Friday 31 March 2017

The Independent really needs to drop the name 'Independent' in exchange for 'Daily Bias'

What has happened to the Independent in recent years? We've seen the newspaper lose its published format due to lack of interest and then it was sold on to a Russian investor. Now it only exists in online format, that is promoted by its social media team.

But the problems don't end there. I remember when the Indy was a groundbreaking newspaper with award winning journalists and what seemed to be a unique edge in retaining a largely neutral political stance in it's reporting. The name 'Independent' referred to the fact the media group was not backed by wealthy political donors, and nor were the media group aligned to any political party.



Remnants of evidence of this can be seen on the Indy's Facebook page such as here;

'The world's most free-thinking newspaper'.A bold claim which still sits proud for the public to see. But is it free-thinking?

Freethought (or "free thought") is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and rationalism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or other dogma.


Now that may stand relevant if the newspaper was made up of one person's opinion in the form of a blog such as this one for example, but we are talking about a newspaper that publishes many journalistic opinions. A collection of lateral thought from various viewpoints to form a balanced view of the world. Something the Independent was rather good at presenting itself as.

A lot has changed since then and not for the better. It seems to have been hijacked by the self-proclaimed 'Progressive left / liberals', of which I cannot determine much difference between the two ideologies. The newspaper used to appeal the centrist viewpoints, and many classical liberals were drawn to it such as myself back in the day.

Classical liberalism and 'Progressive' liberalism sound similar but are worlds apart. Classical liberalism is not far removed from libertarianism, an ideology based upon the founding principles of liberty, respecting people's freedoms and opinions. Tolerant of other's opinions and their way of life, or each to their own. Everyone's voice should be heard and respected even if some may disagree with their views.

'Progressive liberalism' seems to be very similar aligned to Social Democrats, which is more of a left wing Socialist ideology, and this is where massive differences are found when compared to Classical liberals. Progressives, in my opinion, have a tendency to be authoritarian and intolerant of other people's opinions that differs from their own. They also seem to have an arrogant air of self-importance and overly-moralistic views that they tend steamroller across with an element of loathing.

The Independent seems to no longer have a balanced journalistic portfolio, but rather it seems to have taken the left wing route to appeal to the Social Democrats / Socialists and as such panders to their moral standings. It has little to no evidence of centre-right political opinion published anymore, and as such it has lost me as a reader that likes to read opinions from all over the political compass.

BREXIT BASKETCASE


During the Brexit campaign, it became obvious that the Indy had chosen to be the voice of the Remainers, and criticised the Brexiteers at any given opportunity, often neglecting to listen to, or even comprehend the arguments for leave. It was a time of ignorance and arrogance.

I listened to both the pro-EU and the anti-EU opinions, weighed up the pros and cons, and heavily researched the opinions put forward before I made up my own decision on the matter.
The Indy and many of the Remainers however, tended to arrogantly misinterpret their opinions as 'facts', and heavily spun many of the Brexit opinions in a way that pandered to the remainers, helping to reinforce their loathing. It was an obvious agenda of confirmation bias for the reader's loyalty.

After the Referendum proved successful for the Leave campaign, the Indy as well as many of it's readers, seemed hell bent on trying to thwart the will of the majority, disregarding the 52%, and arrogantly declaring the 48% as more important. They turned against democracy when it didn't suit their narrative, and has reported many times with articles on how to derail Brexit.

ARTICLE 50 

After Article 50 was activated, the Indy were behaving like spoilt brats, crying because they didn't get their way. Brexit is happening and there is no turning back now, yet the Indy still is obsessed and niavely on a mission to try and stop the process. Here are just a few screenshots of their Facebook page, and how their admin clearly forces their personal opinion across when they post the article links. You can almost imagine the page admin clapping with joy when they agree with the article, or frothing at the mouth in a student activist type manner when they have to post links to something they dislike. It's sad and unprofessional.






The Republican agenda

The Indy's page admin also likes to make it clear that they hate the monarchy, and usually every few weeks they go on an obsessive tirade posting old Indy articles that hate the Royals, and preaches for a Republican led country. A common post of this nature is when they post an article that mentions about a republican protest, and spins it as 'PEOPLE ARE ANGRY' or 'COULD THIS BE THE END OF OUR MONARCHY?' with a 'BREAKING NEWS' sense of importance about it. Many people comment that the Republican movement is tiny and futile, and has been around for centuries. But the page admin chooses to ignore these points and continues to obsessively post any Anti-Royal articles with obvious remarks.



I implore the Independent to drop it's name and change it to the Daily Bias. It's more apt given their obsessive agenda and clear political spin. It is a pro-EU Socialist's wank rag, that has descended rapidly into student political activist acts of desperation. What is even worse is that the page admin must surely read the comments section where much criticism can be found. Not only does the admin shy away from debating these concerns, but they clearly never think to themselves that there must be reasons for the newspaper's demise, and as such they have no idea that they a big part of the problem. It's either a case of ignorance, or that they just don't care that they are destroying the reputation of a once great source of balanced journalism.

I wonder if the new owner of the Indy is aware of the catalyst reason for the downfall of their media investment?

Ian French