France, 1789. The National Constitutive Assembly was deciding whether, under the new regime, the King would have absolute veto power, or whether his capacity should be stripped back and heavily restricted to allow other voices to have a larger say.
Those voting ‘Yay’ on absolute power, to conserve the monarchy, took to the President’s right-hand side. Those who spoke ‘Nay’ to the King and power to the revolution fell to the left.
This division of society into two opposing sides, each neatly represented by anyone with hands, was the beginning of the Left-Right paradigm, a concept where societies tend to divide themselves into two opposing ideologies.
‘The right is me, the left is you.’
Politics, in many cases, has grown beyond the idea of absolute power of anyone and has spawned both a centre and extremes which we now refer to as a whole ‘spectrum’, albeit one whose points of reference are arbitrary.
But the idea of Left and Right has persisted, largely unchanged since 1789: those who value the conservation of the traditional institutions are placed on the right. Those following the path of progression, power in the hands of the many, not the few and transparency for ruling institutions take the path to the left.
As Pierre Brechon, Professor Emiratus of Political Science at the Grenoble Institute of the Political Science wrote in the lead up to the 2017 French general election, this division is favoured because it makes things simple:
‘The great advantage of these labels is their simplicity: they reduce complex political ideas to a simple dichotomy. It also makes it easy for people to identify the “right” side, to which they belong, and the “wrong” side, which they condemn.’
In short, it simplifies politics and ideas in general and takes away the need to think deeply on each separate issue that comes across your screen. It’s just your “side” or the other “side”. Both can’t be right.
Left, Right and the Press
It’s not hard to see why the Left and Right has flowed through into another upstanding pillar of supposedly free societies. The tepid trickle of thoughtless side-choosing has settled into a muddy puddle at the feet of the machine which once rose above the paradigm, yet now thrives in the moist, easy embrace of belonging and condemnation - the press.
Easily recognisable divisions are seen in the traditional mastheads. Australia has The Sydney Morning Herald and The Daily Telegraph. The U.K. has The Guardian and The Sun. The U.S. has everything between The New York Times and The American Spectator. This sort of division is supposed to represent a wide variety of voices. What does instead is taint society’s drinking supply of unbiased news reporting and independent journalism.
The paradigm spoils our supply of journalism due to one thing - human nature.
Firstly, humans are notoriously difficult to define, categorise, and place into distinct groupings, especially when it comes to our political leanings either as individuals or whole societies. Simply put, our society is made up of individuals who hold personal and political beliefs that come from across the spectrum, not from one side of the divide or the other. While they might stand to the right of France’s president on issues of welfare, taxes and privatisation, they belong on the left side in issues of consumption and freedom of speech.
Traditional publications do not reflect these nuances of humanity for one main reason. The intricacies that help separate our species from the herd fly in the face of a publisher’s main source of income and stability: advertising revenue and corporate ownership.
Left, Right and Advertising
It’s hard to get advertising revenue when content is unpredictable, and it’s harder still to maintain shareholder support when the content may endanger other business interests. Banks greasy with oil interest will not pay advertising dollars to a publication committed to a scrupulous reflection of the population’s environmental fears. Likewise, companies that feed off appealing to a consumer’s ethical side don’t want their brand next to a right-leaning think-piece on people seeking asylum. Advertising and corporate interest feeds off the right and left paradigm. They have formulas that determine who their target market votes for, watches, reads and buys.
This strict division, already aggravated by advertising dollars, is compounded by the consolidation of media. The trend of fewer individuals or organisations having increasing control of mass media means that the public consumes fewer interpretations of both the Left and the Right and the nuance of humanity is all but lost. It gives society a false impression of guidance because anything not pandering to one side or the other has no where to go and so we’re left with two opposing sides and not much in between.
Left, Right and InPress
Readers should have access to genuine information from across the political and social spectrum. With a consolidated media, the reader gets two choices, each represented in a range of different publications from an array of different people — all saying the same thing and selling the same idea; ‘You, the reader, are either one or the other, so you should better choose.’
With a diverse, independent and verified ecosystem of journalism, you don’t have to choose.
At InPress, we’re forwardly neutral. As long as a journalist can verify their information, evaluate the credibility and be transparent in their judgements in order to get as close to the truth as possible, then it’s relevant news no longer which side of the spectrum they are writing from.
For the reader, this is good news. You login to one account and can read information from a plethora of journalists writing across the spectrum. You won’t be stuck in an echo chamber reading the same thing over and over again from different voices. Because the journalists are humans, like you. Not advertising dollars or political ‘teams’ that thrive on a false adversary paradigm. Real, complex, nuanced humans who can stand on the President’s right for one issue, but cross to the other for the next, without following a narrative that lays how they need to think because the are paid to examine every single thing that crosses their path. At InPress, we’re hoping we can give them the chance to flex their muscles and really take on stories, not just find the ‘right’ take on the story.
What Does this Change?
Well, everything.
By removing the Left-Right division from your main source of information, we’re moving towards bringing down a social wall that has stood for over 220 years. And when walls are brought down the once contained is allowed to run free. Which doesn’t benefit a particular political party, industry lobby, or vested interest. It does, however, benefit you. And everyone else on the planet. And, in the long run, the planet.
But we as a society have to make the decision. From international politics to local events coverage, every piece of information you read has the chance to be altered for someone else’s gain. It’s up to all of us to not let that happen.
We have established InPress Media to connect independent people to independent sources of news and information supplied by journalists all over the world. All you have to do?
Join us.
Interested in learning more about InPress? Jump over to www.inpress.media for all the info you’ll need, plus a free $1 reading material for giving us a chance!