David Edwards (2) (1962–)

This is a book about freedom (of the unfettered kind). Edwards thesis is that what we experience as freedom is illusional, a stunted fraction of a greater freedom. He lays the blame for this truncation at the feet of corporately controlled mass media who, motivated by profit or influence, overwhelm the world with skewed opinion and partisan views. So subtle and evasive is the bias threaded into its fabric that over time our critical antennae become desensitized and we are lulled into a depowering acceptance of a false normalcy,

Edwards’ antidote to this blunting effect is to promote what he describes as ‘the art of intellectual self-defence’. The technique has similarities to the way countless generations of Quaker’s regularly attend to the wise counsels of the soul: Edwards’ book exposes the many treacherous undercurrents at play in todays world and which combine to sustain an illusionary reality reminiscent of the one ‘The Truman Show’ was built around
(for those who recall the film)

Despite similarities between these two techniques, there is still value to be gained from a more thorough understanding the behaviour of these dark distortive forces operate, and how they inveigle themselves into our lives--forging invisible chains to tether our notions of freedom. As we learn to recognise their characteristics, we also learn how to discount them should they intrude into our contemplative pursuit of Truth.… (more)

The basic point of the authors is that all of the popular media are completely beholden to the power structure, so they are inevitably corrupt. Although non-commercial broadcasters and 'left-leaning' newspapers have moments of liberal freedom, there are unspoken limits beyond which reporters and editors are not allowed to go.

The part that resonated the most with me was a section towards the end entitled "Towards a Compassionate Media." Making the very credible claim that compassion is not a part of contemporary news media, they explain "Exploitative pwer has a vested interest in smearing concern for others as 'naive,' 'sentimental,' and 'weak' because it benefits from the promotion of greed, hatred and ignorance." Whether or not you agree with the cause, I think it self-evident that compassion is out of style. This trend is especially significant on Fox, which consistently portrays any form of empathy, other than a shallow sort of sentimentality over relatively trivial stories, as being a form of weakness. A story about a lost puppy can generate more emotion than can a story about killings in Darfur.… (more)