Posted by noamswampy
on November 3, 2009, 8:13 am, in reply to "Re: Would anyone here want to write for a paper that continually told us that black people are... "
"To reduce the immediate humanitarian problem to the single question of reforming the media seems narrow-minded and puritanical."
I disagree, Walter. I (and many others) think that the constant propaganda blitz (the PBB, to quote RhG) is central to the humanitarian issues of the world. Without a compliant media and a preponderance of unthinking (or should I say right-thinking) contributors, the humanitarian tragedy inflicted on the planet by our own nation states and societies could not happen.
To say that no argument has been given is a statement from you that I just can't fathom....what have the Eds (and others) being doing on this website for the last few years?!
"David Wearing’s call was for an electoral
: organisation to form to challenge the
: prevailing orthodoxy."
DW's call was for, more a less, an ethical foreign policy. We've heard it all before - even in the Guardian. It will never happen under the current system. The piece, may however have sold a few papers, cheap flights, duffel coats or what ever it is the Gurdian is flogging in it's advertising space these days. It certainly will have consolidated it's position (ever so slightly) as a force for good in some people's eyes, although not mine.
"Whereas the price of butter is irrelevant to the discussion. Yet it’s all the same to you. NS, doesn’t this illustrate that accuracy is another casualty of taking extreme viewpoints? "
I was using the price of butter metaphor, which was yours btw, to illustrate the error, as I see it, in your response to JK's excellent question.
Of course you would not contribute to a racist publication, even if your contribution was a rather good analysis of last night's TV (or something similary anodyne) and not actually explicitly condoning racism itself. So why contribute to the MSM with a similarly anodyne piece which avoids the crucial and central issue?
"NS, doesn’t this
: illustrate that accuracy is another casualty
: of taking extreme viewpoints?"
I don't feel that it's an extreme viewpoint, to be honest. I feel that the MSM writers, editors and proprieters are the extremists. They are the ones supporting - explicitly or implicitly - the bombing and killing in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. I don't kill anybody 
with my criticism
"But where's the supporting logic
: for that outcome?"
If people stop buying/patronising/writing for the Gaurdian, Indie etc these commercial enterprises will go bust. Or they will have to change to survive. Business as usual for them means business as usual for the Iraqis and Afghanis.
That's the logic.
Cheers.
N.
--Previous Message--
: I can’t agree that the question is excellent,
: NoamS, as it is only about the medium. To
: reduce the immediate humanitarian problem to
: the single question of reforming the media
: seems narrow-minded and puritanical.
:
: More to the point, no argument has been
: given to suggest this gamble is likely to
: help – only articulations of ideology have
: been given, similar to faith as Dan notes.
:
: David Wearing’s call was for an electoral
: organisation to form to challenge the
: prevailing orthodoxy. Whereas the price of
: butter is irrelevant to the discussion. Yet
: it’s all the same to you. NS, doesn’t this
: illustrate that accuracy is another casualty
: of taking extreme viewpoints?
:
: What is the eventual outcome of this
: "MSM no platform" policy - after
: many more such bursts of machine gun fire at
: everyone who tries to reach the public in
: the MSM, there will soon only be 'pure'
: people left to campaign – all talking to
: each other, of course. Or the MSM may
: collapse. But where's the supporting logic
: for that outcome?
:
: Walter
:
:
Responses: