The press is free like Priti Patel is the picture of empathy
The press is free
like the free market is freedom
and our votes free and fair.
How can I make myself clear so you’ll care?
Ah, yes. The press is free,
the way Priti Patel
is the picture of empathy.
Oh, come on! Enough
enough-
of this neoliberal double speak.
My names Rosanna, I am a member of extinction rebellion and I’d like you to hear me out.
Extinction rebellion are accused of an assault on the free press, yet the activists involved in this action answer with their demand that the press be freed.
Their action was inspired by the disturbing reality of the overwhelming control in the media held by this handful of billionaires.
I am going to adress the action and the point being made unlike those that wield whataboutism to suspend debate.
I am rather strict when it comes to dishonest arguments. So I’m telling you this, not to avoid adressing this actions by Extinction rebellion activists, but in the interest of understanding the political context in which this recent XR action is being discussed.
So, on the same day that Boris Johnson's government condemned and threatened to criminalise us, The Council of Europe issued the Level 2 "media freedom alert". This came after Ministry of Defence press officers refused to deal with Declassified UK, a website focusing on foreign and defence policy stories.
This was just the straw that broke the camels back. There is a while list of banned journalists and entire outlets - OpenDemocracy, for example.
I will be addressing this governments assault on scrutiny from the media in a separate video that should be out by the end of the week at the latest. It’s urgent as their attack has certainly picks up pace.
So please check back in with the channel or aubscribe and press the bell notification so you know as soon as the video is uploaded.
So, turning to the focus of this blog post: the blockade of print presses and to explain the statements I made at the start of this video.
Basically the action was to make people ask: If control of the media is exclusively in the hands of the obscenely rich, how free can the press be?
I do commend the activists for their focus on the severe flaws in our “Democracy” as I’ve long said that, to achieve environmentalist aims, we need democracy to operate in such a way that we actually have a fair chance to elect a government that will pursue climate justice.
There is more to achieveing that equal footing in elections than highlighting the poison Murdoch has been drip feeding the world with for decades. It is of course a factor.
By which I mean challenging the message and the legitimacy of so much power for so few.
However, I’m not uncritical of the way they have taken this action. This video is more about the validity of the issue they seek to raise, not a whole hearted endorsement of this particular action.
The reality is that Extinction rebellion is not a system structured in such a way that every action in the name of XR is agreed to by every Rebel.
Honestly, had I been involved, I would have suggested other means of raising this issue.
However, on that issue of billionaire control over the press and aim to spark public debate regarding disproportionate power he and a few others wield in the press and, therefore, political discourse and democracy my agreement is indeed wholehearted
This isn’t just a support of the issue raised and condemn the action message. My reaction to this is, as with most things, more nuanced.
I would at the very least like to temper some of the hyperbolic rhetoric used in criticising this action
Totalitarian states shut down the media with the aim shutting down scrutiny and doing so forever.
Extinction rebellion has paused the propaganda.
It was about jolting the country into asking if we are okay with a hand full of obscenely wealthy people having so much power, not just in the U.K. but around the world not taking it upon ourselves to forever shut out these rags, however awful they are, it’s about drawing attention to the issue,as I’ve said.
I understand the reaction (to a degree, though of course the totalitarian comparison is absurd) but there is a legitimate argument to being made, a conversation to have. Should that conversation happen, that would arguably make this a success.
But success is not guaranteed and let’s face it, one of the possible consequences is loss of support and the intention being misunderstood, not to mention misrepresented.
So I do consider this action to have been risky this isn’t hypocrisy, we aren’t an echo chamber, We do disagree on things within Extinction rebellion!
So yeah, honestly I’m not here to say it was a good idea.
No, I’m here to appeal to our critics to atleast argue on the reality of our goals not your straw man scare stories and acknowledging that the points being made are an accurate observation and therefore deserving of being debated.
We ask that you debate rather than criminalise us.
Those of us that put ourselves up for arrest make that choice and no one is pressured to do so or explain why they don’t criminalising mere affiliation with the movement would be a truly despotic move to make , but this is no surprise to me, as will be made clear on the other video I’m working on.
But, organised crime?
Really? Oh come on!
There’s no profiteering by XR from their unlawful actions so that’s a charge they can’t make stick. Which begs the question, why give it as an example of how they will go after us?
They know the public isn’t ready for them to call us terrorists.
It’s coming though.
So one of the points I'm sure will be raised is that extinction rebellion are meant to be a apolitical group.
yes it’s true our activists carry banners etc with the words beyond politics on them. However, as I said we don’t always agree. There are many of us who believe that this is an issue that can't be beyond politics.
This couldn’t be made more clear than by our government choosing not to take this opportunity for a green industrial revolution. Instead, as we all would have expected, it’s all about supporting old industries that will only need to be bailed out again when they have to change rapidly to fit in with our carbon restricted future.
Those of us who feel this way do so because we’re looking at the politics in front of us and, well obviously it’s a shit show. But seriously, there's only one way to we can achieve our aims and that’s electing a government that will pursue them.
So, I’m sorry I know it’s awkward choosing a side but I really don’t see how politics can possibly be set aside.
Can anyone really, if you think about it, argue otherwise? Beyond Politics was a foolish notion to start.
I can't say how many of those involved in extinction rebellion agree with those of us who see it this was and would never claim to speak for the movement.
I believe it's a conversation that needs to be had among us.
Relevant blog post:
Eco Activist Priorities
What I think our priority, or first order of business has to be, in order to reach our aims - get the right government elected.
Yes, I know said it earlier. I’m saying it again and I'll keep saying it.:
Climate change is of course the most important issue but we need to work for a democracy in which we have an actual chance at putting our aims into action which can only be done by electing a government that will, giving them the mandate to do so.