I’ve been waiting for someone to call out Nigel Farage for being, quite frankly, an idiot. Since studying in the US, I have had a much better grasp of American politics than of my own country’s (British politics). I actually learned more about Reform UK through social media, which pairs perfectly with Ayala Panievsky’s chapter on how social media and journalism are a perfect way for populist parties to launch their popularity. However, the reels that came up on my feed were anti-reform, parody videos where people acted out what people who voted for reform are like. Every single one of them blatantly mocked a potential lack of education. I found this chapter incredibly interesting after the interview I conducted with the German Professor Barbara Nagel for my analysis piece. She talked about how populist parties thrive on creating irrational arguments because it’s so much more fun and so much easier. You can quite literally bend anything, in fact, to work in your favour, and because the argument is basic and simplistic, uneducated people should follow. When Panievsky brought up Emily Maitlis’ interview, this directly reminded me of what Professor Nagel had told me. Dr Gorka had so much fun destroying the BBC on live television, even if he didn’t believe what he was saying himself.
Additionally, I actually had no idea that Farage had been on I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, and to gain traction for all the wrong reasons. It’s such an unserious show; it’s meant to be for celebrity actors, comedians or television personalities, so the fact that Farage, a politician, was on there is laughable. I actually remember when Boris Johnson’s father, Stanley Johnson, I believe, went on the show; he was made a laughingstock, and then a few years later, we were stuck with “Bojo” leading us through the pandemic.
Another part of the reading which I found myself underlining was the AfD being declared by the German domestic intelligence agency as right-wing extremist and an anti-constitutional organisation “which has Nazi roots,” (81) and that the DJV “suggested that media outlets should use clear warning labels in all their articles about the AfD, similar to health risk warnings on cigarette packets.” (81) This reminded me of the times when Trump was banned from social media for posting heinous things, and how he is a convicted felon, and how is he also the president of the United States. Panievsky reflects a similar sentiment in her interview with the journalist, who asks, “How can this person be our prime minister?” (87) when referring to Netanyahu. But she ends up being just as bad as everybody else by reposting his replies. So it is a constant cycle that is being fed, like CBS claimed to have raked in the money when Trump voiced his heinous views on their platform. Then she goes on to talk about journalists who take a centre view, so they are not anti-MAGA in the public view. But surely that undermines everything they stand for in the industry? Integrity is so important; they can’t let that go just because they think their views might slip. Again, Panievsky later talks about strategic bias and how “journalists knowingly slant the news to favour one candidate, party or political camp regardless of their personal beliefs” (102). It’s the “regardless of their personal beliefs” that stumps me. Why do they choose to do that?
Panievsky really gets us thinking about certain aspects of journalism, politics, and mainstream media in a way I wouldn’t without prompting. I wonder what journalists thought of this book, since she blatantly calls them out for their lack of integrity in the field.
