This show is brave

What I say may be premature, since I've only watched episode 1. However, this show is very brave to suggest that media is institutionally censored, even if there are little or no legal grounds for censorship (i.e. we live in a democracy).

Freddie, for instance, is a truth-seeking journalist who is shut out of the media establishment because his writings are not politically correct; his superiors are worried about upsetting people.

The media, of course, works this way all the time (anyone with experience in media knows this). This is due to four reasons, which have been discussed at length by scholars like Ed Herman:

1. Organisation: media is often controlled by elite boards of directors, drawn from limited backgrounds (law, finance, former government officials, etc.).

2. Advertising/sponsorship: this is obvious. May not apply to the BBC directly, but perhaps indirectly through its World Service.

3. Sourcing: it is too expensive to go around digging for the truth all the time, so the media lazily reports press releases put out by powerful organisations like Downing Street.

4. Flak: if you do release unflattering truths, then powerful organisations can threaten to sue you, or will fund think tank research showing you are incorrect. They can also suggest legislation, file cease-and-desists, and engage in a number of other bullying tactics.


It seems that these four filters operate quite effectively in "The Hour" to prevent honest reporting.