The illusion of free speech

How the war in Ukraine demonstrates the poverty of freedom of the press and speech in Western liberal democracies

THE LAST WORD | ANDREW MWENDA |  The war between Russia and Ukraine (actually better described as the war between Russia and the Western world in Ukraine) is a classic case study on how to understand the concept of free speech and freedom of the press. Since the war began, the Western world has imposed absolute censorship of all content that is favourable to Russia. In all the “liberal democracies” of North America and Western Europe, Russia Today (or RT) television has been pulled down from the airwaves and also from YouTube, all Russian media outlets in those countries have been banned and all pro-Russian content has been systematically blocked on Google – so much to say for freedom.

Just imagine if this comprehensive censorship was done by China or Russia or any other country or region not defined as liberal-democratic. Western media, academia, diplomats, activists would be up in arms denouncing the “authoritarian” government and its “despotic” rulers who are stifling free speech. Yet in spite of this comprehensive censorship of pro-Russian content, I have not seen any Western human rights and free speech group raise a finger. As this reality dawned on me, I went back to re-reading Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s 1989 classic, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

The basic argument of the book is that mass media in the USA express the views of powerful interests located in society generally and control the state. The representatives of these interests have vital interests and agendas they want to advance – whether through the state or the market. Given their power as owners and/or advertisers, they are able to shape or constrain what the media say. I would add that even the production of knowledge in Western societies is itself shaped by these powerful societal forces. How? It is they that finance academic institutions and programs, fund research by these institutions and individual scholars plus advocacy think tanks.

The lesson I learnt from the book is that there is “freedom” of the media in the Western world because the media promote the interests of these powerful societal forces; they act as representatives and spokespersons of power. As a corollary, the media may not be “free” in the so-called authoritarian or autocratic societies in large part because they are not spokespersons of powerful interests in those countries. Thus, freedom of the press in the West is actually a myth. If the media in the West propagated ideas, interests and values contrary to accepted doctrines and orthodoxies, they would face similar restrictions as in authoritarian societies.

Therefore the “success” of liberal democracy is not in giving freedom a free reign but in the ability to domesticate it. This is achieved by using more subtle methods to create a conformity of views among elites who dominate public debate like the selection of individuals who participate in public debate as journalists, pundits, and/or “authoritative” sources of information. Thus, when watching CNN, there are always military “experts” brought in the explain the progress of the war in Ukraine. The viewer is made to believe that these experts are neutral, independent, unbiased and objective analysts. Yet all too often they are on the payroll of the Pentagon.

Herman and Chomsky quote a 1971, Armed Forces Journal, survey that revealed that the Pentagon was publishing a total of 371 magazines at an annual cost of $57 million ($417 million in 2022 dollars), an operation larger than America’s largest publisher. In a 1982 update, the Airforce Journal International indicated that the Pentagon was publishing 1,203 periodicals. No other single institution or organisation was producing such volume of work. This gives the Pentagon a huge upper hand in the production of “knowledge”.

In 2008, New York Times reporter, David Barstow, revealed that the Pentagon had recruited a network of retired military officers who were given briefings and access to classified information. Media outlets looking for “expert military analysts” to appear on air were given the names of these “experts”. An internal Pentagon memo said these would act as “message force multipliers” and surrogates who “would appear as independent authoritative voices.” Participants were told not to reveal their relationship with the Pentagon and were expected to “stay on message.” If anyone refused or failed to follow this course, they would lose access. One of these “military experts” was dismissed after he went “off message” by telling Fox News that the war in Iraq was going badly.

It is on the basis of this information that I silently laugh at my friends who keep quoting “military experts” or researchers from “independent research institutions” who appear at public fora or on mass media talking about what is happening in the war in Ukraine. Almost without exception, they have all been reporting victory upon victory by the Ukrainian army against the Russian army. Almost eight months later Ukrainian forces have not yet entered Moscow. Instead, their country seems wrecked, 20% of their territory has held peaceful elections and voted to join Russia.

Here again is the sophistication of Western propaganda. It is not that they tell obvious lies. Rather, it is that they are selective on the “news” they report. It is possible every victory by Ukrainian forces they report in a given battle is true. However, I suspect they just don’t report victories by the Russian army. So, while the news we get is the truths and nothing but the truths, it is not the whole truths. Instead, each time they report anything done by the Russian army, it has bombed a school, a hospital, a kindergarten or an apartment block. Hence, the Ukrainian army only attacks military targets while the Russians attack civilians. The aim is to present Ukrainians as worthy victims and Russians as evil.

With this uniformity of views achieved in regard to a particular story or subject, debate in the Western world is left to take place over tactical differences. Thus, when you watch CNN or BBC, they may give you an illusion of vigorous debate. Yet these are disagreements only within acceptable parameters that power can tolerate. It is this superficiality that is presented as a free marketplace of ideas. It is true that some really divergent views from a few contrarians are sometimes presented. But they are always marginal, in fact given voice to demonstrate that there is some lunatic fringe within the society that holds these unorthodox views. In other words, they are presented, not to be given voice, but to be scorned.

****

amwenda@independent.co.ug