As regular visitors to this website will know, we argue that the Media Class is the new ruling class in the Western Hemisphere. We have posted many articles in our Archive describing the component parts of this Class and how it has evolved into a ruling class in the last 30 odd years.
It seems to us that each and every day, the content of TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, theatrical plays, movies, even the lyrics of many pop songs, reveal the agenda, the presence and the powerful advance of this Class. How else can we explain the fatuous but widely publicized stream of utterances of ‘Show-biz’ and fashion world people who now feel qualified to give us their views on everything political, social and cultural. We are bombarded with both their opinions and their activities, no matter how trivial. And as we point out, on most topics and with few exceptions, the Media Class people march in lockstep. How else too, can we explain the relentless assault on traditional Christianity, conservatism and nationalism, so that the opinions of ordinary working people are first marginalized, then suffocated and finally illegitimatized.
We are no longer alone, of course in identifying an agenda at work in the Media. More and more commentators are drawing attention to what they call the ‘bias’ of the mainstream media. This increasing awareness is not surprising to us, because we always expected that an emerging new ruling class would start to flex its muscles in public, grow in confidence and become more and more impatient with the status quo. The replacement of one ruling class by another is a dynamic and turbulent process. Members and supporters of the old ruling class are forced to make way for the new. In our time, politicians who have not been nimble enough to change allegiance quickly have been marginalized and demonized by the Media. Now, increasingly, members of the new Class, impatient for cultural and legislative change, are becoming prominent in politics themselves.
We are entering a period when the Media Class is no longer serving any Class but itself and in doing so is becoming openly assertive, even arrogant. This can be seen right across the political, social and cultural spectrum. In the UK, the BBC has emerged as the most powerful force in UK political and social life, and not far behind are a large contingent of entertainers and TV people.
There is an excellent website called Biased BBC, that is busy monitoring the political bias of the BBC. I commend it to our visitors with the caution that either its contributors pull their punches on certain issues because they have their own agenda or they cannot see the wood for the trees. They are good at revealing BBC bias against Israel and President Bush’s USA, but are rather silent about the BBC’s treatment of the BNP and other Nationalist Parties. They are getting better at pointing out the BBC’s bias on race crimes but say little about its treatment of homosexuality. Still, we say never look a gift horse in the mouth and this website is on our side of the struggle for truth, honesty and free speech.
The website recently drew attention to a Daily Mail (for our US visitors’ information, the Mail is a right-of-center tabloid newspaper midway between Rupert Murdoch’s populist Sun and the more conservative Daily Telegraph for intellectual content) article headlined “We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News” The article quotes BBC spokesman Andrew Marr’s recent statement as follows. “The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organization with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”.
Recently, several BBC spokespersons have openly conceded that their organization has a ‘bias’, though simultaneously dismissing it as of little consequence and certainly not suggesting any changes are imminent. Marr’s paragraph is less a defense against the ‘bias’ charge than a rationale for it. It is remarkably revealing as well as uncompromising. Marr ‘explains’ the ‘bias’ and makes no apology for it, claiming that it reflects the social make-up of BBC employees! To proclaim that it (his BBC) is not impartial or neutral and then in the next breath refer to its public funding is surely breathtakingly arrogant. I assume that the word “urban” is inserted to suggest a worldly, modern outlook that would be associated with city people, unless he meant to say ‘urbane’ (suave, refined, polished). Either way, this is more arrogance since it implies that country people are not fitted to occupy a place in the BBC. As it happens, a great many people in the BBC’s upper echelons do actually live in the countryside, though not in village hovels or rural public housing. They like to breathe clean fresh air, relax in low crime areas where immigrants are noticeable by their absence, and enjoy quiet picturesque settings. Nevertheless, they retain their keen interest in and concern for the urban poor, minorities and the disadvantaged and obviously consider themselves ‘urban’.
Grouping “young people, ethnic minorities and gay people” is standard Leftist propaganda-speak, though Marr’s omission of ‘women’ from the mix was surely a slip. “Abnormally large number”, referring to the composition of the BBC’s workforce being dominated by minorities and homosexuals, is surely the most instructive word in the whole paragraph, since we might ask how it came to be abnormal and why it remains so. Marr obviously sees no need to address this. It is enough to just tell us how it is. It is not immediately obvious to anyone why any of the three groups should be abnormally represented, for they are not groups of people who stand out as particularly qualified for either BBC work or for public service. And so we come to his last references to a “cultural liberal” bias rather than a “party-political bias”.
We have never believed that the modern BBC has a party-political bias in the sense that it is out to further the interests of one party. That would suggest that it is the creature of a political party, and we reject that notion completely. We have argued that the BBC, and the Media Class in general has a cultural/social agenda entirely of its own and that it is using its newfound political power to further that agenda. In the course of doing so it promotes the careers of politicians and parties that are compliant.
The whole of Marr’s statement can only be appreciated in the context that he is a representative of the UK Media Class and it’s leading constituent, the BBC.
It would be foolish to suggest that the BBC (and the Media in general) has its ‘bias’ (and ‘bias’ is a totally inadequate word for what is a radical social and cultural agenda) as a result of some sort of conspiracy. Whole organizations of its size and complexity do not get taken over by stealthy Leftist activists. Neither do we think homosexuals have targeted the BBC for infiltration. But there has to be an explanation for the situation that Marr confirms now exists. We believe that the explanation lies in the evolution of a Class, propelled into power by impersonal forces of technology and history.
Reader, if you can come up with an alternative explanation for the ‘abnormal’ (Marr’s word, not ours!) composition of the BBC’s workforce (and that of the rest of the Media Class) and for its newfound power to promote a radical political, cultural and social agenda, please write to us. You can find our email address in our index under ‘Contact Us’.