The freedom of press and disinformation in the media

Question: The media are considered the fourth power after the legislative, executive and judicial branches. In democracies, they must be independent. Unfortunately, in many countries, the media are owned either by the state or by private companies and the information that is presented sometimes are very biased, either in the interests of a particular state or in the interests of a private company, financial or political groups. Legislative restrictions on false defamatory untruthful content are often banned for the same, sometimes declared, independence or the media. What can be the solution to the problem? Would it be correct for a legislature to impose stricter rules on media content?


Answer from the Ascended Master Saint Germain through Kim Michaels. This answer was given during the 2021 Webinar for Russia  – Overcoming the consciousness of superiority and the sense of being unwhole, traumatized and focused outside oneself.

Well, we have commented on this before in various ways, including during the Christhood conference, but nevertheless, this is a complex issue.

It is a challenge for all modern nations to deal with this and the reason why it is a challenge is, of course, because the internet makes it possible to promote any kind of ideas, beliefs or claims. This is, of course, a great advantage in the overall perspective, because it makes it more easy to disseminate knowledge, including ascended masters teachings, which, of course, would have no chance in the mainstream media or the mainstream publishing industry.

You need to simply accept that you cannot give freedom without giving people the opportunity to misuse and abuse freedom. It is clear that in the recent years, the amount of disinformation that is deliberately being spread on the internet has reached a certain level where even democratic nations find that they cannot just ignore it and allow complete freedom of the media.

That is why some nations have defined the concept of hate speech, where you are deliberately encouraging, for example, violence against a particular group of people, and some restrictions have been made on this. You can see how, after the United States election, Facebook and other platforms felt it necessary to limit the content that could be posted on there and even limit what people could post.

It is clear that this is one of the challenges that are simply part of the continued growth in freedom and opportunity. With freedom, of course, comes, as Portia talked about, this fear of failure, this fear of all the opportunities you could have. There will always be some people who will say: “But look, what does freedom of the media and the internet has brought us? Disinformation is spread, we need to stop this, we need to restrict this. And who is going to do it? Well, the state needs to do it.”

I am not saying that states cannot do this. But you need to recognize here that before you had democratic nations, you had a very restricted press. It was either restricted by a religion such as the Catholic church or by the state. As part of the creation of democracy, you gave complete freedom of the press.

Now, of course, there was never complete freedom, because it quickly emerged that there were, instead of many small, independent newspapers, bigger and bigger media conglomerates started emerging and they often had a certain political agenda. You have had, for example, in many countries where each political party would have their own newspaper that would publish things from their perspective and so you have never actually had total freedom of the press.

Except you could say that with the advent of the internet, you have the freedom that anybody can publish anything they want and people did have the freedom to choose what they study, what they take in.

You recognize that if a state starts restricting freedom of the press, I am not saying it should not be done to some degree, but you need to realize that you are immediately placing yourself on a slippery slope that can lead to greater and greater control of the media, and where does it end? It ends in the scenario described in the book 1984, where you have complete control of information as you had to a large degree in the Soviet Union.

You always have these two opposing polarities, the total control, the total unrestricted dissemination of information, and disinformation. What is the solution?

The only real solution is the raising of the consciousness so that people acquire Christ discernment and can tell simply by vibration, or in other ways as well, what is valid information and what is not. This is part of why we gave the Christ discernment seminar to those of you who are ascended masters students can increase your discernment.

The way I look at this is that what is happening is simply part of the inevitable growth process, where you have certain phases, where there is a certain turmoil, there is a certain chaos, there is a certain uncertainty because there is a contrast between false information and true information. It becomes for a time more difficult to tell the difference between the two, but it is precisely in wrestling with telling the difference, that people grow in awareness and grow in discernment.

The real solution is the raising of the discernment of the people. Can the state produce this? To some degree, they could through education, but they cannot produce it through censorship and control. Again, I am not saying that states should not restrict hate speech, for example, or deliberate lies that are spread, but on the other hand, you also need to say that a lie can be counteracted by stating the facts. And then you must allow people to believe what they want to believe and reap the consequences of it. This is, again, the outplaying of free will.

Now I realize very well that this can be taken to quite extreme positions, and I am not saying that countries cannot take measures to prevent things from going too far. Many countries, democratic nations, for example, looked at the recent election in the United States and realized that their countries could potentially be vulnerable to someone who was in a position to deliberately spread disinformation and distrust in the political system.

They have started deliberating on what they could do in their countries to prevent such a situation, and it is valid to deliberate this. I am not saying there is only one solution. It is something that each country must wrestle with on an individual basis. I am not saying either, that nations could not look at the situation of the media in their country and say that certain media outlets have become too big, they have become taken over by clearly political interests, and they must provide some kind of alternative.  As we have said before, it can be legitimate to limit the size of corporations, especially multinational corporations.

There are many measures that need to be debated about this field, but it is not so there is only one possible solution except, of course, for the raising of consciousness so that the people have enough Christ discernment that the media cannot manipulate them.

 

Copyright © 2021 Kim Michaels