Big bad Independent Group, and the organisation versus the individual

I’ve recently come across a blog called The Size Issue, subtitled Blog dedicated to Supersized Media and Independent Media’s Issue with Size.

As an employee of Independent Media with 2 working days left to go, now is a unique opportunity for me to respond 🙂 .

The blogger in question, Ethnopunk, or David Robert Lewis, seems to be a prolific writer, contributing to a Mail and Guardian blog, as well as seven blogs on Blogger. Shoo – we need more bloggers like this!

I’ve enjoyed reading The Size Issue, and he brings up a number of points, many of which I agree with, and most of which I don’t have time to respond to right now. But there are certain logical flaws. He claims that the Independent Media Group continues to downplay its involvement with the Apartheid Regime, citing this Cape Times story as evidence. He further claims that the liberal nazi media organisation, INDEPENDENT MEDIA continues to employ writers who collaborated with the apartheid arts and culture, supported seperate amenities, and to this day refuse to apologise for the rollout of whites only facilities and job reservation. Firstly, the Independent Group as it is now bought most of the South African media in 1994, so the current owners had little involvement with the apartheid regime. There’s a confusion rampant in criticism of large organisations whereby the individual is confused with the organisation. An organistion may have strong guiding principles, and a defining structure, which impacts on all the individuals in the organisation, but overlooking the differences and tensions within an organisation is sloppy. As an example, the media often splashes headlines saying something like ‘ANC slams X’. Meanwhile it’s a petty ANC official who suddenly is credited or burdened with representing the entire organisation. And of course the ‘slam’ is more often than not mild criticism. But it makes a good headline. In this case, the organistion is made accountable for certain of its employees unwillingness to apologise, and thus tarred with collaberation with the apartheid regime.

This kind of criticism undermines valid criticism. My reluctance to believe many conspiracy theories (I’m aware the term itself is already perjurative) comes from the fact that the arguments often credit an unreasonable amount of cohesion to a huge organisation. In my experience, large organistions human incompetence precludes the level of coordination needed to carry out most of the nefarious plans attributed to the body in question. I’ve seen censorship in action. The case stemmed from the ego of the manager involved, and not any plot to manufacture consent. However, the effect of manufactured consent comes from the structure, culture and size of the organisation, which is why I absolutely agree that large organisations most often stifle dissent. They usually don’t do it maliciously (or very effectively even if malicious), they do it structurally. For this reason I believe that misplaced attacks on an organisation, an attempt to break it down, without getting to the underlying causes of the reason for its existence, will be like peeing in the wind.

Large media comes into being because of economies of scale. Centralised journalists, and advertising, cross-selling and marketing, all mean that larger organisations tend to swallow smaller ones. More money, more reach, more efficiencies (which means less people being paid less money). The effects of this are more power for the owners and corporate backers, which in turn discourages dissenting views.

Tackling this is not easy. And as with so many similar struggles (the food industry, the environment etc), the engagement occurs on more than one front. Key for me is people’s consciousness. The awareness of these impacts, and the decision to change behaviour. To buy food from a local co-op, not a large supermarket. It’s not just looking out for your health, it also removes a tiny amount of power from the monolith. To search out and read blogs and websites exposing dissident views in addition to (or instead of) sterile mainstream media.

And secondly, to change the structures of the organisations to prevent similar concentrations of power. For example, legislation preventing media owners from owning more than a certain percentage of the media. Tax breaks for small-scale food producers.

To me, the first is far more important, as it’s a necessary requirement for the latter. And the structural changes are not going to sustain if the participants are not conscious enough to maintain them. Laws can easily be repealed if people are sleeping, too busy, or scared (look at the US). As so many have said, change yourself first. It really is the only way.