My OperaOn media self- censorship over the last couple of years
Friday, May 30, 2008 9:36:40 PM
(or, why I'm not a conspiracy- loon).
This piece by Dan Froomkin sums some of it up. In the aftermath of Scott McClellan's book, which ironically was what was necessary to inject any of this into the public domain.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00255
As Froomkin says - it's not a debate here. The premises for a debate do simply not exist; that was, and is, the problem.
Also, be sure not to miss Glenn Greenwald's interview with Jeff Cohen, former producer of the Phil Donahue show (that was canceled, as internal MSNBC memos demonstrated, because it was not inherently deferential enough to the Bush- adminstration).
What's missing here is naturally why no one pushed against this. Or why it was possible for a collective cadre of newspeople to silently accept their "instructions" from the top level. Because that goes to the heart of what journalism in the US has been for very long - basically split between the narrative style that may or may not be influenced by personal bias. And between those who, like Bill Donahue, would aggressively challenge war opponents on the air. But nowhere in that equation does there exist a market for those who read and disseminate reports and facts, and then presents them. That business, for obvious reasons, has dried out. And as a result, anyone who actually wants to can find out - because they just don't hide the information. Which, from politicians to right- wing hack jobs working as media critiques, is a gentle excuse for simply doing everything they can to avoid reporting on it.
As hilzoy over at obsidianwings had to fall back to, when I wondered out loud "why does it work" when it came to eating up the government narratives like this - "it has something to do with an undereducated population".
And I think that's right. Only historyless morons can possibly start getting infatuated with leaders who show clear signs of Napoleon- complexes, and then start to seriously believe they are only "spreading democracy" and all things good on the barrel of a gun. But it's a truth with modifications - in China, well educated people still believe they are rescuing Tibet from the middle ages, for example, for approximately the same reasons.
And I can tell you from experience that these are not just undereducated people (although they are that), they are simply well- educated people who believe, from the bottom of their hearts, that their brand of fascism will work. And in a context where those beliefs are not challenged - but actively encouraged - I can promise you that anyone will be transformed into a mindless sychophant very quickly.
And just as Jeff Cohen struggles with putting his finger on just where things went wrong - and just as Chinese students struggle with in what form the CCCPC narrative really ends - the border where belief in ideology, and between complete and blind worship - it's just not an easy question.
Because the border is not an artificial one you can make up in your mind, and then walk on like a tightrope. I mean - that is the temptation: to see order and balance in practical matters - where none exist.
This piece by Dan Froomkin sums some of it up. In the aftermath of Scott McClellan's book, which ironically was what was necessary to inject any of this into the public domain.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00255
The blistering critique of an overly credulous press corps by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan in his new book has reignited a debate over the performance of mainstream journalists during the run-up to war in Iraq. But it’s really not a debate at all.
As Froomkin says - it's not a debate here. The premises for a debate do simply not exist; that was, and is, the problem.
Also, be sure not to miss Glenn Greenwald's interview with Jeff Cohen, former producer of the Phil Donahue show (that was canceled, as internal MSNBC memos demonstrated, because it was not inherently deferential enough to the Bush- adminstration).
What's missing here is naturally why no one pushed against this. Or why it was possible for a collective cadre of newspeople to silently accept their "instructions" from the top level. Because that goes to the heart of what journalism in the US has been for very long - basically split between the narrative style that may or may not be influenced by personal bias. And between those who, like Bill Donahue, would aggressively challenge war opponents on the air. But nowhere in that equation does there exist a market for those who read and disseminate reports and facts, and then presents them. That business, for obvious reasons, has dried out. And as a result, anyone who actually wants to can find out - because they just don't hide the information. Which, from politicians to right- wing hack jobs working as media critiques, is a gentle excuse for simply doing everything they can to avoid reporting on it.
As hilzoy over at obsidianwings had to fall back to, when I wondered out loud "why does it work" when it came to eating up the government narratives like this - "it has something to do with an undereducated population".
And I think that's right. Only historyless morons can possibly start getting infatuated with leaders who show clear signs of Napoleon- complexes, and then start to seriously believe they are only "spreading democracy" and all things good on the barrel of a gun. But it's a truth with modifications - in China, well educated people still believe they are rescuing Tibet from the middle ages, for example, for approximately the same reasons.
And I can tell you from experience that these are not just undereducated people (although they are that), they are simply well- educated people who believe, from the bottom of their hearts, that their brand of fascism will work. And in a context where those beliefs are not challenged - but actively encouraged - I can promise you that anyone will be transformed into a mindless sychophant very quickly.
And just as Jeff Cohen struggles with putting his finger on just where things went wrong - and just as Chinese students struggle with in what form the CCCPC narrative really ends - the border where belief in ideology, and between complete and blind worship - it's just not an easy question.
Because the border is not an artificial one you can make up in your mind, and then walk on like a tightrope. I mean - that is the temptation: to see order and balance in practical matters - where none exist.
