'A Review Of The Most Common Roles In The Alt-Media Community'

Sharing an insightful classification by ANDREW KORYBKO + a discussion with ANITA KRISHNA & MOCHA BEZIRGAN re: the work of 'Independent' Journalists + Musings on Media Nomenclature, Fishbowls & more

In trying to figure out how to explain to others what CanadianShareableNew seeks to be or do (are we journalists? activists? curators?….) we ran into this very useful article by Andrew Korybko, a “Moscow-based American political analyst who writes about the global systemic transition to multipolarity” as stated on his Substack: https://substack.com/@korybko.

We found his article on a little known site: TheAltWorld.

“The Alternative World was launched in May 2019 and takes its name from the fact that our aim is to become where you could be able to find different points of view around how today’s world should be changed so as to be better.”

Everything up to the section break is copied straight from https://thealtworld.com/andrew_korybko/a-review-of-the-most-common-roles-in-the-alt-media-community.

The Alt-Media Community has many ways in which its members express support for various causes and countries, but the intentions behind some of their information products are sometimes regrettably misinterpreted by their fellows, hence the need to elaborate on the most common roles that folks play.

What’s The Alt-Media Community?

The Alt-Media Community (AMC) is a general term that refers to those individuals and outlets that aren’t part of the Mainstream Media (MSM). It includes casual commentators such as the majority of its membership, independent platforms like the Centre for Research on Globalization, key influencers like some of the folks who might come to the reader’s mind when thinking about the AMC, and publicly financed platforms such as RT. It’s a cosmopolitan community that’s united around their common interest in multipolarity, which can be described as the international system that’s emerging in the wake of unipolarity’s comparative decline from the days when the US was the world’s sole superpower. As such, it’s ultra-diverse and its members don’t always share the same assessments of every cause, country, and event, but this is natural and to be encouraged.

Principles & Shortcomings

The AMC is supposed to at least in theory treasure a diversity of well-intended and respectful discourse about sensitive topics aimed at better understanding complex processes. It was never intended to function as a knockoff of the MSM in the sense of gatekeepers aggressively imposing their interpretations onto others under the pane of “exile” from the community for daring to responsibly express different views about any given issue. Regrettably, some of the most impassioned members of the AMC at times misinterpret their peers’ opinions, especially whenever these manifest themselves as information products such as analyses, interviews, journalism, published commentary, and videos. Unfortunately, they occasionally accuse those who think differently of being so-called “haters” of a certain cause or country, and in rare cases, even worse.

Disclaimer

It’s for this reason why it’s necessary to talk about the most common types of members in the AMC. The purpose in doing so is to dispel any misperceptions about their intentions in order to hopefully prevent the unnecessary discord which threatens to divide this already loosely connected community even more. Of course, those with ulterior motives (perhaps pertaining either to ego, ideology, and/or profit with respect to soliciting more donations from wishful thinking, naive, but well-intended members of their audience) will likely still smear those who disagree with them, but the sincere members of the AMC might think twice about doing so once if they’ve come to appreciate how those who disagree with them still in spirit support the same cause and/or country as they do, albeit from a different angle.

The Importance Of Media Literacy

What follows is a concise list of the roles that each of the AMC’s many members most commonly play. It’s entirely possible for someone to play different roles at the same time, or to even switch between them. After all, that’s only natural since its members are human beings and not robots. Everyone’s entitled to their own views. All that matters is that they have positive intentions to promote multipolarity as they sincerely understand it, which can sometimes even change with time. So long as one has the proper media literacy, they should be able to easily discern the following roles. What’s most important is that folks appreciate all of the information products that their fellows produce apart from whenever this manifests itself as fake news of course, be it the creation or sharing thereof (especially whenever the latter is intentional). [CSNews note: the link re: media literacy is currently broken.]

AMC Roles

* The Activist:

Activists passionately promote the causes and/or countries that they sincerely believe to be forces of good in the world. They’re the most opinionated members of the AMC and aren’t afraid to hide it. They sometimes omit certain facts in order to advance their narrative, but they presumably do this with good intentions despite it being of questionable ethics. They aim to convince others to support the same things that they do, believing that the cumulative effect of their efforts can make a noticeable difference with time. Activists tend to be very creative with their approaches and also pretty persuasive too, if at times a bit edgy, even uncomfortably so.

* The Amplifier:

Similar in essence to activists, amplifiers also feel very passionately about certain causes and/or countries, but they generally express this by mostly only amplifying the primary talking points of the latter. They’re less creative than activists but no less zealous. It’s just that they believe that their skills and time are best invested in sharing simple points – usually from official sources like publicly financed media or representatives of a particular cause and/or country – that might usually be ignored or misportrayed by the MSM. In their own humble way, they’re providing valuable information support to something that they sincerely care about.

* The Analyst:

Analysts are a bit different from activists and amplifiers. They at times partially fulfill both functions, but their information products are intended to interpret events comparatively more objectively. This sometimes results in them making constructive critiques of the causes and/or countries that they support. Nevertheless, their intentions are to responsibly raise awareness of what might be regarded by most of the AMC as so-called “politically incorrect” points that challenge narrative dogma, highlight perceived policy shortcomings, and thus ultimately improve the effectiveness of certain causes and/or countries as a result.

* The Casual Commentator:

The vast majority of the AMC is comprised of casual commentators. They’re interested in multipolarity, whether in general or only with respect to a particular topic, but aren’t passionate enough to devote their time to playing any of the community’s other roles. Still, casual commentators will sometimes donate to independent Alt-Media individuals and/or outlets as a sign of solidarity if they can afford to do so. Every other role is inspired to produce their respective work for the benefit of the casual commentator, whether to convince them to take a certain position or simply as a courtesy to inform them of an interesting interpretation.

* The Journalist:

This role is often misattributed by casual commentators to those who play other roles and even at times wrongly self-proclaimed by the latter as well. Journalists are in principle the paragon of objectivity, or at least that’s what they aspire to be. They’ll share both sides of the story, though naturally sometimes subtly expressing support for one over the other. Nevertheless, their work isn’t noticeably opinionated because such manifestations are actually activism or amplification even though those two roles sometimes describe their information products as journalism in order to make them more convincing to casual commentators.

* The Questioner:

Questioners are perhaps the most controversial members of the AMC. They’re so intrepid that they won’t shy away from asking hard questions that the casual commentator either wouldn’t ever think of or dare to say (the latter perhaps due to fear of being “exiled” by the community’s gatekeepers for defying narrative dogma). Some folks might question their motives, but no suspicion should be automatically cast on these well-intended individuals who simply seek to challenge others to better articulate their positions on certain causes and/or countries. Trolls sometimes masquerade as questioners, but the vast majority of questioners aren’t trolls.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So as per this classification of roles among the Alternative Media Community (AMC) CanadianShareableNews would best be described as an AMPLIFIER as we take writings of others and link to them in our 4 (or 6) page PDF / online format. But instead of linking to stories that are “usually from official sources like publicly financed media or representatives of a particular cause and/or country” we are looking for the ‘unofficial’ stories. We seek to give more prominence to the insights and content being provided by activists, analysts, other amplifiers, questioners and hard working diligent journalists. Content that is actively censored off ‘mainstream’ platforms. Or content that is provided by people without the time, energy or money to give their work further reach.

The part of the article copied above continued on with a look at different examples of coverage by various members of the Alt Media Community of the situation unfolding in Syria in 2021. We invite readers familiar with that history to continue here: https://thealtworld.com/andrew_korybko/a-review-of-the-most-common-roles-in-the-alt-media-community.

While each descriptor is not perfectly set in stone - the collection of the descriptors as a whole provides us with a framework upon which to build further understanding.

Here again is Andrew Korybko’s definition of JOURNALIST in italics, with our responses along the way.

This role is often misattributed by casual commentators to those who play other roles and even at times wrongly self-proclaimed by the latter as well. AHA, have we at CSNews referred to individuals as ‘journalists’ if one of the other terms would have better described their role?

Journalists are in principle the paragon of objectivity, or at least that’s what they aspire to be. They’ll share both sides of the story, though naturally sometimes subtly expressing support for one over the other.

Unfortunately, over the years, journalists’ personal opinions on controversial matters were slowly becoming more and more obvious. Journalist bias became particularly notable starting in 2020, especially around topics arising from the declared COVID-19 pandemic. Here journalists have chosen to NOT even claim objectivity — they simply OMIT the entire ‘other side of the story’ making zero references to data cited by experts which shine an opposite light on the matter being reported. ‘Mainstream’ journalists wouldn’t think of using words such as ‘allege’ and ‘claim’ when sharing statements from those who present the ‘official narrative’. Instead, they reserve these verbs for use only with opponents of the ‘official’ stance. Broadcasters could say: “XYZ health agency alleges that XYZ group is spreading misinformation” instead of “XYZ group is spreading misinformation”. Instead of “Despite well-established evidence that vaccines are safe and effective…” Journalists could write “The studies upon which health agencies have based their policies indicate that XYZ vaccines appear safe and effective. Yet scientists such as ABC and DEF point to flaws in these studies and/or to other studies that indicate the opposite.“

We have recently noticed a flurry of articles with titles like “Moderna's updated COVID-19 vaccine for 2024-25 approved in Canada”. These articles only draw upon official statements released by the manufacturer, Health Canada and NACI. Their authors made the deliberate choice NOT to seek a diversity of viewpoints from those scientists who are able to identify deliberate omission of data points, data which should have led Health Canada to NOT authorize the products. So are their authors JOURNALISTS? Or AMPLIFIERS? Or even ACTIVISTS in a certain way?

Particularly hosts of broadcast TV News programs, especially in their banter with a co-host, dropped all pretence of objectivity once COVID-19 arrived on the scene. While few new hosts went as far as one Mexican news host did to make their personal views known (in this case about those choosing not to wear masks, also known as breathing barriers), even the CNN host who shared the clip could not resist advising mask wearing to her audience at the end. Do journalists who drop all pretence of objectivity no longer fit into the descriptor of JOURNALIS? Do they instead become “AMPLIFIERS” of the Official Government News Narrative? They may even act as “ACTIVISTS” if we apply the aforementioned descriptors as outlined by Andrew Korybko.

[ACTIVISTS] sometimes omit certain facts in order to advance their narrative, but they presumably do this with good intentions despite it being of questionable ethics. They aim to convince others to support the same things that they do, believing that the cumulative effect of their efforts can make a noticeable difference with time.

Does that sound like certain News Anchors we heard from 2020 onward? Are many of the journalists currently employed by ‘mainstream’ news outlets being expected to drop any pretence of objectivity in order to simply cheerlead for (amplify) a pre-determined narrative?

Here Andrew Korybko makes an interesting observation:

Nevertheless, [the work of JOURNALISTS] isn’t noticeably opinionated because such manifestations are actually activism or amplification even though those two roles sometimes describe their information products as journalism in order to make them more convincing to casual commentators.

So now we come to the flip side:

Are ‘ACTIVISTS’ and ‘AMPLIFYERS’ referring to themselves as ‘JOURNALISTS’ when according to Korybko’s classification they are not?

ENTER THE CONCEPTS OF EDITORIAL & FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE

Editorial independence refers to the freedom of journalists to report news and express their opinions without interference or influence from outside sources. It is the cornerstone of responsible journalism and ensures that journalists can objectively report on issues that matter to the public. By maintaining editorial independence, journalists can build trust with their audience and uphold the principles of truth, accuracy, and fairness. https://www.yellowbrick.co/blog/journalism/the-art-of-balancing-editorial-independence-in-journalism

Even the term “Independent Media” has been hijacked, as made clear in this 2018 University of Birmingham report entitled: Strengthening the Financial Independence of Independent Media Organisations. In it we find plenty of references to government & private funding of journalistic enterprises in developing countries including this section:

Grant income and philanthropy

The Open Society Foundation (OSF) is the largest private grant organisation in the media sector and spends USD40-50 million on media development and USD10 million on freedom of expression (Cook, 2016). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributed more than USD11 million to international media support between 2010 and 2015 (Myers & Juma, 2018). There are few collaborations between the foundations and the development agencies. The Ford Foundation, McArthur Foundation, Knight Foundation, Omidyar Foundation, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, US Institute for Peace and the National Endowment for Democracy have supported media development (Peters, 2010; World Association of Newspapers, 2011). These organisations do not provide publically available data on the details of how the grants are allocated, what portion of the grant is devoted to financial sustainability and how effective the media support has been.

So in other words, not everything labelled ‘independent media’ is truly independent of financial or other pressures to truly retain editorial independence - i.e. to “tell it like it is” and free to NOT amplify the perspective of the paymasters.

But as ‘mainstream’ media is followed by ever fewer people, and ‘alternative’ media becomes the norm, it too, is no longer truly ‘alternative’. Too bad the providers of truly ‘independent’ media can’t rename themselves ‘OPEN MEDIA’ - that moniker has already been taken, by what seems to be a very important but specific Canadian cause:

OpenMedia works to keep the Internet open, affordable, and surveillance-free. We create community-driven campaigns to engage, educate, and empower people to safeguard the Internet. Take action now openmedia.org

Even the term TRUE MEDIA has already been claimed - by an interesting American initiative to “Identify Political Deepfakes in Social Media using AI” www.truemedia.org

And since no ethical media outlet should be publishing lies, shouldn’t all media be TRUTH MEDIA? When looking for a distinction between media without editorial or financial restraints and those with such restraints, this term won’t be helpful.

We might get a bit further with the term FREE MEDIA:

Free media encompasses all forms of media that operate independently from government control, allowing for the unbiased dissemination of news and information. It plays a critical role in democratic societies by facilitating informed public discourse and holding those in power accountable. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/intro-to-poli-sci/free-media

Now THAT is exactly what we are after!

Seven months ago, two TRULY independent journalists were invited to speak on Media and Propaganda to those gathered at a Peoples’ Town Hall in Lethbridge, Alberta.

Anita Krishna had been working in the technical production side of Vancouver’s Global News station. She was fired for asking too many questions re: the ‘wisdom’ of passing along the unchallenged provincial recommendation that pregnant women take the COVID-19 injection given the many contraindications for such a choice. Once fired, Anita Krishna felt compelled to use her voice working from her living room and has been passionately picking stories that matter and interviewing experts who know their content, but who have been censored out of their former roles as well. She can be found on a number of online platforms as listed here linktr.ee/Anita808, but still needs to rely on a different day-job to pay the bills.

Mocha Bezirgan started his own one-man media organization right after finishing his broadcasting school studies. www.mediabezirgan.com. Recently, his key areas of focus have been government corruption around infrastructure projects, the activities of Khalistani separatists in Canada and the cases of the political prisoners in Canada known as the Coutts 4. The case of four Alberta men deemed guilty before having a chance to prove their innocence and held without bail since 2021 has captivated the attention of Mocha Bezirgan, who points out that once he caught wind of the story, he did not miss a single trial date. Other media, both ‘mainstream’ and ‘independent’ have been silent on the story until very recently. For a taste of MediaBezirgan on assignment visit www.mediabezirgan.com and scroll to find:

Coutts 4: Advocates Raise Concerns on Compounding Health Effects as Trial Begins

& FORMER MP COMMENTS ON COUTTS 4: "You Have Literal Political Prisoners"

As for Moche Bezirgan’s definition of INDEPENDENT MEDIA?

“If an independent journalist doesn’t have editorial independence and financial independence, I can’t consider them to be independent media.”

(Stated at the 44:45 minute mark in this recording: https://rumble.com/v4g4vyx-government-overreach-and-propaganda-anita-krishna-and-mocha-bezirgan.html)

All are invited to “meet” these two very different yet equally excellent Canadian journalists by viewing the recording. Thanks to the organizers of the Peoples’ Town Hall in Lethbridge for giving these two dedicated journalists a voice. It is out of the insights gleaned from them that we were able to develop the graphic shared below. Mocha’s reference to so-called independent media outlets who, despite their name and despite their independence from government funding, specifically choose to amplify certain political/ideological viewpoints, indicated to me the need to differentiate between “nominally” independent vs “truly” independent media. Someone could possibly start working for/with/within what started an ‘independent’ media outlet but over time, for a host of reasons including overt political preferences, there is a lack of true independence. Too many factors can impede upon the ability to follow leads where they go, or to publish news in a truly unfettered manner.

So what terms can we use for those within the media community who do not truly enjoy editorial & financial independence? The opposite of FREE in this case could be DIRECTED - as in someone up the ladder overtly or covertly gives the journalist direction in some way re: which stories to address and which to omit… Which experts not to call, which aspects not to elucidate… Which political viewpoint not to critique… Which angles not to highlight… Which snippets to conveniently drop….OR the journalists themselves may have been conditioned into certain rigidly held positions that direct them away from the facts on the ground. This self-direction would also limit editorial independence.

Original Image Source

Perhaps the terms “free media” and “directed media” can one day gain traction!

Now, we should face the ethical requirement for media platforms to give equal weight to “a diversity of viewpoints”. Clearly, the government-funded, corporate backed ‘mainstream’ —> ‘directed’ media certainly are not doing that on matters of COVID or many other contentious issues of our day. So are we to expect that our ‘one-man/one-woman’ ‘free’ journalists strapped for time (and needing at least a bit of sleep) do what the big-wigs are not? Do we need them to purposely take the time to outline aspects of the ‘official narrative’ which is already receiving oodles of coverage elsewhere? Maybe the issue is less that a single platform or individual shares ‘both sides of the story’ as stated in Korybko’s definition of JOURNALIST. Maybe what is required is simply instead of censoring them, to give the small free broadcasters SUFFICIENT PROMINENCE WITHIN the overall media ecosystems so that on the whole, readers and viewers can be exposed to a rich diversity of viewpoints.

Maybe journalists working in directed (government and corporate backed) media outlets can quietly follow and learn from those working free of journalistic and financial restraints. Maybe they can possibly follow the lead of Chris George and many others, sharing their new insights via Substack as well!

Maybe people writing for some of our ‘left leaning’ media outlets can find common ground on matters of importance with writers on ‘right leaning’ outlets and jointly push for positive change, for example by highlighting to government policy makers the dangers of globalist overreach.

Maybe, instead of being apologists for past government policy, for example on COVID-19, members of the ‘left leaning’ media can come to realize that they themselves had their heightened sense of compassion weaponized by those handmaidens of BigCorps in charge of ‘nudging’ and propaganda. Maybe they can draw on their values of fairness and justice and join hands with those who were first to notice the injustice wreaked upon society due to the fascist (pro-BigCorp) pressures on our decision makers. Jointly we need to push governments for “truth and reconciliation” when it comes to COVID deaths due to failure to make effective non-vax treatment available, and C-19 mRNA injection caused deaths and disabilities, lockdown harms and more. Just like ‘left leaning’ journalists have long been passionate about other instances of oppression (child labour, child trafficking, unjust wars, injustices death to the poor, the weak, the outsiders not to mention environmental degradation, etc.) the world is waiting for their passion and compassion on these matters.

We all have different roles to play, as activists, amplifiers, analysts, journalists, questioners, or casual commentators. Perhaps this classification was helpful as we get to know the other players in Canada’s media ecosystem. Maybe the twin criteria of journalistic & financial independence also help us to be understanding of the realities in which others media creators find themselves. Maybe some need to agree to a degree of outside financial support in order to report on issues of importance, even if doing so clips their wings on a few other issues. Maybe they have already struggled with that chose and have been able to rationalize the result without compromising their ethics on most other matters.

And maybe those with the courage to take a stance for the truth and against lying by omission or by obfuscation of the truth will be inspired by others within this ecosystem who risked a lot to ask the hard questions. And who still suffer from the consequences.

And maybe we can all cross the big divide to work together to push for positive change.