This is an interview with Cat Hobbs who is the Director of “We Own It” – a campaign group based in Oxford which campaigns for public ownership.
What is striking about this interview is how entirely ideologically committed to privatisation the interviewer is. (His commitment to privatisation goes far beyond what might be regarded as asking challenging questions).
His ideological commitment is such that he makes the following questionable statement [2.37]:
“Since privatisation the railways are now more or less paying for themselves”. This is not true. The railway companies receive £ billions in public support and subsidy. 
This sort of interview is also relevant to the whole sham discourse about the “free press” in the West. Western media is usually presented as “free” in contrast to (typically) Russian state media. The Russian state media certainly tends to favour the line taken by the Russian government on most issues. But then, as we see here, the “free” press in the West does something similar and at the same time much more insidious. Sky, the broadcaster here, for example, is a publicly traded company. That is; it is owned by finance capital. Here we see it, in the guise of fulfilling the role of a “free press”, working as hard as it can including using factually questionable statements in order to promote the interests of its owners – finance capital. Who, we can be assured, love the idea of a publicly subsidised ‘free-market’ in the railways.
The interview does not deviate from the ideological free-market line. There is no sense here of “journalistic balance”. Even in terms of conventional classical economics there are arguments for and against privatisation but in this interview only one side is considered by the interviewer. For example note the way he argues as if it were an ideologically free point that privatisation is good because passengers pay for their travel rather than the taxpayer. This is in fact not the kind of neutral point the interviewer presents it as, but is one side of the argument. The other side of this argument is that a nationally owned rail network with prices maintained at an affordable level a) is fairer – which is a value in its own right which is simply discounted by market economics and b) also has economic benefits in that it allows more people to consider jobs which they cannot afford to travel to in a for-profit system – and this has wider benefits for the economy. We can see in the interviewer’s question a radical and ideological position masquerading as “common sense”. This is not an attempt to “stimulate democratic debate” but an attempt to close it off.
To be clear; it is one thing for a journalist to put the other side of the argument to an interviewee in order to challenge them. But what we see here is something somewhat different. Here one side of the argument is offered as straight fact. This is an ideological position.
Ms Hobbs does a fantastic job up against this example of the “free press”.
The “free press” in the West has numerous tactics to spin their narratives along. One might be called editorial inserts. Here a story is wrapped up in a coating added at editorial level. The claims are never established by facts and analysis. They just appear. A typical example is how many stories about Russia are now glossed with the line about “an increasingly aggressive Russia”. This apparent fact has never been established in a journalistic sense. For example; a serious discussion of the root causes of the recent conflicts in South Ossetia and Ukraine. The narrative line just appears and is taken for granted. In fact its source is not political and historical analysis but the narratives put out by corporate politicians to gloss their latest imperialist manoeuvres.
This is an example. The
So. To spoil and detract from the Sochi Olympics the Western press ran spoiler after spoiler about Russia’s “anti-gay” laws. There aren’t any. But that didn’t stop them. (There is a law about propagandising non traditional relations to minors which is punishable by a small fine).
Now that the run-up to the 2018 football World Cup is getting under way the Western press is trying to decide what their spoiler is going to be this time. The obvious one is to link Russia to the US-led criminal probe into FIFA. Another one is “racism”. Russian football apparently has a problem with racism. E.g. black players get racially abused from the terraces. Well; to anyone who knows anything about English football that will sound familiar. But that won’t stop them using the issue to demonise Russia.
This video report by some lubricious Sky reporter is a case in point. He manages to allude to the FIFA corruption angle. How could he help himself? There is no discussion of problems with racism in Russian football in the piece. No reports. Nothing. (Except one reporter manages to shout out a question about “racism” to the back of the the FIFA President). This
This is a nice juicy example of Western media propaganda.
Today (16/7/15) Yahoo News carries a link to this Newsweek article.
The Newsweek article is dated 14/7/15.
The story is about how two Russian lawmakers have applied to the Prosecutor’s office to open an investigation into whether the separation of the Baltic states from Russia in 1991 was legal. (The case is that when the Soviet Union broke up the decision to grant independence to the Baltic states was not made by a valid legal body).
Firstly, Newsweek misreports the story. Newsweek says:
Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office has launched an improbable but nonetheless outrageous investigation into the legality of the independence of the three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).
Well. This simply isn’t true. Two MPs have applied to the Prosecutor’s office asking them to open an investigation. In fact the Prosecutor’s office declined to open such an investigation. (More on that in a moment). This can’t be
One feature of the media in the West is how it is mostly composed of narrative lines. The narrative lines are politically engineered. They are based on expediency. After the narrative line is created a scattering of facts is adduced to create an impression of factual reporting. This is the opposite of reporting facts and then developing an analysis based on those facts.
An example of a narrative line is “an increasingly aggressive Russia”. This phrase (shared across all media outlets and politicians) now forms part of “news” stories on Russia and is presented as if it were an incontrovertible fact.
This is an example
This is a nice example of a pure propaganda story. It is written by a propaganda writer Yulia Silina for AFP.
The aim of the story is to create an impression that the rebels in Eastern Ukraine are using “child soldiers”. No doubt we are supposed to think “like ISIS”. Note that the story concedes that the UN says there is no proof of minors being used in combat in Eastern Ukraine. We are told: