I then came across ‘Free Lunch’ by David Smith. With its subtitle of ‘Easily Digestible Economics’ it seemed exactly what I was looking for. From the very start Smith makes it quite clear that this book is for the layman, there’s no graphs and no maths. The book is set-out in the form of a dinner-party conversation, with starters, a main course, desserts, and lots of little interludes in-between. Its an odd concept, but one which I think works quite well.

In the first chapter, Smith describes the thinking behind the book, why one might want to study economics, and the history behind the saying ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch’. He explains how economics impacts on all of us in our day-to-day lives, and how a little knowledge can assist us to think differently about anything money related.

He begins the next section with a discussion on house prices, looking at how supply and demand, along with income levels and the rate of inflation all affect the fluctuations in price. My only criticism is that although Smith explains the concepts very well, he sometimes leaves it a little late, diving headlong into a topic prior to explaining the basics, which might cause problems for someone brand new to the subject material. Smith then looks at the ‘substitution’ and ‘income’ effects, using a fall in interest rates as an example. It goes a little something like this: when rates fall, the cost of housing falls. The substitution effect dictates that some people may use this extra money to purchase a larger house, whilst the income effect treats the fall in interest rates as a rise in income, and borrowers may utilise this extra cash to spend on other products and services.

Next, in the first of several discussions on individual economists, he looks at Adam Smith. Smith was a rather awkward Scottish man born back in 1723, who – along with Friedrich von Hayek – had a huge impact on the pro-market and pro-privatization policies of the British Thatcher government and the American Reagan administration in the 1980′s. One of Adam Smith’s most important contributions to economics was the idea of the ‘division of labour’. This was a concept by which workers should become expertly skilled in a particular aspect of the manufacturing process to improve its speed and efficiency. The division of labour survives to this day – more commonly known as ‘specialisation’ – and the productivity gains Smith envisaged have only improved with the development of industrial machinery.

An interesting theory touched on in Chapter 5 is Milton Friedman’s ‘permanent income’ hypothesis. This was the idea that people will always retain an overall idea of what their permanent (or long-run) income is, and will bear this in mind in the face of pay cuts, where they may draw down savings, or when they receive a large bonus, which they might set-aside for harsher times. Ando and Modigliani’s life-cycle hypothesis also links quite nicely into this theory. This uses pensions as an example, stating that during childhood we are concentrated on spending, we then progress onto accumulating savings through employment, and run these down in old age, with perhaps some left to bequeath to our relatives. This is of course highly simplified, but seems to relate quite neatly to most people’s own personal experience.

After giving us a quick biography of some other perhaps less well known economists, including Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, William Godwin and John Stewart Mill, Smith then looks at the differences between companies and individuals, and discusses why we require companies at all, using Adam Smith’s division of labour as one of the the main arguments. There is also some interesting discussion on monopolies, with lack of competition and higher-prices for consumers being major reasons why the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) was granted powers to investigate and break-up potential monopolists.

Smith then touches on the growth of on-line shopping and the importance of advertising in building a reputation where lack of a physical shop might otherwise dissuade shoppers from making a purchase. Here he also touches on the subject of Game Theory, a topic which I have a particular interest in. Whole books have been written on the issue, but game theory boils down to the idea that gaining maximum advantage in any given situation depends not just on what you do, but also what others do. The use of game theory in economics comes to to predicting – or somehow finding out – what your competitors are up to in order to maximise the performance of your own business. John Nash, a brilliant American game-theorist, who endured terrible bouts of depression and schizophrenia in the 1980′s, recovered to win the Nobel prize for economics in 1994 by taking on the cold-war game theorists in developing what he called the nash-equilibrium, the idea that a ‘win-win’ outcome could exist in which everyone gained.

In the second chapter covering important economists, Smith turns his attention to Karl Marx. As with Adam Smith, there are various anecdotes and commentary on Marx’s personal eccentricities, but unlike with Adam Smith, he seems quite dismissive of Marx’s arguments. Marx like Ricardo believed in the fundamental importance of distribution and the value of labour. Marx was also interested in the ‘surplus value’ of labour, which would tend to go straight into the pockets of the business owner, as opposed to the worker who carried it out. Whilst I agree with Smith that Marx’s theories have aged quite badly in modern times, he nevertheless has some important contributions to make, and we could certainly learn some lessons for today by reaching back to some of Marx’s ideas.

Chapter 9 looks at Tax. In it, Smith describes some different taxes, the reasons behind government spending and some examples of tax gone wrong. Smith uses the term ‘public goods’ to explain services funded by tax which benefit society as a whole, but which we might not be willing to pay for voluntarily. As an example, would we be willing to pay for the police force if we believed the tabloid headlines about them spending the majority of their time prosecuting middle-class motorists? Possibly not. The other justification given for government spending is ‘uninsurable risks’, an example being a chronically sick person who its doubtful would be able to take out a private health insurance policy. Essentially, the idea of tax is to finance the services which only the government can feasibly supply, taking in aspects of a progressive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.

Consequences of the 'Window Tax'

If like me you’d always been puzzled as to why certain older buildings have some of their windows bricked up then the answer lies in the Window Tax. As surprising as it may be, between 1696 and 1851 properties with ten or more windows were subject to extra taxation, with some owners therefore deciding to brick up as many as possible to save money, the perfect example of a tax gone wrong if ever there was one. A more recent example lies in the poll tax of the 1980′s, applied by Margaret Thatcher’s government, it acted as an additional tax on local government, with violent protests occurring at the time of it’s introduction. Many people simply decided to remove themselves from the electoral register to avoid paying it.

In this same chapter, Smith also introduces the Laffer Curve, developed in the 1970′s by Arthur Laffer. Laffer theorised that high tax rates could eventually cut tax revenue. It works something like this. A zero tax rate generates no income for government whatsoever, however a 100% tax rate also generates zero income, as there is no point in someone working if their entire wage is consumed by the state. Somewhere in between these two points lies the optimum tax rate, and Laffer demonstrated that a point could be reached where the revenue would begin to drop. Simple when you think about it, but very interesting stuff.

In the last of the profiles of the major economists, Smith looks into theories of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was a charismatic and highly influential individual, who gained a fair amount of sway over government during his lifetime. He attended the Versailles peace conference in 1919 and warned of the dangerous direction the negotiations were taking, and that the high level of reparations being demanded of Germany could lead to further world war, with many later arguing that he was indeed right.

The General Theory was perhaps Keynes’ most important contribution to economics, and it argued that in time of financial crisis and high unemployment, increasing government spending (which Keynes called ‘priming the pump’), would then – via a ripple effect – trigger growth elsewhere in the economy, ideally in the private sector. Keynes wrote that growth in employment overall would then spur the creation of more jobs, as the newly employed public sector workers spent their wages in the private sector.  Again, like most of the theories in this book, it appears deceptively simple. Contrary to the rather dismissive in way in which he covers Marx, Smith seems to make clear the huge impact which Keynes had in the fields of both economics and international relations. Personally, Keynes’ general theory is my favourite piece of thinking described within the book, and I would certainly describe myself as an opponent of the austerity agenda currently being pushed by the UK’s coalition government as a solution to reducing the deficit.

In the final chapters Smith covers two very interesting topics. Money itself, and American influence on Economics. It isn’t very often you think about why we decide certain bits of metal or paper are perceived as valuable. Smith makes it clear that acceptability is often the most important criteria in this, discussing the interesting fact that those annoying Scottish banknotes which many of us detest are not in fact designated as legal tender, not even in Scotland itself, although Smith states that whether something is ‘legal tender’ or not is fairly irrelevant, and he quotes the Bank of England who state that “acceptability as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved”. The book then covers the handover of interest rates from Government to the Bank of England, and how decisions are now made.

Smith then looks to America, which has produced 32 of the 49 Nobel prize winning economists. He discusses how economists such as Milton Friedman emerged to challenge Keynesian orthodoxy, instead promoting free-markets as a solution to financial crisis. Friedman’s take on the 1929 crash was that the Federal Reserve had applied the brakes on the level of money available a little too hard, as opposed to Keynes who had blamed a crisis of capitalism, which could be solved via a public sector stimulus. This argument is mirrored slightly in the present day, with Friedman’s arguments that recession cannot be counteracted by tax rises and public spending appearing to prevail in the UK.

The final chapter is given over to a Q+A session, with discussion on taxation levels, globalisation, the European single currency, along with an interesting critique on the role of richer countries in exploiting the developing world when it comes to the rules of global trade.

To conclude then, David Smith certainly appears to be an advocate of the free market and laissez-faire capitalism, something for which he has received a little criticism of late. However, his views are only natural I suppose, especially given his position as economics editor at the Sunday Times. Nevertheless, he presents the opposing viewpoints in a neutral and non-condescending manner, with all relevant views given the consideration they deserve.

Whilst some of his criticism of Marxist theories is valid, in an additional ‘Appetizer’ added to the new edition of the book he covers the current financial crisis without really tackling the problems inherent with an under-regulated financial services market. Perhaps as this section was authored in October 2008, whilst the crisis was still unfolding, we can give him the benefit of the doubt but as a recent editorial in the Independent makes clear, the problems inherent within capitalism must be tackled if we are to prevent the bubble bursting yet again:

The costs to the public of a laissez-faire attitude to markets from the state manifest themselves in excessive charges and needlessly high prices. But the public costs by no means stop there. The reason Britain has one of the biggest deficits in the G20 is because the Treasury became so heavily reliant on the bubble revenues of an inadequately regulated financial services sector. Britain is facing years of savage public spending cuts largely because of the failure of successive ministers and regulators to curb the recklessness of the banks.
The Independent – Editorial  (23 September 2010)

I decided to write to David Smith at the Sunday Times, to put these minor criticisms to him myself, but also to praise him on a job well done. He very kindly sent me the following response:

Dear Mr Davis,

Thank you for sending me the copy of your review, which is very fair. One small point. Though it is commonly believed that the causes of Britain’s sharp swing into enormous budget deficit was a collapse in City tax revenues, as in The Independent editorial, the causes are rather more complex than that. As this paper demonstrates – the tax take from the City has dropped but not collapsed. The recent better-than-expected revenues from the Labour government’s windfall tax on bank bonuses demonstrate that.

The deficit was caused by a more general drop in tax revenues, particularly income tax, National Insurance and VAT, together with a recession-related rise in public expenditure and the fact that a previous planned slowdown in spending was deferred until after the crisis. The banks were indeed reckless and should have been better regulated though as we have seen this problem was not confined to the UK.

That is just a minor point. As I say, your review is very fair.

Best wishes, David Smith

- Email from David Smith  (2nd October 2010)

I’m now beginning to develop an impression of the economy as a huge balancing act, with economists constantly being confronted with new problems to solve, which I believe is what makes economics so exciting and books such as this so important. Despite some small faults, Free Lunch is a fantastic, jargon-free introduction to economic theory, and I would highly recommend it to anybody who like me, would previously have flicked past the ‘boring’ business pages of their daily newspaper.

Edwards begins the book (as he and David Cromwell did in Guardians of Power) with a description of the propaganda model devised by Chomsky and Herman, but the similarities between the two works essentially end here. Edwards then begins to widen out the propaganda model to encompass the myriad of different areas where we face a constant barrage of control and manipulation, and where views are filtered to fit the state and business interests. Whether it be in our personal lives, our religious beliefs, or our ethics. Edwards relies not on simple ‘conspiracy theory’ or other shallow explanations, but to the systemic ‘filtering’ of unwanted ideas and opinions described in the propaganda model itself.

Edwards bases many of his ideas on Buddhist teachings, something which I admit I had my concerns about beforehand, although I can safely say that my initial misconceptions around Buddhism were soon shattered, as I realised that Buddhism is a world away from the conventional theistic religions, the ultimate goal being personal enlightenment, rather than belief or worship of a spiritual God.

Edwards uses many examples throughout the book, the most interesting in my opinion being the desolated day-tripper, a man who sets off on a day trip with his family, and then becomes overwhelmed with fear when he realises that he cannot explain why he is taking the trip. Edwards then takes us through this man’s life, looking at how his mind has been moulded from birth to conform in our society, and how the sudden realisation of his dissatisfaction with life manifests itself.

Edwards reserves special (and very accurate) criticism for our profit-driven capitalist system. A system which, as he points out elsewhere in the book, is concerned not just with satisfying (essentially false) needs and desires, but of creating the very dissatisfaction it aims to cure:

The forbidden truth is that we are living by a set of lies which are necessary for short-term profit, at the expense of human physical and psychological life and global environmental integrity. We are living in a system where power ensures that the requirements of profit take priority over the requirements of living things – including to know that this is the case. Consequently our freedom extends as far as, and no further than, the satisfaction of these requirements, with all else declared neurosis, paranoia, communism, extremism, the work of the devil,or Neptunian nonsense.

In addition to criticism of capitalism as a whole, Edwards has many excellent points to make about the damaging effects of the beauty industry and their exploitation of post-war feminism in the pursuit of profit. He states that the emergence of diet articles and plastic surgery have contributed to an increase in physical and mental disorders, as well as a great distortion in the way women have come to see themselves, and is a perfect example of the mass media’s power to manipulate. (For example, he quotes from Naomi Wolf’s book ‘The Beauty Myth‘, which states that between 1966 and 1969, in direct correlation to the media’s new fixation on thinness and perfection, the number of women who perceived themselves as being overweight rose from 50% to 80%.) I was also fascinated by Edwards’ suggestion that the literature we now perceive as important to society, for example Shakespeare and Orwell, may also be a product of the filtering system, in that unpopular historical works may be suppressed entirely, or not published at all, whereas literature which supports the dominant classes or the current socio-economic system is exalted as ‘classic’.

Edwards also discusses the indifference with which most of us treat conflict, poverty and inequality around the world, and how we now tend to psychologically distance ourselves from these horrors, remaining passive to atrocities such as the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. One of my favourite quotes in the book comes towards the end, where Edwards discusses the sometimes absurd rationalizations we create when something we are told, which in essence makes perfect sense, conflicts so completely with our ingrained beliefs and learned knowledge:

Having chosen one of these rationalizations, moments later we can be settling back in our chairs in the office, or in the pub, or in front of the TV, feeling as ‘comfortably’ as part of the ‘real’ world as before. We will have avoided conflict and disruption in our individual, familial, social and career lives; we may have avoided confronting the waste of years, or decades of effort and striving for a deluded dream in a profoundly immoral and brutal system. (The cliché of the transformation of young socialist into old conservative is not a change from idealism to pragmatism but from rationality to rationalization.) The cost of surrendering our reason to rationalization is that we will tend to reject ideas that allow access to a coherent understanding of the world, including it’s problems, including our problems.

In chapter three, Edwards criticises the belief in a cosmic father-figure (CFF), inherent in the great monotheistic religions, and then concludes that Atheism is just as dangerous because it provides ‘believers’ with the same certainty and security. This certainty then removes our need to look for answers to life, as our belief makes asking these questions unnecessary. Whilst I cannot argue at all with his reasoning on this point, Edwards then goes on to suggest that Atheism forms part of an ‘Unholy Trinity’ along with ‘Progress’ and ‘Consumerism’. Edwards’ reasoning appears to be that since Atheism does away with all spirituality, and emphasises the ‘pointlessness’ of existence, that consumerism and the idea of ‘having fun’ and satisfying our lusts will naturally take over as a result.

This was one area of the book were I did have some slight reservations. Whilst I would not argue that Atheism does have potential to fuel consumerism, I would counter that this is true of most mainstream beliefs. Therefore I can’t quite understand the assumed link between the three members of this ‘Unholy Trinity’ and why this is exclusive to Atheism.

I emailed Mr Edwards to congratulate him on an excellent piece of work, but also to question this link between Atheism and Consumerism. He very kindly responded with the following comments:

Incidentally, by “atheism” I really meant the assumption that life is ‘meaningless’, a happy (or unhappy) accident, that ethical norms are intellectual inventions with no grounding in anything beyond personal opinion, and so on.

To be sure, theistic religions have often been at the heart of systems of exploitation and violence, but they’re more useful for promoting servility and deference, less useful for promoting unrestrained hedonism. After all, they have traditionally (at least nominally) emphasised restraints on behaviour. Modern atheism promotes ‘Do as you please so long as you can get away with it.’ But that of course does not mean that theists are not often hedonists, or that theistic religions cannot also promote consumption.

My point was that atheism is really perfect for our kind of unrestrained consumer society where all values are subordinated to profit (as a matter of legal obligation for corporate managers). It also satisfies our conceit that we are scientific, rational creatures who have moved beyond all superstitious religious dogma. In fact there is no greater superstition than belief in the intrinsically existent self or ‘I’ – the new god at the centre of the materialist universe.

- Email from David Edwards  (22nd April 2010)

Free to be Human must rank as one of my favourite books, I doubt that any other author has sparked so much thought about my own existence and way of living, and I certainly see some aspects of myself in the desolated day-tripper, as I’m sure most people would. I can highly recommend this book as an effective antidote to the largely hidden ‘filtering’ system operating in the world today, and I will certainly be looking into the rest of Edwards’ work.

Update 22/04/10: Article updated with comments received from Mr Edwards.

Guardians Of Power – David Edwards & David Cromwell

Before I review this book, I’d like to give a little background to medialens and what they do. Medialens is a ‘UK-based media watch project’ who publish informed criticism of media bias and censorship, revealing the distorted view of the world which mainstream media often provides. Run by the aforementioned Edwards and Cromwell, they publish weekly media alerts and base their work on Chomsky and Herman’s 1988 book ‘Manufacturing Consent – The Political Economy of the Mass Media’. In addition medialens also encourage their readers to challenge individual journalists on their work, something which has gained them some enemies in the past. However they are also influenced by the Buddhist view that ‘while greed, hatred and ignorance distort reason; compassion empowers it’, which hopefully provides us with the means to create a peaceful society, along with a fair and balanced media.

This, their first book, represents a compilation of their media alerts on a wide range of subjects.They start by giving some background on Chomsky and Herman’s ‘Propaganda Model’ of the media, on which the project is based, along with some examples of how ownership and advertising can play a huge role in what we actually read. Here’s wikipedia’s brief summary:

The propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that alleges systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes.

It views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product — readers and audiences — to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the people. The theory postulates five general classes of “filters” that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five classes are: ownership of the medium, the medium’s funding sources, sourcing, flak and ‘Anti-communist ideology’. The first three are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

The authors make it quite clear that advertisers and owners are able to exert a high-level of control over their publications. In addition the pressure to retain advertisers, which medialens quote as providing 75% of their revenue, can necessitate self-censorship along with helping to decide which stories get coverage in the first place. For example, a newspaper may decide to omit any mention of carbon dioxide emissions from air travel if today’s edition also features a large cut-price flights promotion. A frightening thought indeed, but one which does occur frequently, largely unnoticed.

In coverage of news events, medialens ignore the right-wing and go straight for the UK ‘liberal’ media, beginning by exposing systematic failings in coverage of the Iraq war, along with the sanctions that preceded it. Their exchanges with former UN assistant secretary-general Denis Halliday and his criticism of the way in which sanctions were reported in the media were enlightening.

Their alerts covering the build up to the 2003 Iraq war again demonstrate how little a threat was posed by Saddam Hussein and his ‘weapons of mass destruction’, along with discussion of how certain (highly-qualified) voices were sidelined if their views didn’t quite match up with those of the establishment.

The book also features chapters on Afghanistan, Kosovo, climate change and the fight for independence in East Timor. All of which are truly excellent pieces of work. Towards the end the book makes a slight detour, concluding with suggestions for how the media can become more compassionate. The story of Helena Norberg-Hodge’s visit to the residents of Ladakh in Northern India really interested me, in that their way of life allowed them to be so happy and emotionally healthy whilst living in relative poverty, unaffected by the egotism and consumerism of the west.

I opened this book at 9am one day and quite honestly could not put it down until I’d finished it, it’s a fabulous wake up call to anyone who believes that we possess a honest and unbiased mainstream media. A second book was released this year called ‘Newspeak in the 21st Century’ and I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

I’d highly recommend that everyone visit the website and read some of their excellent work, subscribe to the weekly medialens alerts, and donate if you can.

Bernays was born in Austria in 1891, and was nephew of the renowned psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Bernays went on to become the father of modern Public Relations, and pioneered many of the PR techniques still in use today. Although rather than exploiting his uncle’s popularity, things surprisingly worked in the opposite direction, as at this time Freud was almost unknown outside his native Austria, and Bernays was to be instrumental in popularising Freud’s theories in the US, as they were inherently linked to Bernays’ own work within PR.

One of Bernays’ most famous successes was to break the taboo on women smoking. Whilst working for the American Tobacco Company in 1929, he staged a PR event to launch his so-called ‘Torches of Freedom’ campaign, which attempted (and largely succeeded) to convince women that smoking was a symbol of independence and freedom, and a protest for equality in society.

His book ‘Propaganda’, although written in 1928, is just as relevant today as when it was published, and although some of the examples are slightly dated, the basic principles of public relations remain almost unchanged to this day.

Bernays firstly documents the history of propaganda and it’s usage by governments around the world, and explains why the phrase itself fell into disrepute, mostly due to it’s heavy usage by the German’s in the first world war. Bernays believed that manipulation of the masses through PR was essential to create a properly functioning society:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Two of Bernays’ techniques interested me greatly, and can be spotted as a common fixture in today’s advertising-driven culture. The first was the theory that it was necessary to sell the ‘need’  for a particular product, rather than the product itself. He gave the example of a business struggling to sell pianos. Now, rather than advertising the piano itself, Bernays created the idea of a ‘music room’ which people could set aside within the home, he then organised to fill the publications of the day with features on the benefits of the music room, and ideas for furnishing such a room. This would inevitably create the ‘need’ for the piano to fill the space set-aside for it in the newly created room, and so vast swathes of the public had been manipulated into purchasing a product they essentially didn’t need, without even knowing it.

The second of Bernays’ techniques revolved around using a person in authority, who the public would inherently trust, to influence their purchasing decisions:

Suppose the old type of salesmanship, acting for a meat packer, was seeking to increase the sale of bacon. It would reiterate innumerable times in full-page advertisements: “Eat more bacon. Eat bacon because it is cheap, because it is good, because it gives you reserve energy.” The newer salesmanship, understanding the group structure of society and the principles of mass psychology, would first ask: “Who is it that influences the eating habits of the public?” The answer, obviously, is: “The physicians.” The new salesman will then suggest to physicians to say publicly that it is wholesome to eat bacon. He knows as a mathematical certainty, that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors, because he understands the psychological relation of dependence of men upon their physicians.

This kind of technique I’m certain is familiar to most people and although the public relations business still utilises the services of trusted professionals, nowadays it seems to rely much more heavily on celebrity endorsements, which I suppose signifies the much greater role they play in our lives and the importance we place on their opinions.

Bernays was obviously a highly-intelligent man, who possessed a deep understanding of psychology, psychoanalysis and sociology which he wielded to great effect, it’s certainly a testament to his work that people are still reading it 80 years on. Propaganda is an astounding and highly enjoyable book and as I said earlier it is just as important now (if not more so) than on it’s original release. If you’re interested, the full text can be read online here and here or purchased from here.

Noam Chomsky – Hegemony or Survival

Chomsky’s 2003 book is a summary of US foreign policy from the end of World War II up until the current Iraq War, examining America’s pursuit of global dominance and it’s terrible consequences. Chomsky expresses his view that although the attacks of 9/11 were shocking and deplorable, the biggest shock was that for the first time the guns were pointing in the opposite direction. My only criticism of this book was that due to the high volume of names, dates and figures, I found myself occasionally reading paragraphs twice. Nevertheless it was a fantastic book and I’d highly recommend it alongside the pocket book ‘Media Control’ as a excellent intro to Chomsky’s world view.

The Cold War – A Very Short Introduction

The ‘Very Short Introduction’ series from OUP provides an excellent foundation for exploring a subject, giving the reader a wide-ranging overview of events and opinions whilst attempting to maintain impartiality. This particular book is no exception, it begins by explaining the radical changes taking place after the end of the Second World War and going on to discuss how events all over the world, such as the wars in Vietnam and Korea, fueled tensions between the US and the USSR and how diplomatic measures were in full swing in an attempt to prevent a full-blown nuclear war. I’m almost at the end of this book and while almost all of the events took place before I was born, it has been very enjoyable history lesson for me.

British Politics Unravelled – Giles Edwards

I came across this little gem from 2005 whilst in my local library and whilst it’s now sadly out of print, I managed to find a copy for myself on eBay. It’s essentially a beginners guide to British Politics, covering important questions such as: How does the Constitution work?, What actually happens in No 10? and What is an early day motion? The book also has chapters on British Law, Elections, the EU, the Economy and even the Media. It discusses for instance, how a newspaper chooses it’s political allegiance, what the purpose of a party whip is, how ‘spin’ works, it even details the powers that exist within courts and local governments. In fact, the entire book is a goldmine of useful and interesting information, presented in an easy to understand and concise manner. I ended up tracking down Mr Edwards to congratulate him on a job well done, which isn’t something I have done with any other author. Politics isn’t exactly everybody’s cup of tea, but like it or not, it affects almost every aspect of our lives and if you have any interest in learning about the political process in the UK then this book should be at the top of your shopping list.

I have spent the last few months watching journalist John Pilger’s television documentaries, having first discovered his film-making through the 2007 award-winning “The War on Democracy”, an excellent account of US greed and it’s effects on Southern and Central America, including the events surrounding the US-backed coup d’état against Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez in 2002 and many other instances of US involvement in attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments around the world.

I became hooked on his work after purchasing “Documentaries which Changed the World”, the first DVD box set of his films, and have since snapped up the rest of the DVD’s. These include some classics ranging from ‘Burp’, which chronicles the history of the ‘ice cold war’ between Pepsi and Coke, ‘The New Rulers of the World’ examining the effects of globalisation on Asia, and ‘Stealing a Nation’ which tells the tragic story of the Chagos islanders, expelled from their homeland in the 1970′s by the British government, the Chagos having been given to the US in order for them to build a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

I recently finished reading his 1998 book ‘Hidden Agendas’, a collection of essays on many subjects, some now outdated although many just as relevant today as when they were first written. Pilger states that he lives by the Claud Cockburn quote, ‘Never believe anything until it is officially denied’ and it certainly shows in all of his books and documentaries. Despite the dangerous places the ventures to, he remains determined to uncover the facts at all costs.

In his chapter on the Gulf war, Pilger shows how manipulation of the media during the conflict helped to steer the journalists in the right direction, encouraging them to focus on the new ‘high-tech weapons’ and the miraculously low US and UK casualties, therefore largely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths which occured during the conflict. Pilger also covers the devastating impact that the sanctions against Iraq had on the civilian population.

In the section on the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975 Pilger exposes not just the complicity of the UK government in the mass slaughter of civilians, but also that British manufacturers were arming the Indonesian army. The story of the Ploughshares and their acts of ‘military conversion’ using only hammers to destroy hawk jets destined for delivery to Indonesia was heartening, and showed that direct action against arms suppliers can be successful, their trial and subsequent aquittal can only reinforce this.

One of the most memorable sections is the two chapters on Burma and it’s brutal military regime, here Pilger’s reporting is undercover and has to be remain low-key to avoid detection by the authorities. Some of the interviews with ordinary citizens, although sometimes cut short, provide a fascinating insight into their lives under the Junta and just how bad things have gotten for them, as the west turns a blind eye to western oil and gas companies reaping the profits of Burma’s natural resources, being extracted via forced and even child labour. His interview with Burma’s elected leader in exile, Nobel Peace prize winner Aung San Suu Ki is deeply moving and shows the determination within Burma’s ‘National League for Democracy’ to return to a democratic system of government.

Chapters on the British media (including the rise of PR) and the docker’s strikes in the 80′s certainly filled gaps in my knowledge of issues so close to home, and gave excellent examples of how a monopoly over the mass-media can be abused and used to mould public opinion in any way imaginable.

In his writing and documentaries, Pilger joins Noam Chomsky in successfully exposing the depth of the government and media manipulations of the truth, challenging the ‘official’ and established versions of events. He opens your eyes to what is really going on around you, without a hint of scaremongering, and I highly recommend anyone interested in world affairs to purchase Pilger’s books and DVD’s right away, with “Documentaries which Changed the World” being an excellent starting point for further exploration of his work.