The establishment isn't out to get you, folks

Time to scrutinise and take conspiracy theories seriously (Image: Kellogg Insight - Northwestern University)

When it was announced Martin Tyler was to leave Sky Sports after 33 years as the chief football commentator, like Henry Winter of The Times, I thought it was a pity. He's a master of his craft, a sincere loss for the broadcaster. However, judging by the online reactions - which we should always take with a pinch of salt - Tyler's departure is only a good thing. He'd been accused of all sorts, mostly of being supposedly biased against all our favourite clubs (he's both pro and anti-Liverpool, apparently). Suddenly everyone's a mind reader and a body language expert as he doesn't express every goal, red card or corner kick with his famous enthusiastic tones. I mean, you don't expect a 77-year-old to sound the same as when that same person was 44, do you?

But, of course, Tyler dedicated his many years as one of football's greatest narrators hoping some teams would lose 7-0 every week. Many of you will know that this baseless and there's no evidence to suggest that he prefers certain clubs over others. While I won't go as far as saying that this is a conspiracy theory, it certainly has the whiffs of one. Online users spend too much of their day 'proving' of Tyler's supposed bias, convincing themselves that he's got it in for something they're passionate about. It's pretty relentless, and a daunting trend. It needs to be stopped once and for all.

Bizarrely, for the 13 years I've written on this blog, I've never addressed conspiracy theories directly, possibly because I've never given the ideas associated with them the light of day. I mean, why should I take seriously suggestions of links between Covid-19 and 5G, when it's based on nonsense? That was quickly dismissed by experts, but it hasn't stopped other rumours spreading about the pandemic, such as the vaccine being a 'killer'. While some people experienced rare adverse side effects, including heart inflammation (which could lead to things more tragic if someone had a heart condition - whether it was previously detected or not), this was always widely documented by healthcare experts, as in any medical procedure. The oversharing of speculations around this clouded the judgements of many who wanted to take more time in deciding whether to have it or not. False stories like these have consequences. 

Certainly, conspiracy theories and theorists have always been around, but were never in the mainstream and often dismissed as tosh. Today, social media is the mainstream and so public, with little scrutiny by authorities, these stories are spreading like wildfire and it's now often hard to distinguish what's real or fake, true or false, serious or a joke. It doesn't help when Twitter - the platform with arguably one of the highest number of theories shared - changes its settings whereby any Tom, Dick or Harry willing to spend a certain amount per month has a 'verified' blue tick, in place of genuine household names like so before. And of course, it isn't the celebrities who are buying their blue ticks back, but users who want to cough up wacky rumours and conclusions that blow things way out of proportion.

The main focus of these theories is to basically stick the middle finger up to 'the establishment', who are 'purposely covering up information', 'have an agenda', 'watching our every step' and are doing 'anything in their power to make our lives an absolute misery'. By 'the establishment', we mean any government or major corporation in health, media and finance - the places which are apparently unreachable and untouchable. And their arguments can be compelling, for example, you'll have disgruntled ex-staff members of these organisations that will want to make a stand. However, it's important to understand who these people are and the circumstances behind their departure from these places (accepting their side of the story with that very large pinch of salt I mentioned earlier).

Conspiracy theorists won't like it when I say what I'm about to say, but I feel it needs saying - 'the establishment' is important, and matter. Organisations and individuals associated with them are far from perfect, and they most definitely won't publicly reveal every piece of 'vital' information. Being 100% transparent is not only impossible, but also dangerous. When Julian Assange published Wikileaks in 2006 with that total transparency in mind, it posed greater risk to the world than it benefitted. It was important to know that the UK and US' invasion of Iraq was deemed illegal - but we knew that before his intervention. But we didn't need to know things like arch-nemeses bitching about each other privately, and then allowing these 'cover-ups' run free and analysed wildly in ways where these mentioned governments could use to threaten one another.

Believe it or not, 'the establishment' is run by everyday people, like you and me. If I focused hard enough and wanted to work for a government department or major pharmaceutical, then I could. And if I wanted to make a positive difference in that organisation, yes, there'd be obstacles and off-putting red tape along the way, but break down enough barriers and come up with logical arguments, then changes can be made. Being 'part of the establishment' isn't exclusive to so-called rich and privileged Oxford or Cambridge University graduates. These folks may be 'manufactured' in a way where they are raised by someone holding 'establishment' positions, but only in the same way as a butcher's son was to be 'manufactured' to run the butcher his father was running - keeping it in the family, as it were.

Also, 'the establishment's' organisations and individuals' main goal is to protect lives, through advancements of science and building progressive societies. They're not there to catch people out, for example. People who suggest that we're living in some George Orwell's '1984' madness, they're misguided. Certainly, we're seeing an increase in sophisticated surveillance, yet, can we not see that it's done to reduce the risk of serious crime and terrorism. Nobody wants to hear a story about an attack that ended lives and then security or health services saying they never anticipated an attack happening. And of course, such acts can be committed by anyone. CCHQ isn't listening to every conversation.

It's high time we put a stop to the notion that we're being personally targeted because 'greater powers want control'. Relative control, it may be, but none of it stops us from leading our everyday lives. The concept of 15-minute cities, for example, isn't new. But it doesn't mean that we can't leave the vicinity of our areas. Restrictions are bad economics, unless it meant a matter of life and death (like pandemics, and even then, they're temporary). Why would establishments want to jeopardise the economy when they know restrictions would make them worse off? The issue is really that councils want to talk about change all at once rather than going in stages. The way we commute and live is always evolving. Without it, we'd still be using horse and carriage to go from point A to B.

Let's not treat 'the establishment' as this untouchable or dodgy entity which only functions to do harm. And remember, conspiracy theorists thrive on fear, it's what pays their bills. Bowing to them will only make them richer and you worse off physically, emotionally and financially. I'd love to offer solutions in how to end this vicious cycle, but while governments dither about social media regulations, the change of attitude needs to be through personal choice. Lead your own path and conclude after looking at things from all angles, not the one that suits an agenda which makes you hate, angry and exhausted.