Reflecting on the Christchurch Call

Full text of the Christchurch Call, including signatories, is available here:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-05-2019/the-christchurch-call-full-text/

If you have been dwelling on the bottom pages of the internet you may have stumbled upon shock gifs, pictures or videos. This particular media is displayed with the intent of shocking the viewer as that would not be published in everyday news. As one of my history teachers used to say back in middle school: monkey see, monkey do. These images are censored from the public as releasing them could only lead to one thing: trouble. That tells all there is to know of the posters intent.

With that in mind I'd like to apply the same reasoning to some content that is similar but wasn't properly presented until now. I'm speaking of how reporting has been done regarding terror events in the past decades. Hit them with fear then load a political message, works every time. It goes this way: shocking images to... well, shock viewers. Then a concerned news anchor not sure of how or why it happened, whatever let's read the teleprompter and look concerned (who wrote that anyway?). This is usually followed by an "expert" interview who insists on how essential it is that the US and NATO allies maintain a presence in a place that has oil against dangerous armed groups who could threaten America & allies. What I'd like to point out is how we can't seem to stop the financing of these groups and how they keep having money and people to join their cause. If these guys are bad shouldn't a budget over half a trillion dollar every year be somewhat capable of dealing with a bunch of beard aficionados in rags? Ah some more money is needed to defeat them for some reason...

While questionably effective against a bunch of elusive bearded men, this kind of rhetoric was very successful in keeping the DoD budget growing year after year. Nevermind the consequences this whole narrative had on young men of Arab descent living in the west. You guessed it: some became radicalized, thanks to devoted and forward-looking news stations that ignored they were a part of their audience. Half-baked pro-republican twitter accounts kept posting videos of any brown guy doing something bad in an effort to switch a few democrats in the process. It's all good when it reaches its targeted audience but when it doesn't, you need to pull the plug out of safety concerns. That's what this is about: damage control. You'll definitely see RT and the like express discontent and point towards an erosion of free speech as a result of the Christchurch Call: genuine hatred and distrust in Western media and political institutions is good for them. To be honest Eastern news agencies are decades ahead when it comes to setting up a positive news coverage over world events. One that doesn't result in more violence from viewers. They even have a fair amount of Arab news anchors an journalists, something of a rarity when it comes to Western news. But that pales in comparison of what the West has to offer: the ability to lead the world. The Christchurch Call is a template used to keep the current Western narrative capable of justifying an ongoing defense spending without prejudice to its self-perpetuating electoral process. This should result in reduced voter polarization and hopefully a more civil public discourse around the elections, while making press coverage less likely to radicalize young men of all stripes.

One last point concerns the signatories. Governments now recognize that their existence requires partnership and cooperation with the social media sector. That's a milestone because half of the 8 corporate signatories employ a significant number of section 8200 graduates. Best of the best. This alone speaks volumes about who has been trusted to control the narrative from now on - and what their capabilities are when the crowd realizes. Who's the good guy, who's the bad guy, they'll be the ones to say.