Comments, In Focus, Needle's Eye

Media control: the politics of the tyrant?

One of the most fascinating aspects of media, is how it controls public perceptions. People are totally convinced that their perceptions are correct, whether in Putin’s Russia, or Stonewall’s London.


Nigel Pocock


The story is the same. Almost complete control, with no alternative definitions of reality, and for those who disagree, it is the Soviet psychiatrist, or the medical label designed to intimidate -‘phobia’- an irrational, and, thereby, politically unacceptable thought that must be proscribed by the state and society.

George Orwell was right, in “1984”.

“Tolerance” no longer means a literal tolerance of a disagreeable opinion, but enforced compliance to a specific social policy.

What then, do you think are the percentages of (write in your guestimate): 1) Male and female homosexuals in the population? 2) Transgender people 3) Bisexuals.

The public response in a YouGovAmerica (two polls) gave these figures as regards public perceptions: 1) 30%. 2) 21%. 3) 29%.

What are the actual figures? US and UK figures (ONS, Office of National Statistics) are likely not very different: 1) Male and female homosexuals, true figure 3% (US) 1.6% (United Kingdom). 2) Transgender, true figure 0.6%. 3) Bisexual, true figure 4%.

Of course, there will be arguments over definitions, as well as possible under- and over-estimations. In one survey (noted by Kate Welling) in the UK, many people defined as ‘homosexual’ had only ever had one experience, and had never repeated it, yet they were included in the homosexual figures.

However, respondents who gave the x 35 exaggeration factor as regards transgender people, should ask themselves ‘Why’? Why such a huge skewing?

All research instruments are ‘flawed’ to some extent, but rarely are they so completely amiss. Who is it that has the (alleged) ‘phobia’? And why?

Cambridge psychologist Edward de Bono, famous for his ‘lateral thinking’, looked at politicians, and described their use of statistics as ‘partialism’, selecting otherwise ‘true’ statistics which only give part of the picture, and leaving those aside which are disagreeable.

No doubt this works very well, from Putin to anti-vaxxers to conspiracy theorists.

However, this media effect, and the perception it has lead to, is altogether

Different, or is it? It is, or appears to be, actual self-deception by some (because they want to believe in something), and deliberate deception by others (because they have a political agenda, a means to an end).

The popular Australian (with huge UK following) soap, Neighbours, is a case in point.

Far from the cast being in any way representative of actual demographics, about 50% of the cast are heterosexual (real figure around 93%), with the rest being bisexual, transgender or homosexual.

The production team are clearly selling their ideological agenda, very likely extremely effectively.

Is this writer the one, therefore, with the ‘phobia’, that is need of a ‘cure’?

Or, as Scott Peck notes, since good mental health involves facing the truth uncompromisingly, who is the party not facing reality? Who has good mental health, and who is ill?

Adolf Eichmann, after all, displayed excellent ‘appropriate behaviour’ (a standard definition of good mental health), in terms of his culture. Who is the intolerant tyrant?

(Photos: Pixabay)

Share it / Compartir:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *