many issues – hardly ‘leftie’ peaceniks by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, the Democrats are today often considered the American option for more socially liberal policies on gender, sexuality, and race – but in a developed Western nation that still doesn’t have universal health care, where inequality is high, and where, let’s not forget, the right-wing Republicans are the comparison, who are they going to brag to about that?

Although it isn’t necessarily an empirical study, the Political Compass website is very useful as demonstrating how being ‘liberal’ doesn’t mean being ‘left-wing.’ This applies both ways:

First, being socially conservative doesn’t mean being economically right-wing – look at Communist Russia.

Secondly, despite recently adopting ‘state capitalism,’ China is today seen as maintaining a ‘state communist’ approach, and whatever you interpret its economic policy as, almost all agree the state itself is key there, yet few will argue that it isn’t exactly ahead of the game on social liberalism – far from it. This must seem confusing to those Americans stuck in a binary ‘liberal/conservative’ view of the world.

So, why do Americans continue to insist on speaking about their political options – particularly Democrats and Republicans – as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’?

Well, the answer can be found in the question. The United States has essentially a two-party system. Attaching each party to a single simplistic yet vague ideology creates the illusion of choice, when there is little choice at all, and little difference. Both parties are capitalist and economically right-wing, both are dominated by corporate influence, both largely accept conservative approaches to health care and welfare spending, both historically fail on social liberalism, and both accept a militarised culture of overseas bombing campaigns.

Therefore it can in fact be argued that there is, it turns out, no great ideological battle between conservatives and liberals in the United States. Both are economically liberal while being relatively socially conservative compared to many other countries in other parts of the world, such as Scandinavia.

No, there is only one ideological battle, and it is that between the economically liberal, socially conservative elites dominating the two-party system alongside the media outlets covering it – and the people.

The recent mass movement behind democratic socialists such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has demonstrated an appetite for a break from these norms, and it can even be suggested that Donald Trump’s success was largely an albeit unpleasant by-product of the growing widespread cynicism towards the political establishment. The Democratic Party’s recent failures – much like those of Britain’s Labour Party until Jeremy Corbyn became its elected leader – have also arguably been a result of lacking a clear counter-narrative to a political status quo that has brought about inequality, financial crises, global instability, and climate change.

Unless viable, credible alternatives are offered to ordinary people, fascistic parties and politicians will sadly be the only ones offering the pitch and promise of radical change, and history has already shown us the danger presented by such openings.

So the idea that Republicans are the ‘conservatives’ and Democrats are the ‘liberals,’ then, is outdated, wholly inaccurate, and essentially a con designed to create the illusion of choice between these two very corporate, very right-wing political machines. As Naomi Klein has said, “Politics hates a vacuum – if you don’t fill it with hope, someone will fill it with fear.” The public discontent at this has begun to manifest itself in the form of more rebellious choices – and if the Democrats don’t provide more prominent platforms for more politicians such as Sanders, Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez, then expect the Republicans to offer more types like Trump. While there are many in the Democratic Party who would be just fine with more neoliberal Presidents such as the latter because they and their benefactors are too afraid of any significant redistribution of wealth, no less than the survival of our planet itself is what’s at stake.

It’s time to ditch the fake differences between the supposedly ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ political parties who got us in this mess the last century, and instead put forward genuine, progressive alternatives. Time is running out too fast to settle for anything less.

A community educator and lifelong anti-capitalist activist, Jay Baker (he/him) is the founder of SilenceBreaker Media and has written, produced, and directed documentaries in addition to writing for numerous newspapers, magazines, zines, and websites. His own website is at dukeofhardrock.com.

My rationale was that I was being forced to take on the tasks previously carried out by a member of staff – and while the workforce was faced with cutbacks, the products and proceeds remained the same, meaning the customer was taking on labour in order to widen the profit margin for supermarket chain shareholders. I remember pointing this out to a supermarket employee, and he replied by informing me he hated his job, wanted to be a photographer, and only kept working until he was terminated since he wasn’t entitled to social security if he simply quit. I didn’t understand any of it at the time.

I’ll be the first to admit that I was stupidly stuck in my ways for a while on this one.

While the argument around the principle of the profit motive is for another time, the self-checkout – and automation in general – need not be a bad thing. Hear me out on this.

Science and technology is supposed to present us with progress.

Modern medicines and life-saving techniques are commonplace in the hospitals of the “developed” world: from x-ray machines to laser eye surgery, there have been leaps and bounds in making sure humans can live better, longer lives. Meanwhile, green energy has presented us with the prospect of harnessing sustainable resources found in nature: whether it be wind, wave, or solar power, we’ve rediscovered natural ways to fuel our cities without harming the planet, as much as old energy moguls and their powerful friends try to deny it.

Beyond this, we’ve developed many machines that can carry out tasks faster and safer than when reliant on humans. This too is progress, and rather than resisting it for the sake of retaining jobs the likes of our aforementioned photographer friend hates, isn’t it time we embraced it and simply got rid of the jobs most people like him despise too?

Humans share one planet, and we’re constantly reminding each other we’re supposed to “work to live, not live to work.” If that’s the case, surely it’s time we let the automated machinery carry out the tedious tasks we loathe, so that we can get busy living? This, of course, would mean fewer jobs, less work, and adoption of universal basic income (which, again, given our photographer friend’s sense of being trapped in his job, would be a welcome replacement for the welfare systems we have currently). In addition, companies are always looking for ways to adopt automated methods, and when machines can do jobs as well as – even better than – humans, how can you argue against it?

Scott Santens, a leading advocate of the universal basic income, recently said, ‘In the future, if you want a job, you must be as unlike a machine as possible: creative, critical, and socially skilled.’

Sounds like our photographer friend stuck in the supermarket could actually do just fine.

A community educator and lifelong anti-capitalist activist, Jay Baker (he/him) is the founder of SilenceBreaker Media and has written, produced, and directed documentaries in addition to writing for numerous newspapers, magazines, zines, and websites. His own website is at dukeofhardrock.com.