With Prof. Ryszard Stocki, author of the book “Incalculable Experiment. How to live wisely in the 21st century?” we are discussing the UNESCO study on media, which has sparked global controversy, we are looking for answers to the question "who are the media serving" and how to defend ourselves against media brainwashing?
(Interview is simply a edited and completed version of the podcast Are you aware? p. Media: How do they harm us and who do they serve? UNESCO Report of May 16, 2023).
Richard Stocki
Dr hab., psychologist, researcher, talker and consultant. He helped in almost all types of organisations to introduce participatory systems that let respect for the dignity of all man. Currently, the main subject of his investigation is the impact of organizational pathology on everyday life of people. As part of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Outgoing Fellowships programme, he conducted a three-year investigation task "Co-operative Isomorphism" in which he explored the impact of lifestyle changes on the resignation of cooperative values. He cooperates with the universities of Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, NS Canada, Mondragon University in Spain, with the Academy of Ignatian in Krakow, Pope John Paul II University. He late published the book: “An incalculable experiment. How to live wisely in the 21st century?”
Rafał Górski: Mr Professor, UNESCO, or the United Nations Organization for Education, discipline and Culture, published a media study in 1980. I first read about it in your book. You compose that this study was so controversial that the United States and the United Kingdom left UNESCO as a sign of protest. What caused specified controversy?
Prof. Ryszard Stocki: On the another hand, the conclusions which the authors of this study subsequently drew, and so that freedom of expression is not just a problem for any states, repressing and enslaving their citizens, but it is increasingly common for companies that, through technological advantage and force on journalists, can form a fictional image of the planet – this, in my opinion, was unacceptable [the US and the United Kingdom criticised the study due to the fact that they considered it an attack on freedom of the press—ed.]. Threatened to uncover a secret.
I think that due to this, any of the most crucial countries at the time, resigned from participation in UNESCO and as if they blackmailed – in fact it was blackmail – UNESCO. And they did that due to the fact that the proposals could negatively affect their budgets. And, unfortunately, UNESCO gave in to this blackmail after a fewer years. And indeed this study was hidden in a drawer.
I sometimes talk to medical experts and they don't really know about the existence of this report, that is, people who sit in the media don't know that specified a study was created. That means it's been successfully hidden. Now he's back available on the website.
In short, it turns out that citizens' independency and civilian liberties are not only dependent on the state, but they can besides depend on the media.
What made you most impressed erstwhile you read this report?
For decades I worked as an advisor to various companies, including large global corporations. The study made it even more clear to me that access to technology – the largest, most important, most fresh – is not a state, but companies and they have an advantage over all citizens, all grey bread eaters.
The advantage is that these companies, having a fresh technological thought before introducing it, can prepare a full promotional run that will pave the way for him. And we as citizens are fundamentally helpless. Large, rich companies by accessing the latest technology gain an advantage in all aspects, so they can influence people and break civilian liberties. And that's most likely what impressed me the most.
And why is it worth it, Do you think we should talk about this study today? It's been over forty years.
Firstly, due to the composition of this committee. From specified more celebrated names I will mention only Gabriel Garcíe Márquez from Colombia (unfortunately later very ill) and Marshall McLuhan, who despite the invitation, could not participate due to illness. However, his additions are visible in the reports. There was besides 1 of the founders of “Le Monde” [Hubert Beuve-Méry – ed]. So people truly conscious, specified a journalistic-intellectual elite of those times. If specified people, who know the subject well, delicate to what is happening in the world, are saying something, I think it's good to perceive to them. And this was confirmed by a protest by the United Kingdom and the United States.
And after those forty years, I personally don't talk about media influence anymore. That's passé. In those days, forty years ago, we could talk about media influence. present we can talk about media reality or if individual prefers virtual reality. Certain patterns of reasoning are already in the minds of the young rooms and consequence in behaviors that for the older generation are incomprehensible.
Two weeks ago [in May 2023 – ed.] we started at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow the toxicology of social space. I think we're on a level right now that we're beginning to be able to talk about the death victims of media influence. Of course, it is crucial to realise that the average is the relay itself, while “toxin producers” are frequently outside the media.
However, it is the media who decide how the subject is shown. And it's very crucial to analyse it very strongly, to keep your hand on the pulse and to prove their negative impact and the relation between the origin and the effect of any event. There are no accidents here. It's not just a coincidence in time.
To whom, Professor, do the media service today? Who has power in the media sector? You compose about it in your book.
If you answer very simply and quickly, then of course the media serves those who make more money easier. And making money is not bad, we yet have free competition.
But the communicative of the alleged coronavirus pandemic has shown that that's not the only thing. Today, I think there is no uncertainty that what was done during the pandemic was primarily a media action. Give information each day on how many infections and diseases there have been, and make anxiety at the complete approval of advanced medical committees.
Clearly, it was about individual losing and individual making money. I have come to the conclusion that they are winning in this competition (also in the media) those who can intimidate more. And I believe that there is no better “terrorist” than the 1 associated with our wellness and life. And that's what their advantage is over another companies that would besides want to earn, but they don't mention to the basic needs of survival, wellness and so on.
People utilized to be afraid of God and so believed. Now they're not afraid. Since they are not afraid, for example, spiritual content does not penetrate people. Although, so rationally speaking, even by walking through Pascal's thought, the hazard of losing eternity is worth any sacrifice, given all the accounts of probability—whether God exists or does not exist, it is better to behave as if he exists. But that is something that people do not take into account, precisely due to the fact that their attention has been directed towards those sectors that let for a better scare. And again, those who can scare well are the ones who benefit most.
You mentioned the large Pharma sector – I realize that those who scare us well are besides a military-industrial complex?
Of course, the military-industrial sector besides scares and wants to make as much money as possible, and sometimes the same company sells arms to both parties to the conflict.
I mention this due to the fact that I think that from the propaganda phase of large Pharma's threatening, we've fallen into the propaganda phase of large military corporations and manufacture producing materials for the military. That's from the rain to the gutter.
Mr. Professor, you mentioned the Hollywood theme. How does Hollywood work?
One would gotta start with the fact that Hollywood sells a completely mythical lifestyle, that is, 1 that does not exist, due to the fact that – apart from the characters of films – no 1 leads specified a lifestyle, including movie stars. This is what I mention at the beginning of the chapter on media, describing the communicative of a Hollywood nanny who reveals his secrets. It's a lifestyle that suits those who make money to make our lives as sick as possible.
I have specified a acquainted economist who says that erstwhile you look at the past of the world, it is, unfortunately, the best selling of 7 major sins. You can make money from gluttony and drunkenness. There are the top gains, where there are weaknesses that man can barely control. Hollywood is specified a device to sale 7 major sins.
When I compare statistic on drunkenness in the United States, it is now bigger than before the Prohibition. And Prohibition was the minute erstwhile it was believed that the United States was already so drunk that it was essential to halt selling alcohol.
And Hollywood's client in this respect are besides those large companies that make money off these Hollywood sins. Let me give you an example: there is simply a planned parenthood foundation, which is most likely the largest supplier in the United States for abortion. He has his typical in Hollywood who reviews all the scenarios of the recently created films in terms of whether abortion is well portrayed in them.
The paradox is that movie producers are grateful that individual can advise them here [laughs]. They're going into it and they're listening to the exact guidelines that the movie is expected to follow. It can be assumed that another sectors besides have representatives there.
Why is Planned Parenthood so afraid about abortion? due to the fact that abortions are needed, and we already know for sure, for an incredibly large amount of technological research, pharmaceutical production, drug investigating [tissues and embryonic or foetal cells can be used, for example, for genetic analysis, investigation of human development, knowing of genetic diseases, as well as investigating of fresh drugs – ed.]. This is an manufacture that's hard to stop. 1 business is linked to another and generally, a circumstantial lifestyle that promotes Hollywood, allows many industries to operate and operate.
What do the most celebrated American whistleblowers gotta do with the UNESCO report?
I think this study was specified a signal report. It concerns showing the fact which is rejected by society. Like the fact that we are or can be eavesdropped or that cigarettes are poisonous and we are deliberately addicted to them. There's more. We are already receiving signals about, for example, the functioning of the food manufacture and how food is produced, besides in Poland.
I think the signalists are trying to break this media “neomarksist” communicative that we are trying to sell. And I think the signalers around the planet are breaking those basic myths that we believe in, incredible at their expense. In fact, everyone who revealed themselves ended up badly. Only those who remained anonymous were saved.
I was very impressed by that book you wrote. besides in the context that the Institute of civilian Affairs has been addressing the issue of signalers in Poland for any time. In the Week of civilian Affairs, we published respective interviews, including with the signalers, who had a terrible fate. We have been waiting for the Act on Signallers in Poland for a year and a half. Although its implementation time (the Signalling Directive) expired on 1 January 2022, it was not passed. This raises many challenges.
This list, which you presented in the book, made me even more aware of how hard it would be for signalers in Poland to change anything, with this level of media and legal protection. People will wonder many times before they uncover anything.
Yeah, yeah, that's a large risk.
How do you defend yourself against media brainwashing?
This is simply a question to which there are 2 basic answers, and unfortunately I am in favour of the latter, which is little popular.
Namely, the first is to introduce compulsory media education in schools, which is to show how the media lie. I don't think that's a good solution. Why? due to the fact that to catch individual in a lie, you request to know what the fact is. What does media education do? Media education says, "Be careful due to the fact that the media is lying." Okay, but erstwhile do they lie? How do they lie? Now are they lying or not lying?
And knowing they're lying, what can we do about it?
Therefore, in my view, the best media education is good education, that is, 1 that is independent of all possible interest groups that we have talked about. due to the fact that Hollywood besides goes into our universities and tries to change the way we look at reality.
After all, professors who sat on various councils spoke in the media, and five, 10 years ago they had completely different views, changed them under the influence of various grants they received.
Therefore, in my opinion, the best way to do this is to tell the truth, due to the fact that only knowing the truth, I am able to catch individual in a lie. And if I catch him once, the second and third, I will halt believing him – and that's actually the point. I've been looking for a psychic for years to tell the truth. I haven't been able to find 1 yet. I have my favorite, but I know they're not going to compose anything, they're not going to say anything, due to the fact that they're besides getting influenced. It's mostly about financial influence.
The media mostly depends on their leaders, not on people who perceive to them. With this kind of media funding, we're doomed that, in fact, without readers and listeners, the media could handle it calmly, due to the fact that they're paid to advertise so that they just let go of something that people want to watch. It could be anything.
Someone made specified an analysis – which will be more profitable: keeping a abroad correspondent in Africa or somewhere in the mediate East who will study on what is happening there, or a good paparazzi who will compose about any Hollywood movie star or scandal? And it turns out that we, as a recipient, are more willing to watch this Hollywood news than Africa. So why keep those correspondents? It's not going to pay off financially. And it happens that now all those correspondents are coming back to the country, and shortly we won't really know where the planet is. We'll just know what's going on in the bedrooms of the individual stars.
Thank you for talking to me.
