Media Deadbeat Dinosaurs: Monbiot, Aaronovich & Hitchens

Practically no-one still reads newspapers. The handful who do divide between three groups: people  employed in media; public figures who appear in newspapers; elderly folk who can't break the habit. Those aged under fifty have almost no interest at all in newspapers. Many of those under thirty struggle to read anything more complex than a text message. As a result, newspapers have become bizarre imitations of their former selves; performances in print, where deadbeat hacks address each other as if the world turned on their words. We simply don't need these dinosaurs anymore.

Cards on the table, there is no such thing as an 'unbiased report'. Honest writers always allow their own prejudice, beliefs and biases to surface undisguised in their work. This allows readers to make a better assessment of the genuine value of a report, because the author's intent is not concealed. Readers are perfectly capable of making allowances for a writer's personal approach to any subject, and deciding how much this affects the merit of the report. Reading is, after all, just one part of the process by which thinking people arrive at their own conclusions. 

In the 21st century, the last thing newspaper-editors want is readers who arrive at their own conclusions. The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Daily Mail exist to present readers with conclusions. The writers they employ are mostly just train-drivers, steering the passive readership along rails laid down by the editors, so that everyone arrives together at the expected destination. Are we all on the same page?   

This partly explains the phenomenon of the 'headline reader' -that frustratingly common creature whose existence newspapers were reluctantly forced to recognise when hard-copy sales collapsed in the face of online publishing. The public had -perhaps unconsciously- recognised that reading beyond the headline was mostly wasted effort. 

Suddenly the voices that had been silenced -the legion of genuine journalists rejected for wrongthink- were now in open competition for the ears and minds of the public. Since then,  millions of readers every day turn to online sources, hungry for information and ideas that have not been de-fanged by the Ministry of Truth.

Because mainstream media is the Ministry of Truth. A considerable effort -and a lot of money- goes into creating the illusion that different newspapers serve different agendas. Indeed, their dwindling readership consists entirely of people who embrace that comforting fantasy. There will always be enthusiasts who firmly believe there is a separation of purpose between, for example, the Guardian newspaper and the Daily Telegraph. 

Such is the power of the human urge to belong in a group. By buying one paper instead of another, individuals can (a) advertise their loyalty to the left or right, and (b) draw comfort from the idea that within those pages will be the collected wisdom of thoughtful, like-minded people. It's not surprising that the desire for soothing groupthink trumps rationality in the minds of readers, because the same is true of the writers themselves. 

From personal experience, I can assue you there really are a hard-core of 'journalists' at both the Guardian and the Telegraph who believe themselves to be part of an actual idealogical struggle. But they are the exceptions; useful idiots who, by avoiding contact with the outside world, never have to grow up and confront reality. 

Having spent their college years marching, chanting and dreaming of Utopia, these young guns hurry into the welcoming arms of "activist journalism" where the march never ends and the dream never dies. Overcome by the thrill of seeing their names in print, they pick up their egos and walk -in ever-decreasing circles- blissfully unaware that they are makeweights, employed simply to keep the scales balanced in the theatre of political division. I mean, Owen Jones? You cannot be serious.

In contrast to this handful of semi-educated zealots, the 'senior' writers who populate major newspapers are -with their beady eyes fixed on a long career-  idealogical hookers who will swing from right to left and back again so long as there's another paycheck on the horizon. These guys know very well it's a game, and are happy to play so long as the price is right. Here are three conspicuous examples:

George Monbiot                   

One of the most nauseating commentators in history, Monbiot is now fixed in the public mind as an Uber-Lefty Guardian journo-boss, dripping with soppy veganism and climate-pants. Yet his pedigree and his CV tell a different tale. Born in Kensington, his dad was head of the Conservative party's Trade and Industry forum, his mum (daughter of a Tory MP) a Tory councillor in Oxfordshire. His uncle was the Lib-Dem deputy leader of Norwich City Council. 

George himself graduated from Oxford (naturally) with a degree in zoology(?) Faster than you could say 'old boys network' he was employed by the BBC, quickly finding his way to the World Service. (Readers should be aware the World Service is the propaganda wing of the UK Intelligence community, which employs Oxbridge graduates who are ambitious but not up to proper spying.)

With that solid-silver spoon stuck fast in his gob, Monbiot styled himself as an 'investigative journalist' and spent many years faffing about in hot countries and flying round the world at other people's expense. For no particular reason beyond having many chums of the right sort, he has never ceased to appear on radio and TV, in newspapers and magazines, waffling about anything and everything. Among George's several awful books is his 2003 classic: The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for A New World Order.  Yes, well...  

At various times George has supported Scottish Independence, Irish reunification, the Green Party, the Lib-Dems, Welsh Independence and Plaid Cymru. (He dropped the last two after he split up with his Welsh girlfriend and moved back to Oxford). 

He used to hate the nuclear energy industry but now he thinks it's super. According to Wikipedia, Monbiot has been criticised by movements like "Green Anarchist and Class War" who called him a "media tart".  I think we'll leave it there.  

 David Aaronovich   

Another prominent leftie who can wriggle his way past anything except a camera or a microphone, Aaronovich is the son of a "communist intellectual economist" (a wondrous creature to behold, I imagine, more versatile than a centaur). Young David studied Modern History at Balliol College Oxford (naturally) like his dad did (of course) and graduated in History from Manchester. Faster than you can say mates in the business, Manchester's loudest Marxist found himself working for ITV and got to produce a few episodes of the dreary current affairs roundup Weekend World.  With a hop and a skip Aaronovich switched to the BBC and was given his own political affairs programme On The Record. It was a crap show, even by Beeb standards, and was soon dropped. 

Having been rejected by all the available telly, the only broadcasting option left for this remarkably employable loser was print. It is perhaps unsurprising that Aaronovich's career in journalism began at the single most corrupt newspaper in British media history: The Independent, which was then owned by the flamboyant -and extremely dodgy- Irish billionaire Tony O'Reilly. In 1995 David Aaronovich appeared in a starring role at the Independent, which he was filling virtually single-handed, as "chief leader writer, television critic, parliamentary sketch writer and columnist". (Having myself  spent a couple of years supplying Horse & Hound magazine with articles on Carriage-Driving, Show-Jumping and Dressage, County Horse-Show reviews and Endurance-Riding reports, I can say that at the very least, David was actually working for a living at this point.) Aaronovich maintained this punishing Independent schedule until 2003, when the Guardian came calling.

(Fun Facts: In 2010, Tony O'Reilly sold the Independent for £1, to Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev -a former KGB officer. In 2020, during the Covid pandemic, Boris Johnson nominated Lebedev's son Evgeny for a life peerage in the House of Lords. Food for thought, eh?)  

Mysteriously -considering Aaronovich's unwavering lifelong devotion to the "far-left", the Guardian newspaper didn't require his services until the impending invasion of Iraq. David was, however, happy to oblige, penning a series of pro-war puff pieces for both the Guardian and its sister the Observer. (Aaronovich was subsequently awarded "Columnist of the Year 2003" by What The Papers Say -a somewhat dubious distinction.) The Guardian's readership, however, did not warm to his brand of egocentric bombast, and the editors quietly elbowed him towards the door. 

Failure, however, is no obstacle to success in the parallel world of Oxbridge alumni, and in 2005 Aaranovich was gifted a column in the Times newspaper -which close observers might think a little odd for an (allegedly) communistic firebrand. But the Times was always his destination, and he remains there to this very day. Like all 'senior' newspaper columnists, David Aaronovich is a career cypher; installed to do a job, balance the scales, keep the readers reading; are we all on the same page?  

Peter Hitchens

A popular intellectual who has won the hearts of many 'traditional Conservatives', Hitchens is the son of a Royal Navy officer. His education included a spell at the Oxford College of Further Education (naturally) although he graduated from the University of York. At the age of seventeen he embraced the sharp end of communisim, joining the International Socialists, which would eventually become the Socialist Workers Party.  Hitchens remained in the party for seven years, leaving in 1975.  

In 1977, Hitchens joined the Labour Party and began writing for the Daily Express. I trust readers will note the apparent contradiction. But as we have seen above, success in mainstream journalism is not achieved by straightforward means. Shifting down a gear from International Socialism to Labour might be interpreted as Hitchens softening his extreme left-wing stance. Nevertheless, he takes great pleasure in recounting that he knows Tony Blair to have been a fanatical Trotskyist at that very time. In this context, we can see that in the theatre of political illusion, Labour Party membership and far-left extremism can happily co-exist. Political allegiance is, after all, a hat any ambitious journalist can choose to wear.

In any case, Hitchens left the Labour Party in 1979 after campaigning for Ken Livingstone. He remained at the fiercely right-wing Daily Express for 23 years, rising from humble reporting to be deputy political editor. 

WELCOME BACK, TOVARICH!

In the final months of the collapsing Soviet Union, the Express made Peter Hitchens its Moscow correspondent -an astonishing promotion- and to Russia he went, for a two-year stint. I need hardly say that such jobs involve a degree of close collaboration with the British Intelligence services -a subject on which Hitchens is predictably tight-lipped. Considering his previous -very public- seven-year membership of an extremist Communist group, we are entitled to speculate that Hitchens had been playing the insider's game for many, many years already.

Nevertheess, In 1997 Peter Hitchens finally joined the Conservative Party, and two years later, made a failed attempt to challenge Michael Portillo for the safe Tory seat of Kensington & Chelsea.   

In the year 2000, the Express was bought by former pornographer Richard Desmond, and Hitchens resigned his job 'in protest.' Working for Desmond, said Hitchens, would have been a 'moral conflict of interest.' (Unlike joining the Labour Party while writing for the Daily Express, presumably). Fortunately for our hero, the Mail on Sunday beckoned him with open arms, and twenty-three years later he's still there, punching the keys every week. Having said which, Peter Hitchens formally left the Conservative Party two decades ago, after his doomed attempt to gatecrash Parliament. 

Hitchens' ongoing employment at the Mail on Sunday came under scrutiny in 2020 after he voiced a range of criticism of the UK government's totalitarian Covid measures. For all his presumably well-intentioned bluster on the subject, however, two inescapable facts will forever hobble the reputation of Peter Hitchens as an 'honest scribe'. 

First -and there's no way round this-  'free-thinker' Hitchens still refuses to sever his (lucrative) relationship with the most vile Covid-propaganda sheet in all Europe: the Daily Mail.  As we documented in detail on this blog, no newspaper or website pumped more lies, more fear-porn, more threats and insults at the dissenting public than the Mail.  But that is the least of their sins. The Daily Mail was itself complicit in the preparations for the Covid hoax, producing TWO YEARS of pro-vaccine-propaganda to lay the groundwork for the Pharma bonanza of 2020. I covered that story in depth before the first lockdown on March 1st 2020, predicting all the madness that lay ahead. [DETAILS HERE] 

Following the launch of the engineered Coronavirus, the public were bullied, lectured and scorned -for three years- from the pages of the Mail, by some of the worst presstitutes who ever lived. If Peter Hitchens has a genuine beef with 'moral conflict of interest' here was the greatest possible opportunity to exercise his moral compass. But instead he remained -and remains- on the payroll of the most odious newspaper on earth.     

JUST A JAB 

The second unavoidable truth is the very public decision Peter Hitchens took when the covid-jab-propaganda was reaching boiling point. By the height of the insanity, Hitchens had formed an eye-catching  professional relationship with a minor broadcaster at TalkRadio. The ex-communist, ex- Labour, ex-Conservative Hitchens was rapidly becoming the 'thinking man's refusenik'. He was making weekly appearances by Skype, eloquently and logically protesting the ongoing Covidian horror-show, and gathering a new and loyal audience from Youtube in the process. And then, as the Coronapanto peaked, deep-thinker Peter Hitchens quietly confessed he had in fact taken the worthless, untested, experimental mRNA shot. Having ceaselessy rubbished the government/Pharma borg for fear-mongering, corruption and failure, Hitchens had blinked first and rolled over to the establishment. You may be sure that the end of his well-paid job at the Daily Mail would have been the price of refusal. 

It wasn't Judas turning Jesus in for thirty bob, but we're in the same ball-park. Yet this was only to be expected from a career scribbler who has at one time or another held every political stance available, and defended each successive position with equal skill and sincerity. With that last gesture of craven submission, however, his credibility within the dissenting public tanked -and rightly so. Like Monbiot and Aaronovich, Peter Hitchens just blew with the prevailing wind; keep the job; go with the programme : are we all on the same page?  

ORWELL STILL SPINNING

In what I can only describe as a truly perfect slice of irony, all three of the above journalists -George Monbiot, David Aaronovich and Peter Hitchens- have been awarded the prestigious Orwell Prize for political writing. It's the way these things work, you see. But there are hundreds more I could name, equally irrelevant, equally trapped in the bonds of salaried comfort. They are the reason why newspapers are dying -because their own irrelevance infects the product itself.  

Everything you read in a newspaper has been curated, edited and trimmed to conform with the collective agenda of an unelected elite with a hidden agenda. Bear this in mind when the dinosaurs keep telling you Ukraine will 'win' the NATO war with Russia (the most commonly repeated lie of 2022/23). 

NATO's proxy war with Russia is by far and away the most obscene waste of human life and resources since the Holocaust. Yet the entire performance is portrayed in the newspapers like a childish game in which the despot Zelensky is Winston Churchill and Russia is a nation of crazed bloodthirsty barbarians. This insulting cartoon of reality is destroying the last shreds of economic hope for western Europe. We ae being collectively bankrupted beneath the smokescreen of a sordid lie.   

Talk of a Ukranian 'victory' is a sick fantasy. In the real world, Ukraine is so close to collapse that American chemical weapons have already been quietly delivered into Ukraine, and a false flag "chemical weapons attack" is being prepared. This is the work of desperate criminals. [SEE THIS VIDEO] 

It will not succeed, because Russia has already broadcast the details to the world -and the U.N. in particular. A vast Russian military onslaught is poised to begin. Very shortly, the last poor devils left alive in Ukraine will be inhabiting a smoking, desolate ruin and the liars will, without hesitation, rush to distract us with a brand new 'emergency' before the flames go out in Kiev. Throw your newspaper  away and take a look at the real world.   

Ian Andrew-Patrick

Please do your best to share and re-post any articles or links of value that you find here. There is no agenda on this site and we support NO political ideology whatsoever. We support the individual, and the freedoms with which all individuals are born. Government is now the enemy of liberty. Your freedom will not be given back -it never has been, and never will be. Freedom must be taken.