Our job is to discredit media lies, not ban them


Conservatism is experiencing a renaissance. A renaissance brought about through populist policies following decades of forced liberalisation of our Western societies by progressive elites.

After the watershed political year of 2016, the right is increasingly buoyant that the tide of liberal-controlled politics, education and media can slowly be halted and reversed by democratic means. We at Shy Society represent the silent majority which day-by-day is finding its voice and leading this important fightback. We advocate the nation state which controls its own affairs, borders and identity. We stand for true liberal values, for democracy and for patriotism while standing against cultural Marxism, progressive liberalism and corrupt globalist politics as they stand today.

Why are we reiterating what we stand for? Because, despite the above, we feel strongly that a good friend is someone who tells you the truth even when you don’t want to hear it. We are unafraid of standing up and standing out even if those on our side don’t always agree. For we are fearful that many on the right are in danger of becoming as hypocritical as those we are united against.

French writer and philosopher Voltaire once said: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” And that is why it is so perplexing and frustrating to see people who campaigned so heavily for things like Brexit on the back of a ‘restoring democracy’ message now also applauding the Trump administration for allegedly restricting a string of major news organisations from attending an on-the-record press briefing at the White House. Do people not see the double standards here? The cornerstone of a true democracy is one which operates in accordance with a free Press, no matter how biased you may consider them to be.

We predicted Trump’s historic win and have defended him countless times during his first few weeks in the Oval office. We applaud his general stance on mainstream media and the shock he is causing among the political establishment. But let’s not blindly support something which is quite clearly wrong: The decision to bar certain media organisations from entering the briefing, which led to others then abstaining in protest, is not a good thing for democracy, the American constitution, or those of us fighting the liberal elites. Unless of course you want to live under a dictatorship.censorship-oped-1215

Some of the most high-profile figures on the political right have hailed this development with comments such as “serves them right” and “it’s nice to see someone standing up to the Press” but these responses show a wilful neglect of the seriousness of the situation. After all, during a panel discussion in December it was White House press secretary Sean Spicer who actually said that open access for the media is “what makes a democracy a democracy versus a dictatorship.” He was right – and our political friends need to remember that without letting their sheer hatred for the mainstream media overcome them. It is then that we lose all sense of reality.

It is precisely because the mainstream media is increasingly being shown up for its agenda-driven fake news and biased reporting, that many swing voters have been persuaded to back Brexit and Trump at the ballot box. The more they lie, as infuriating as it can be, the more people join our cause. Those swing voters are not going to stay in our camp if we start advocating the restriction of free speech and a free Press like the very people we are fighting against.

Remember when we mocked Ewan McGregor for cancelling an interview with Piers Morgan just because he didn’t agree with his politics? Remember getting angry with people attempting to put UK newspapers out-of-business through their ‘stop funding hate’ campaign? Or what about when liberals tried to ban Trump from visiting the UK on a state visit? We cannot possibly retain the moral high ground on issues like these, if in the same breath we support any kind of Government restrictions on media organisations – friends or foes.

Organisations like the BBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Guardian and Buzzfeed are already coming under greater scrutiny than ever before. Many still subscribe to their worldview but an increasing number don’t. Our job is not to restrict their voice through undemocratic means, but to continue discrediting the lies and distortions they portray. At the moment we are still winning the argument. But advocating censorship will only lose us the argument and we, for one, stand against any attempts to do so.

Shy Society.
Standing up for those without a voice in Britain


  1. I think that you have assessed the situation incorrectly. What is happening in the USA is not censorship – it is simply cutting out the dead wood that POTUS considers fake news purveyors and distortion-mongers; he is in a position to know who they are – we are not. Those media outlets who are being denied access to the news conferences are not being denied access to the news (and neither are we) – they are merely having their job made more difficult. Those affected can learn the ‘news’ from their colleagues who are ‘approved’ and then they can continue (unfortunately) as before. We don’t go to the conferences, we learn what’s happened from those who did. The current position with those who have been discredited is no different from the public. Let the offenders prove their worthiness.

    • I’m sorry we completely disagree. Someone POTUS considers to be “fake news” is an entirely subjective opinion and therefore by making restrictions he is doing so according to his own narrative. A journalists basic right of attending a press briefing with other journalists should not be restricted – ask yourself, what is the possible benefit of doing so? If the organisations you/we don’t like continue to distort things, continue to highlight their lies. It’s a tactic which has worked so far as it has propelled him into the White House.

      Objectively speaking, all media organisations have some kind of narrative and occasionally/frequently distort things. It’s impossible to argue otherwise. So why should some be excluded and others included? It is a dangerous precedent to set. Whether you disagree with Democrats/liberals with all your might, like we certainly do, you cannot in all seriousness justify denying journalists from their side the basic right of asking the president questions. “Cutting out the deadwood” might not seem like censorship to you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not censorship…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here