Donald Trump was in U.K airspace when he tweeted about Mayor of London Sadiq Khan:
Before President Trump landed, LBC’s Rachael Venables spoke to Jeremy Hunt (who was ready at Stansted to greet the president) regarding the tweets. Jeremy Hunt brushed off the behaviour with standard there-or-thereabouts remarks in a bid for democracy. Hunt sided with Trump stating that: “He” (Trump) “has been shown great discourtesy.”
Donald Trump has previously endorsed Boris Johnson for Prime Minister and Nigel Farage to lead Brexit and has recently offered platitudes on the Queens grand-daughter in-law, Meghan Merkel. Despite this, Trump is due to meet Prime Minister Theresa May and have a reception at Buckingham Palace.
The Brexit Party has come under more scrutiny after it was found that donations could be made to the party from anywhere in the world, without having to provide any “prior information of their identity, nationality or address to provide basic safeguards against money laundering, before directing them to the PayPal site.”
Not all funding comes through PayPal however. It has emerged that Nigel Farage has asked for any and all support from wealthy donors who have strong links to Donald Trump but, more worryingly, Vladimir Putin.
As pointed out in the last blog post regarding Brexit Party funding, the ties to far-right populist groups and Russia seem to be building.
The Brexit Party claims to be patriotic and democratic and yet the actions undertaken in its name speak louder than Nigel Farage’s bombast. Those that voted to leave the European Union did so because they “believe in Britain.” Does believing in Britain come at the expense that Britain should become subject to international meddling, the very thing that Brexit was supposed to eliminate in the first place?
The Brexit Party is participating in securing funding from far-right and populist groups at the same time as eliminating the transparency that should accompany any democratic undertaking by refusing to provide information on donation from overseas. So far the only answer that has been given is that the “establishment” are out to get the Brexit Party. A smear tactic on an ambiguous idea that allows die-hard followers to ignore any negative coverage of Brexit or the Brexit Party.
It is worth noting here that ChangeUK (formerly The Independent Group, may be known by another name tomorrow) is also somewhat silent on their financial backers.
What is clear is that Nigel Farage has utilised PayPal’s exchange functions to muddle and confuse the source of donations. As highlighted in the Sarawak Report (also linked above): “There is nothing to stop the same person donating repeatedly from the same account.” But that is only taking into consideration humans. For instance; bots can and have been used by Russia and foreign parties with invested interests in the U.K democratic process and the Sarawak Report has come to the conclusion that bots could be used to make multiple payments.
Nigel Farage’s last campaigning escapade, Leave EU, received illegal donations from Arron Banks (who then went on to fund Nigel Farage’s meetings with America’s business and political elites, security and chauffer costs and accommodation in Chelsea – all of which has not been declared because it is “personal” according to Mr Farage.)
The Brexit Party now seems to be pulling the same kind of stunt by using an online money transference and banking system.
PayPal can convert currencies into sterling. The Brexit Party are using the natural functions of money exchanging by PayPal to allow the free flow of money into the party, and declaring it as a donation made in sterling. This is misleading because, under electoral law, the donation is still coming from abroad and from people who do not have U.K citizenship. Much like Nigel Farage’s Brexit project; Leave EU, the Brexit Party could very well be breaking campaigning law.
Another startling realisation that was made by the Sarawak Report is that the Brexit Party payments do not go to a politically recognised party, but to Brexit Party Limited. The Brexit Party, much like Gordon Brown stated (please see last blog) is a private company.
Much like Vote Leave, The Brexit Party has gained a huge following in a very short space of time, even to the point that it is predicted to win the European Elections.
There is no denying that Nigel Farage is one of the most influential people in British politics, and perhaps in a generation. However, since the vote to leave the European Union it has come to light that Nigel Farage propagated lies regarding immigration with the infamous “breaking point” poster, is a person if interest regarding the illegal campaign funding of Leave EU and is now being investigated in a new funding controversy involving donations to The Brexit Party through PayPal.
Whilst donations under £500 are deemed legal, the sources of the money are somewhat suspect as transactions are being made from abroad. This may violate national democratic procedure as it could be seen as interference from foreign interests. This is despite the claims made by Nigel Farage and The Brexit Party that donations are not foreign currency because it is exchanged into pounds by PayPal.
Speaking at a Scottish Labour European elections rally, Gordon Brown stated that “the Brexit Party that has been formed is not a party, it’s actually a private company. It does not have members, it has shareholders.”
The manner with which Nigel Farage manages his endeavours may be evidence of this. For instance, that people had to pay £50 to walk with him during his “Brexit Betrayal March.”
Because the Brexit Party is not providing details of where specific funds are coming from, the possibility arises that payments are being made by dummy or robot accounts. Considering Russia’s peripheral funding of far-right movements throughout Europe and the rest of the world, we could be witnessing another attempt by a foreign power to sway our political process much like Russia did during the referendum campaign of 2016.
The planet is quickly becoming less inhabitable. When 97% of climate scientists agree that we are seeing a manmade (or anthropogenic) climate change, it is no longer debatable. Words contesting the idea are meaningless and wasted. It is time for change.
And yet, very little is being done about climate change. Especially since Brexit, Donald Trump becoming president of the United States and the rise of populism which has diverted the public’s attention to focus on more provincial matters.
Donald Trump cannot be underestimated when it comes to the battle against climate change. The man single-handedly decided to take America out of the Paris Agreement which was a unilateral effort to lower emissions whilst putting in place a former coal and fossil fuel lobbyist, Andrew R. Wheeler, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Another problem with climate change is one of scale. People are more prone to react to something that immediately changes within their surroundings whereas climate change is a gradual shift. Because of this, climate change can often go unnoticed against the background of problems that arise because of our more local differences. If London were to flood tomorrow, immediate action would be taken. But, since it is flooding incrementally, the threat feels far less urgent.
There are many things we can do to combat climate change, however, from using public transport or by walking or cycling to and from work. By choosing more environmentally friendly cars or by sourcing food locally which would have a much smaller carbon footprint. Going vegan. Plant more trees. Get better insulation for your house. Switch to a green energy provider. Vote for green initiatives. Use less plastic. Grow your own vegetables. Create or support collectives to put pressure on business to go greener. Fix your own goods. Don’t buy an Urban 4×4. Seriously, don’t. The concept makes no sense, they use diesel and they have wider tread tyres meaning that, should they actually face snow, they are more likely to be immobile. Why even call them Urban 4×4’s?
It was when listening to environmental podcast, Sustainababble that I heard of another initiative which is as much as a way to reduce environmental impact as it is a humane practice. This is done by deciding against having children. This may sound strange to some and it definitely brings with it a level of controversy but take a moment to imagine the following.
Shrinking the climate perspective, imagine the planet is your house and there is a candle burning in the living room. The wax is laced with lead, carbon monoxide, methane and diesel particulates. At the bottom of the candle, where the wick touches the base, is a pool of petrol. You have two children. Two grandparents. A dog. A cat. That flame has yet to burn through the candle but as it gets lower the air becomes harder to breathe as the nitrogen and oxygen mix we need is being replaced by carbon monoxide. The sun coming through the windows is hot and sticky because the methane is creating a greenhouse effect. Your grandparents are finding it harder and harder to string sentences together because the particulates are effecting their cognitive abilities. Children are coughing and spluttering as they develop respiratory problems.
The windows and doors won’t open. You can’t let the pollution out. It’s got nowhere to go. After all, outside the house is just a vacuum of space and you are the only house floating through that vacuum and all other houses you might be able to someday reach are uninhabitable. Too full of gas. Too hot. Too cold. No atmosphere.
The family hasn’t discussed a way that they are going to see without the candle and they have not yet come up with a way to clean the air. But there may be some answer on the horizon. In the future, perhaps. One of the family members says that they think that they want to bring another child into this house. The flame is still strong but the candle is two-thirds down. When the flame hits the petrol…
Would you want your children to grow up in the environment that I have just described?
It’s bleak and there are some people out there who might consider a mother-daughter Fury Road-esque apocalyptic landscape a fun place for themselves and their children, but most people would, I think, not want to bring a child into a future where the very air around them is toxic. To bring a child into that kind of environment would scare many of us.
This is the stance taken by Birthstrike.
Birthstrike are not a movement willing the community not to have children nor is it some kind of release-a-plague-on-the-world-Inferno/Twelve Monkeys-style activist movement. It is a group of people who have decided not to have children as not to subject them to an inhospitable environment. To do so would be to raise a child into the world who could potentially suffer.
During an interview with Sustainababble, Alice Brown makes it absolutely clear that Birthstrike is a support network. This is also echoed by Birtstrike’s founder, Blythe Pepino in the Guardian: “its aim is not to discourage people from having children, or to condemn those who have them already, but to communicate the urgency of the crisis.”
After all, the choice not to have children can be lead to a high degree of emotional damage, not only for advocates of the movement but for partners and, in some cases, the wider family unit.
Many might think the choice to not have children is extreme. But, thinking about it logically and keeping in mind current predictions for the ways in which our planet could change in the next couple of decades, rearing a child may become less sustainable. A recent prediction put before the U.N states that we have only 12 years to make dramatic changes to the way we live our lives and inhabit this planet before we move beyond the tipping point. After that time the changes in climate and weather patterns will be well and truly out of our control and we will become subjects to changes the likes of which we have never seen.
If that prediction turns out to be correct we could see countries suffering from droughts leading to potential food shortages. Storms and floods. Cuts in supplies of pharmaceuticals. Air littered with particulates which (as alluded to above) causes breathing problems, dementia and have even recently been found in placenta which means the damage could already be taking place before birth. A rise in temperature and fresh water run-off making large portions of the planet both on land and in our oceans uninhabitable.
Is this a place in which you would your child to grow?
A study correlates Birthstrike’s position by concluding that one of the most effective methods to combat climate change is, in fact, to have one fewer children. The average human has a carbon footprint of roughly 10 tonnes. The equivalent of 24 million balloons of carbon dioxide. However, other studies have pointed out that, even if the world universally adopted a one-child policy, we would still see the dramatic changes that have been predicted. What is actually needed is a vast overhaul of our infrastructure and living habits to make any realistic change.
This gives hope for potential families. For those wanting to become parents. For those wanting to raise a child in a clean and prosperous world. But it also means that we need to see those dramatic changes being made. We need to completely rethink our ways of going about our day to day lives whilst simultaneously doing everything we can to reverse the damage that has already been done.
This is what we need and it is what Birthstrikers want. For that great change to happen. But in the meantime, maybe caution is best.
Never before have we seen so many advances and changes to our world as we are seeing today. Climate change, the rise of biotech and infotech. The proliferation of automation and the move toward artificial-intelligence which could either improve our wayso of life, or challenge who we are as humans. The mainstreaming of electric cars and the growing awareness of plastic pollution. Widespread movements to give previously overlooked or unrepresented factions of society equal rights. The rise of Asian economies which may soon rival our own in strength, and may even become superior which could change the ways we conduct business and alter long-standing loyalties. I was even shocked recently to find out that China even has plans to build a base on the moon and mine our little white dot in the sky for hydrogen.
This is the stuff of science-fiction!
The point is: we are in a transitional phase and are suffering the existential question of how to cope with the challenges we read about in our papers and see on our television screens and social media feeds. When faced with an uncertain future, people often look to their past. To “traditional values” to guide them through the turbulence. But what exactly are traditional values and do they offer us any guidance for the future?
Nationalism seems to be on the rise in the West and has led to two of the most significant changes that we have seen in our lifetimes: the U.K’s vote to leave the European Union and the vote in America for Donald Trump as President. As an answer to perceived outside threats, two major powers have turned to isolationism.
Globalisation was a worn out word by the end of the referendum of 2016. As was elites. Sometimes we heard “global elites”. The European Union, as pushed by Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and sundry others, was a product of globalisation.
Leavers pointed to levels of immigration and told the people that it was the European Union’s open border policy that was to blame. Leavers pointed out the disenfranchised peoples of towns that had been left behind when the U.K turned from a material and production economy to a service driven economy. The European Union was blamed again for moving production facilities abroad. The decline of U.K fisheries, blame the E.U. Red passports, blame the E.U. Curved bananas, blame the E.U. Hospital waiting times, blame the E.U. Rise in crime rates, blame immigration, thus blaming the E.U.
So, can the problems listed above be solved by a move toward nationalism as was what happened in 2016?
In regards to immigration, yes, technically nationalism has the potential to cut numbers of immigrants or stop them altogether.
But is that really in the national interest? Or is it in the interest of nationalist groups? For instance, whilst the cutting might benefit those who just want see less faces of colour or to hear different languages on their streets (the nationalists) the nationalist approach itself does not do much for our economy, our public services or for our reputation as “global players” which was a phrase championed by Leavers during the referendum campaign and even now.
Whilst the phrase “global player” was used extensively throughout the referendum, the truth is that the actual action of leaving the biggest and most successful trading bloc in the world was seen by many around the globe as an act of closing one’s own doors on trade.
The NHS is dependent on nurses and doctors from the E.U and further abroad but since the Brexit vote we have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of people applying for university courses in nursing and a drop in job applications from outside the U.K. This is indicative of the trend that those from within Europe and outside the Union were no longer interested in investing in the U.K.
Nationalists might see this drop in foreign applications as a good thing as there is potential for British citizens to take the jobs. The problem however is that it takes years to train doctors and nurses and, in the meantime, care within the NHS would have plummeted. Ironically, it would be those older voters which chose leave who would suffer the most. With around 100,000 vacancies already within the NHS, this further reduction could potentially cripple certain elements of patient care.
As is being witnessed, the idea of being both nationalist and a “global player” is not compatible.
The main problem of the referendum, however, was that it focused anger outward toward the largely neutral E.U, when the truth was that the problems that the U.K faced were actually born and bred within its own borders.
Austerity due to bailing out the banks that had lead us into the financial crash of 2008. The rise in crime as a result of Conservative initiative to cut policing numbers so that there were fewer bobbies on the beat. (Remember Theresa May telling the police federation to stop “crying wolf” in 2015 regarding police cuts). Disenfranchisement of communities as the economy changed toward services and offices were centralised toward London. Those who were workers within communities who worked within extraction and production were never provided the means to retrain, and were instead left to become outdated.
A lethal combination occurred when the finger was pointed at immigrants for pushing wages down. The fact that immigrants were benign agents in the entire mess of things was rarely pointed out and the fact that it was actually exploitative practices being undertaken by business owners. Business owners have been largely left alone by the most recent governments, after all, it is good practice to be the party of business.
This goes to show that the so-called “global-elites” were actually the people within our own borders. Our very own Prime Minster of the day, David Cameron found to be putting money into offshore Panamanian accounts. For years we watched as the government refused to impose proper tax initiatives that would have seen large companies paying their fair share of tax which could have put toward social ventures for our children, thus keeping them out of gangs and preventing such a sharp increase in knife-crime. Not only were companies doing so, but the Conservatives were helping them maintain the status quo.
Britain has for years now been deeply entrenched in off-shore bank account activity that it the global master on managing assets and transferring money to keep it from the hands of nations. It is estimated that half of all global wealth could be locked up in off-shore accounts.
In the face of problems that originated within our own national system, people turned to nationalism to sort out the problem. That is a new one for me.
In 2013, the E.U offered to give a £22million cash injection into food banks in order to make sure that they were stocked and operational. This was turned down by David Cameron. Whilst our own government strangled the country, the E.U at least offered some kind of help. But that’s not all. The E.U has also been funnelling money into community projects including social groups and buildings, but this is rarely mentioned. The E.U is also a propagator of worker’s rights and is constantly moving to improve pay throughout its jurisdictions. When we are faced with military or cyber warfare, as we have seen from Russia during the referendum campaign and which the U.S witnessed during the presidential campaign, the E.U has close proximity to share information and make sure that each of its member states has the necessary tools to help fight back.
So, nationalism does not actually offer any real solutions to our national problems. Does it offer solutions to wider world issues? In an age of transnationalism, could countries learn from nationalist ideals?
Climate change is not an issue, it is the issue which will determine the very future of human civilisation. And climate change does not recognise borders drawn by man. A tropical storm does not stop when it hits the American coast. It ploughs through and wreaks untold damage. Plastic does not stop at the English Channel. It sweeps in and becomes part of our ecosystem. Just as much as melted ice does not stay in the Arctic Circle but raises water levels around the world.
And when islands start submerging and already challenged countries face drought and famine, we are going to see mass exodus unlike anything witnessed in documented history.
Unfortunately, nationalist interests have often disregard climate change in order to focus on more provincial initiatives such as kick-starting coal mining operations or doubling down on fuel extraction efforts. In the United States, nationalism is often synonymous with climate change denial as is evidential with Donald Trump’s repeated claims that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese.
In regards to solutions to the climate crisis, nationalist approaches fall short. If nationalists really wanted to make a difference, they would join the global effort to battle climate change which would in turn mean that they are less likely to experience such a high influx of immigrants to their borders. Instead of becoming isolationist, it is within nationalist’s best interests to take part in a multi-national approach in order to combat the effects of climate change.
But then what would be the point in being nationalist when all we are going to do is have to work with countries around the globe and put measures in place which, whether we like it or not, would see the adoption of plans to take in refugees fleeing the effects of an unstable and changing climate?
Throughout history, civilisations have moved and shifted as the cattle migrates or as the living conditions change. After all, if the U.K were to become a dessert wasteland, would we not seek refuge in other countries? But we are the beginning of the catastrophic change where the decisions we make today will effect the next generation. We have the ability to make positive differences to the ways we tackle this threat. But are we capable of doing this as nationalists? Surely we are better prepared against the challenges if we work on an international scale?
Is the slashing of 4,500 jobs by Jaguar Land Rover evidence that the U.K is aiming for a greener future?
It was made public last week that Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) are in the process of slashing 4,500 jobs due to uncertainty brought around by a waning of the Chinese market, Brexit, and of course the tax rise on diesel vehicles.
So, is JLR’s decision symptomatic of a change toward a greener future? The answer is convoluted to say the least.
In a typically capitalist society, two determining factors generate change: markets and the government. In the wake of the so-called ‘Dieselgate Scandal’ which exposed Volkswagen as bodging emissions results, the market reacted with reluctance to purchase diesel vehicles until they could get assurance that the vehicle they were buying was not in violation of the law. In response to Dieselgate and the call to lower air pollution levels, the government raised tax on diesel vehicles. In the past, this kind of response only made money whilst other people continued to suffer deleteriously on the streets.
The drop in demand for diesel vehicles is a positive step when it comes to clearing our air of harmful particulates, and it may even signify a shift toward electric or hybrid vehicles. But the decision to increase tax was a reactionary move and its effect on the diesel industry was more accident than anything else.
Ultimately it can be said that, yes, the loss of jobs at JLR is a signifier that the country is heading in a greener direction but it is more the market driven than through government initiative. At this point in time, it is government initiatives to tackle pollution and environmental damage that we need. But they are unwilling.
An example of their unwillingness is the motion for cars to go entirely electric by 2040 whilst other parties are pushing for the year 2032. Not great but an improvement. Now put this against the background of Volvo’s pledge to make only electric cars by 2025.
It was made apparent to me by Tom Bawden (‘i’ weekend: 12-13 January 2019) that forty five incinerators have been approved and a further 40 to be signed off which will help burn up not only the 800,000 tonnes of waste that we can no longer send to China, but all other plastic waste that the U.K produces. Incinerators produce high levels of pollution ad are hugely contested by the general public. The incinerators gain approval, however, by producing electricity, using the heat from the incineration process.
The fact that these incinerators are being planned and built highlights a drastic flaw in our system, or rather, the flaw that is our system. And that is this strange desire to keep things how they are, or else go backward. What I term: Regressive Planning.
There are many different avenues that can be taken when it comes to dealing with plastic. It can be melted down and repurposed for oils broken down and used as mix for new plastic roads, the likes of which we have seen produced in Enfield. The plastic has more flexibility and more strength than conventional methods i.e. tarma,c and is currently being developed on this side of the Atlantic by Plastic Road.
But why would you look to the future, bring in a plan of recycling and manufacturing that could develop an entirely new and fruitful economic model that would make us glide along with our European counterparts when we could just throw a match on the lot and burn it all? Ta-da!
The plan to burn plastic for power is rudimentary at best and disastrously neglectful at worst. These are not the plans of a dynamic and forward reaching government but those of a party lacking imagination and hope for future generations.
Instead of believing that we are killing two birds with one stone by burning off all that waste and keeping our lights on, why don’t we revel in the fact that we could kill two birds with one stone by getting rid of plastic waste by finally creating a road system that doesn’t fall apart every time it is hit by frost?
I have wandered a little off track. The thing is, the only thing that government has put into place is a tax scheme designed to hit drivers of diesel vehicles. If the Conservatives wanted to move the country forward into a prosperous future, they would do more than make dissolvable promises.
We are in an age where innovative solutions are available. Some better than others, but most better than incinerator plants that have a tendency to run over budget, wasting taxpayers money, as was the case in Stroud, before poisoning them.
Incineration accounts for 42% of all waste disposal. That 42% could potentially be the starting place for a green energy revolution as much as the aiming away from diesel cars could be the start of a revolution within road transport. The green energy market is one of the fastest growing in the world and it genuinely baffles me as to why we are not making a future by entwining ourselves within it.
“It is often said that journalism is the first rough draft of history; by contrast, investigative journalism provides the first rough draft of legislation. It does so by drawing attention to failures within society’s system of regulation and to the ways in which those systems can be circumvented by the rich, the powerful and the corrupt.”
– Hugo de Burgh; Investigative Journalism, Context and Practice
“Democracy Dies in Darkness”
– Washington Post
When disinformation is rife the world suffers. Truth and understanding are the foundations of sound decision making. Without information and the knowledge of what is going on around us we, the population, are powerless.
We all have the capability to double check and triple check everything we are told, and we should. The mantra: “question everything” has never been more necessary. And it is this mantra that leads me to put more and more faith in journalism.
Journalists and media outlets have been hounded since news was conceived, and sometimes they deserve it. False claims, conjecture and low-level reporting have often lead to news organisations having to print redactions, apologies and sometimes face lawful action as a result of their claims and how they go about collecting evidence. News of the World’s phone hacking scandal is the obvious case that comes to mind. But the wayward actions of the few should not taint the legitimate, decent work of the many.
People go into journalism because they want to tell the truth. Some just want to break a story and achieve a level of fame. Some people want to attend parties, drink champagne and hang out with the elite. Some journalists make money from commenting on food and drink or art and movies. Journalists report on everything. Their job is to comment on the world, hold a mirror up to society and, if you still believe there is decency in the world of journalism, to shine a light into dark places and hold those who have wronged to justice. As journalist Robert Rosenthal states in his TED X talk on 2nd April, 2011 regarding reporting that it has a role “as a watchdog facing the abuses and the lies and the threats of the government.”
The more we know what is going on in the world around us, the better.
It was investigative journalism that blew open the case of fourteen assassinations on U.K soil by Russian agents by Heidi Blake and her team at Buzzfeed. The story is a mind-blowing piece that goes from Russian actions to potential cover ups by the then Home Secretary, Teresa May. Investigative journalism podcast, The Tip-Off, gives a profound insight into how this particular story was broken (link below).
When the public first heard about Russian interference in western democratic processes many believed that it was unsubstantiated nonsense from the mouths of liberal fanatics.
The weight of Russian interference in western affairs first came to my notice in another podcast, News Roast, when guest, John Sweeney told of multiple sources corroborating the claim (link below). Since then it has emerged that Russian interference through the sharing of supposed confidential information, hacking and the sharing of fake news through social media platforms has been substantiated by the heads of Facebook and Twitter as well as by MI5, the C.I.A and the F.B.I.
The only people that seem to be denying this claim are President Donald Trump, the far-right, and the Kremlin.
Russia aside, it is journalism that shines light on things that we do not see on a day-to-day basis. Louis Theroux is an exemplary figure to look at when it comes to delving into the stranger aspects of life. Actor turned documentarian Ross Kemp is another shining example looking at crime, immigration, drug abuse etc.
These people dive into the worlds that are only on the fringes of our conscious and bring them roaring onto our television screens. Because of this kind of reporting we become more knowledgeable about what is going on around the globe. It makes the struggles we hear about in faraway lands and in other communities more personable, something we can relate to.
But for all its triumphs, journalism is under threat.
When Donald Trump rose to power throughout the presidential campaign of 2016, he aimed a direct attack at journalists screaming “fake news” and claiming that he wanted to open up libel laws so that journalists would be more susceptible to being sued for their work. But that was not all. He was provoking such a hostile environment at his rallies that reporters and news crews were under physical threat from frenzied mobs who screamed at, and tried to attack them. Members of the press were often put in sectioned off areas where crowds could locate and hound them.
Bob Woodward, the man who broke the Watergate scandal, recently released a book: FEAR – Trump in the White House. Trump has already slandered the book putting it under the “fake” banner but the volume is one of a few that have surfaced since he took office.
One person’s claims against Trump does not necessarily mean that he has done something wrong. What does, however, bring doubt regarding his suitability for the role of president of the United States is when multiple sources of information consistently corroborate with one-another, bringing into question his actions and his ethics. So it is through the corroboration of evidence where weight gathers on the scales of truth.
Trump is the most obvious example because he is hot topic and has been since he put his name forward as a candidate for the presidency. But aside from Nigel Farage and recently Jacob Rees-Mogg, he is one of the biggest threats to truth in the western world. Through belittling and an almost child-like rebuttal of news stations, he becomes impervious to truth’s grasp. It is quite extraordinary.
Let’s move on. The reason why I trust journalists is because good investigative journalism does its best to sit outside the usual spheres of influence. Good investigative journalism is not a mere opinion piece or a work of speculation. Investigative journalism is the digging for hard evidence to support claims. This kind of work can take weeks, months, or years. But it is diligent and is often of such quality that it becomes evidence in courts of law. The only real difference between an investigation undertaken by police and one undertaken by journalists is one of method.
We all want the truth. But sometimes flying close to the truth puts journalists in peril. Daphne Caruana Galizia, former journalist, writer and anti-corruption activist in Malta was killed by car bomb after receiving multiple threats about her work investigating Malta’s Labour party, organised crime, money laundering and the liberal providing of European passports to wealthy individuals.
Daphne Caruana Galizia was a prolific journalist and blogger whose online publications often received more readership than Malta’s own newspapers. Despite the tragic fate that befell Daphne her son – Matthew – is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and part of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). This is a true testament to the determination to find truth.
Three Russian journalists (Alexander Rastorguev, Kirill Radchenko and Orkhan Dzhemal) were killed in the Central African Republic in July of 2018 whilst investigating private military company – Wagner – that had supposed ties to the Kremlin. At least 58 journalists have been killed in Russia since 1992. The world of journalism, especially in places where unethical practices have been undertaken, is a dangerous environment.
We read newspapers. We watch the news. We rely on providers for information to inform us about the state of affairs from sport to politics and global trends. If we did not have some form of news we would have absolutely no idea what exactly it is that government is up to, what legislature is passed and how that legislature is going to affect us. It is our right to have access to this information. It is right to know when corruption or unethical actions are taking place.
It is our right to be informed. It is our right to know and to be holders of the truth. In a constantly shifting world to have truth is to know your place. Know your stance, and know the next steps you wish to take.