..out of the dark

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301108.html

Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of the administration's "rush to war," with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.

And here is Dan Froomkin, On Calling Bullshit:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/blog/?p=53

I’m not sure why calling bullshit has gone out of vogue in so many newsrooms — why, in fact, it’s so often consciously avoided. There are lots of possible reasons. There’s the increased corporate stultification of our industry, to the point where rocking the boat is seen as threatening rather than invigorating. There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.

And how can I possibly ignore any number of journalists lately, woefully lamenting their falling sales- figures and disgruntled reader- population, desperately searching for a balanced approach to find the "problem".

Indeed, I call bullshit. The problem is, to follow the thread from the last post, not a fantastic lack of stupid idiots who will gobble up anything served to them. Look at FOX news - their sales- figures are excellent. Their ratings are excellent and stable - it sells to offer braindead crap, and what kind of retard needs to be reminded of that? Look at the number of partisan blogs out there, who have dedicated followings. Indeed, crack sells to braindead idiots too, at great profit and with a rapidly increasing market. At least until they try to torch themselves and jump from roofs because their lives become too steep, etc.

And in an attempt to offer, as the so- called mainstream media has been trying to: a balanced approach to denouncing bullshit - it has alienated the stupid idiots, the ones who only want to hear what they already know. And they have alienated those others who expect the media to do their job. Namely: inform us about things.

The reason why this crops up as a problem now, however, and the reason it could not be discussed openly until this very late hour, is as profound as the reason why it could go on for such a long time. And as Froomkin points out, there are many possible explanations.


One explanation is how the style of ordinary US journalism is one that can be summed up as the "running narratives". It does not directly reference events and statements, it never captures a particular event and obvious context - indeed, the reporting revolves around a curious brand of authority and opinion mixed up in unknown facts, that is only sustained by trust and the reporter's "credibility". Something that frequently makes subversive reporting a target for complete off- the issue personal attacks.

For instance, even as certain intrepid journalists are crushing this form of journalism and condemn to heck any journalist falling for the temptation to report slightly uncertain details as if they were completily true - the readers applaud this reporting - the continuing running commentary - as greatness, reading it not with the expectation of becoming informed, but with the expectation of a spiritual revelation at the end.

And truly, failing to satisfy this common urge on the part of the readers have caused the slow, creeping doom of the news- media. Their audience feels betrayed and shunned. While the sensationalist commentary and stunt- reporting quickly establishes an audience that will be as faithful as it is uninformed.

What, then, of the future of actual analysis in the media - does in fact analysis on contemporary issues have a potential market? Or stated with less academic obfuscation, is the disdain for the current media solely a result of how journalists say unpopular things the readers do not agree with - or is it because it's simply toothless, useless crap that they should be ashamed of trying to push on the reader as if it was valuable information?

To be sure, one can worry with some reason that in the US the problem is how an uneducated population will bring any discussion down to essentially a useless shouting- match, or otherwise a far removed elitist solution, where the result must be presented to the masses in simpler terms to avoid unsettling their sensibilities. As in the tradition of Leo Strauss and his students - who are most commonly identified today as neo- conservatives and insane egomaniac narcisists.

However, this resignation of a false dichotomy disregards a fundamental problem - without good information - without actual sources and running commentary with substance - noone can make up their minds outside categorical presumptions. And in this atmosphere, the categorical presumption with most noise behind it wins. Meaning that if the media as a whole fails to provide information to the masses, the choice is already made for them - the issues will be decided outside the grasp of the masses, and we are all left with scraps to fight over in a cosmetic attempt to construct "debate" about issues that concern us.

And yes - the media bears some responsibility for robbing the masses of their one avenue to take part in common political discourse. But why did that happen? Again and again, single rebellious reporters may bring that issue up, and whip themselves for not being hard enough in their criticism. But what happens? It does not sell. Their message is a narrow specific that makes people uncomfortable. And it similarly is not a coincidence at all that the self- flagellation that most media in the US now engages in has been largely post- poned to after the election, and the republican defeat. Indeed, any criticism of substance is connected to the unpopularity of the decisions made - and not, you infinite bastards - because they are bloody stupid decisions made on your behalf.

In fact, this fetish with popularity is so ingrained in the Washington establishment as in American culture in general that entire political theories on social construction is built on it. And until this is adressed and promoted to a level of palpable awareness, my fellow three readers - constructive critical analysis in the United States of Superiority does not exist.

To be more specific, then, the issue will forever be not to question the methods with which the government deftly tricks everyone - but to describe them and dig up truthful information. And this, in turn, will form the political discourse. And that is nothing to be avoided, but to be embraced in it's totality.

Because, quite frankly, ignorant stupidity is not an ideology. Meaning that you are not flagging your bias for rejecting it.