Fifth-Estate-Online is an international, interactive on-line journal of radical media thinking and critical practice. It is a forum for all those who are deeply concerned about the historical and current role and power of the mass media in society.

Fifth-Estate-Online is based on the understanding that the mass media have, over the last 150 years, systematically failed to act as the critical 'fourth estate' that they have pretended to be. Instead they have consistently represented the interests of, and functioned as an integral component of the elites controlling society and determining policy.

Radical Mass Media Criticism (RMMC) has a fine history. From the later decades of the nineteenth century, throughout the twentieth century, and up to the present, social critics and cultural analysts from Tönnies, Tarde and Kraus to Herman, Chomsky and McChesney have formulated fundamental critiques of the powerful social and political role played by the mass media. Their work represents a strong and continuous tradition of socio-cultural resistance in Europe, America and elsewhere.

Yet knowledge of this tradition is rare and incomplete, and its significance, substance and implications have been neglected or shunned by mainstream historians, social scientists and media/cultural studies specialists, as well as by the media professions.

The history of RMMC, of opposition to mass media power and of the role of the mass media in the historical process is thus only starting to be written. Public mistrust of the mass media exists and is increasing, but it remains unfocused and detached from its history and revolutionary implications. There is thus a mass of material to be uncovered and published, and the issue of how best to weave it into a coherent narrative linked to real social change is up for debate.

Why is it important?

Because necessary systemic change cannot come about effectively in a conceptual vacuum, it needs to take place on the basis of a coherent understanding of what has to be changed, why and how. In order to be reversed, a negative historical situation has to be widely perceived and grasped, and a positive alternative, based on historical perspective, has to be formulated and scrutinised in the public sphere. Some partial accounts and anthologies have been published, but we are still a long way from a definitive account.

We welcome contributions to practical media analysis in a contemporary and historical context. If you are interested in Radical Mass Media Criticism (RMMC) this site is one to stay in contact with.

Paintings of Gaza Demonstrations in Dublin

February 2009

By Caoimhghin O Croidheain

Just a thought ...

Iran: Is it that complex?

July 2009

‘Did you hear about a man?
Used to live out in Iran
He was luxury’s greatest fan
People ate out of his hand …
Then a priest in Paris France
Made the people get up and da da dance
Sold cassettes for 60p
Said he’d set the people free
We shall see, we shall see
Shah Shah a go go … .’

These lyrics from the British band The Stranglers, song titled ‘Shah Shah a go go’ in 1979 documented the rule and eventual collapse of the British and American backed Shah of Iran and the subsequent emergence of the Islamic leader, Ayatollah Khomeini in what became known as the Iranian Revolution. There are many lessons from history involving colonial and/or imperial control, intervention or plainly put, external meddling in another country’s affairs, and Iran has its own distinct story to tell.

Simon Tisdall writing in the Guardian (Wednesday June 17th 2009) headlined ‘Tehran’s fear of foreign plotters may be justified’ should have inserted ‘is’ over ‘may’ because the history of Iran, previously known as Persia, with geographical differences, is a country whose cultural identity is, like many others, a creation against invasion and a defence of institutional cultural forms created out of previous invasions. For instance, Islam is a foreign import; the process known as Islamization was a creation of invasion replacing the old Persian Zoroastrian religion during the during the 8th – 11th century, as is Buddhism, which was brutally reinforced by Mongol invaders during the 13th century. The dominance today of the Shia form of Islam was itself a consequence of violent internal struggle over religious hegemony. Sunnism (Sunni) was once the dominant religious form, and during the Safavid period (16th – 18th century) most Shia scripts were written not in Iran but in Iraq, although they were eventually moved to Iran and the Safavids were themselves a blend of Kurdish and Azeri people. Despite the conquest of Islam, Persian remains the mother tongue of modern-day Iran highlighting both cultural adoption and continuance, which is a blend of forms harvested by Iranian people.

More recent and influential interventions include British involvement in Iranian affairs, whereby the British forced Reza Shah Pahlavi from office and eventually installing his son, one Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah referred to in the Stranglers lyrics above. Both the American and British intelligence services plotted against Mohammed Mossaddeq for having the temerity to attempt to nationalise the British owned oil industry, which eventually established autocratic rule under the US and UK backed Shah of Iran. The British had discovered oil in Iran in 1908 eventually establishing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which today has a more familiar name, BP.

To a large extent, the possibility that Iran may develop nuclear weapons should be seen partly in this historical context. Despite President Obama’s less vitriolic statements recently, Iran remains suspicious of outside interference, including both secret service exploits and the future possibility of a military attack. The other reason for developing nuclear weapons would be based on parity and balance within the region. Israel has nuclear weapons, so too does Pakistan (a US ally of sorts) and the US have a strong presence and influence in neighbouring Iraq; the country the US and other western nations sponsored and supported in its war against Iran beginning in 1980 and ending in 1988. Western forces backed Saddam Hussein, the dictator used as justification for the US-UK invasion of Iraq; Rumsfeld had shaken Hussein’s hand in 1983.  

Tisdall also stated that: ‘Long-term instability in Iran is an alarming prospect for western countries keen to resolve disputes over the country’s nuclear programme and other contentious issues.’ It’s worth bearing in mind that the existence of nuclear weapons in the US, UK, France, Israel, Russia etc. etc., are also of great concern, and it’s also worth bearing in mind that to date only the US have actually used nuclear bombs in Japan 1945. There are of course ‘other contentious issues’ in Iran, so too elsewhere…where do we begin? This type of moralising, passed off as journalism, is sickening, surely the issue to resolve is removing nuclear weapons in universal terms, but if the US, UK and others are reluctant to initiate proceedings to that effect then fairness in the balance of arms seems to be the only viable option, or at least an understanding of Iranian rationale and justification for the development of a nuclear weapons.

Even if Mir Hossein Mousavi were to be elected, this would not impact upon Iran’s nuclear programme. The public fight between President Ahmadinejad (above) and Mousavi is simply a manifestation of the more private dispute between the Supreme Leader, Ali Khameni, who supports the President, and Khameni’s opponent, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who supports Mousavi.

It’s worth mentioning that Rafsanjani is an extremely wealthy individual (so was the Shah). The issue of wealth disparity is an issue for many Iranians who see Rafsanjani not only as corrupt but also as a part of a very powerful political and economic elite who wish to preserve their wealth and status.
 
On the other hand Ahmadinejad has the support of a large section of the Iranian working class. This doesn’t mean that criticism of him should be abandoned, but it highlights that class is fundamental to the Iranian issue … post-modernists, post-structuralists may wish to take note of that fact.   

Iran is certainly complex and from a purely academic perspective, Iran is equally a fascinating society to comment on, but it shares one thing in common with many other countries; power is in the hands of a political class; wealth is concentrated amongst the few. Perhaps, then, other issues aside, the President could propose even more radical policies than the development of nuclear weapons … a greater re-distribution of wealth or even place the means of production in the hands of the workers … just a thought!