I was delighted to get a full review of Fraudcast News in a recent issue of The Friend magazine. Below is an excerpt while this a link through to the complete article.
How Bad Journalism Supports Our Bogus Democracies – A Review
An article by Elizabeth Redfern that appeared in the 4th July 2014 edition of the Friend.
Press corruption is sadly a subject we’re now familiar with, from the press’s own coverage of the Leveson Inquiry and more recently the trial of Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and others, who – in what might become the longest criminal trial in English history – are charged with phone hacking at the now-defunct News of the World tabloid. It would be nice to think that this is an unfortunate blip in an otherwise sparkling British press history. Certainly I hadn’t taken much notice of the inquiry or court case until I’d started to read Patrick’s book, when some familiar words started to nag at me.
Geoffrey Ingham, a Life Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge has weighed into openDemocracy’s Just Money debate with a worthwhile article called: “Whose money is it?” He talks about how money is created and the way that relates to power.
The piece is part of a wider series run by OurKingdom to mark the publication of Ann Pettifor’s e-book, Just Money: How Society Can Break the Despotic Power of Finance. I’ll certainly check that out.
The series explores the nature of money and the politics of the financial system.
I tried to post a comment before getting tied up in knots with the site password system.
Rather than abandoning it, I’m putting it here instead.
Good piece – I totally agree that, like it or not, we have as individuals to wrestle with ideas of how money is created and this article helps in that process. It is essential for people to get to grips with this in order to give needed context to wider societal questions of both poverty and environmental despoilation. I would also recommend the work of Positive Money UK (http://www.positivemoney.org/)
The author did not touch on the aspect of our money-creation system that is even more problematic for all living beings – which is how it acts as a motor for wrecking the planet for all its inhabitants. Debt-based money demands interest repayments alongside the principal, which means we must all perpetually consume or face economic collapse.
Yet if the economic system doesn’t collapse, or we don’t manage to transform it – along with the existing money-creation system at its core – we will face a far more problematic collapse of the eco-system itself. Nature doesn’t do compound growth except as cancer, epidemic or plague. We need a money system with that reality embedded inside it.
I am getting through the final stages of re-publishing Fraudcast News, a process that involves changing print-on-demand publishers (from Lulu to Lightning Source) to allow me a better distribution arrangement and greater flexibility in the cover design. That’s the idea anyway.
The first tangible evidence of the change arrived yesterday in the form of a printed copy in the new format and with the new cover. I am, of course, totally biased but it looks and feels much slicker.
Leafing through the pages, I am happy to say the book feels as relevant as ever, if not more so.
Once it’s done, I’ll be looking for all the help I can get in publicising the new edition and doing my best to get the thing read. All ideas and assistance would be hugely appreciated.
I wrote the following email post for the Baron website in response to an article about the Hacked Off co-founder and ex-Reuters reporter Brian Cathcart.
It speaks for itself:
Brian’s doing a great job at Hacked Off [■ The Reuter Society – Brian Cathcart: My debt to Reuters]. I went to one of its events before Lord Leveson issued his report on the UK media, when I talked to Brian afterwards.
Where I think Hacked Off, and Leveson, and Reuters all miss the biggest trick is when they ignore the realities of power and how it works. That critical omission makes me nervous when I read unequivocal praise for the ethics supposedly in place at Reuters.
Ethics is a hefty concept. I don’t think Reuters scores that highly on ethics as it pertains to codes of behaviour. Granted, it’s much better than many news organisations but as Leveson made only too clear, that’s hardly difficult.
The principles of journalism drawn up in 1997 by the Committee of Concerned Journalists are far more comprehensive and ethically demanding than any at Reuters.
The second one of nine leaps out with regard to Reuters, given its cheek-by-jowl relationship with clients in global banking, markets and finance. The principle says journalism’s first loyalty is to citizens.
“While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favor. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization’s credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment to citizens also means journalism should present a representative picture of all constituent groups in society…”
For the worldwide constituency of Thomson Reuters, the citizens to whom its journalists owe that allegiance are all of global humanity. In my experience as a Reuters reporter, this allegiance was a rarity when it came to daily editorial priorities.
So, yes, Reuters attempts to infuse speed and accuracy into its reports, correcting those it finds to be in error. It serially fails when it comes to claims of freedom from bias as seen from the perspective of a global citizenry. This is a critical flaw its defenders are generally unwilling even to acknowledge, still less correct.
This is a recent talk I gave to the annual conference for the non-governmental organisation Positive Money.
A word to make clear my interests: Positive Money is an organisation whose work I greatly admire and for whom I have done some volunteer work in the last year or so and for whom I may do more in the future.
I choose to do that work, while also being a journalist, because I think the structural failures of our governance systems are such that they are an integral part of any story political journalists should be covering. That is true of debt-based money, the issue raised by Positive Money, but also of other issues such as poverty, inequality, incessant Western war-mongering and environmental despoliation.
Our leaders’ feeble attempts at regulating banks, international finance and global markets have totally failed, leading to ongoing financial crises since the global meltdown of 2007-2008. The false debates created with regard to conventional economics, and our policymakers’ fixation with a sterile definition of prosperity as determined by economic growth, are major barriers to change. Conventional media themselves fail to convey the extent of these governance problems, or even to appreciate that governance issues are the problem.
The question I was tasked to answer was why conventional media don’t “get” the idea of debt-based money. My answer could be easily adapted to fit these various other issues, as I make clear in Fraudcast News – How Bad Journalism Supports Our Bogus Democracies.
I recently joined the Baronistas LinkedIn group, a place for online discussions between ex-Reuters and ex-Thomson Reuters people working in communications for non-profits such as international organizations and NGOs. I reckon it might be useful as a source of ideas and interactions.
It needs a logo so I’m parking a couple of images here, rather than on LinkedIn, as I don’t seem to be able to upload them directly there.
This one came from here:
The idea would be to put the Thomson Reuters into a barista “weetjes” or whatever you call those little milk fluff things. Maybe half “weetjes” and half logo.