… which Western malstrom media would never let you give
It is virtually impossible to get into the mainstream – or malstrom – media today with a critical view of NATO and US foreign policy. Knowledge, experience and eloquence are no longer important criteria; it’s rather: Where do you stand? Are you with the US/NATO? If not 100% , you must be a “Putinist.”
Analytical arguments, clarity of concepts, and the ability to see things in a larger perspective in time and space are of no importance to those who drive media narratives distant from complex reality. They have a mandate.
Whatever TFF and I myself write, we send it out once a week as TFF PressInfo to those media – for instance about 15 at BBC. Everyone in leading Swedish media who have written about Sweden and NATO has received it; not one reacting.
They know and decide to omit.
Instead, they use state-employed civilian experts, their own journalist colleagues in the role of experts, politicians who need to justify their decisions, dimplats or military people. It seems to never strike them that these are mostly interested, one-side opinions, dependent information or otherwise, that do not emanate from a position truly free in terms of research and politics.
During the last few months – and back to 2014 – I have been writing extensively about the underlying NATO-Russia conflict over the last 30 years which has caused Russia to initiate the Ukraine war. People who do not understand conflict analyses and, therefore, are disinterested in peace-making, only talk about the war. You can find these writings on The Transnational and earlier versions of our homepage.
So who do I reach by that?
Indian, Chinese, Iranian and alternative Western media; they eagerly contact me and want to give me the opportunity to present my ‘alternative’ analyses. I must assume that they would not contact me unless they thought that the content was important and well put.
You may say that – well, these countries and their media have an interest in highlighting somebody like Jan Oberg with his critical views. And, yes, I am critical of US/NATO policies. That is one part of the truth, for sure.
But much more important is this: Why do Western mainstream media consistently reject alternative, or critical, views of Western security and foreign policy issues?
Isn’t it within the philosophy of free media and the basis of democracy that there can be different views, and that we dialogue about them until we find a common understanding – and make a decision?
Below is a clip from an interview I gave to CCTV – China’s National Television a few days ago.
This is China’s National Television, CCTV, reaching in theory all Chinese citizens – up to 1400 million people. It is not only fun to know when you prepare yourself that you reach millions of fellow global citizens on our little planet; it is also a unique public education outreach, an opportunity for dialogue (this one minute gave rise to other Chinese media interest).
All countries have problems with criticism of their own policies and system. The West has an added problem, in my view: It professes to be open, diverse and have free media.
While that may have been reasonably true decades ago, it isn’t so today.
Westerners are approaching what I call their “Pravda moment” – the moment when they find out that their media do not convey the truth (“pravda”) anymore but instead to FOSI – Fake + Omission + Source Ignorance.
Always grateful for your recognition of my free thoughts and writings. It’s easy, fast and secure. Thanks!