Posted by walter
on November 3, 2009, 6:33 pm, in reply to "Re: Would anyone here want to write for a paper that continually told us that black people are... "
Hello again, NS.
“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.”
Yes the media is baaad, we knew that already – but its not the only factor. Capitalism, the prevailing political system for example - and whatever specific atrocity is being proposed and whatever corporate interests underly it.
So - where would we be, NoamS, if everyone insisted their own issue was first?
“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?!”
A good question. Just to broaden it out a little - Regarding the Guardian:
1) The Eds - have been focussing on a few convincing examples and rather dubiously drawing inferences about the Guardian’s output as a whole. (You can get away with this with a consistently biased source but not a mixed bag)
2) The others – have been following them. More or less blindly, except for those who might get the paper, or scour the website more diligently than the Eds do.
Regarding other media, well the BBC for example is rarely unfairly criticised here. Its miles worse than the Guardian. And the Eds spend a lot of time bashing journalists about the propaganda in their pieces. Others too, and quite right too.
I’m digressing. But what I actually said was that no argument had been given to suggest the gamble (of effectively hardening the MSM) is likely to help. And it hasn’t, not on here anyway. Hopes and prayers. If you disagree, be my guest.
“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.”
Many of the criticisms levelled at constructive efforts are ill-thought out.
To equate David’s calls to the price of butter would only be valid if his proposals were just as extreme as the policies being opposed. Tell me – are they?
If it’s so anodyne then why is it called a fig leaf?
“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.”
If all their customers stop buying, yes. But as you are only convincing purists (a small minority), these papers will just become more right wing as the purits drop out. Will this not make the situation worse?
“Business as usual for them means business as usual for the Iraqis and Afghanis.”
Interesting you say “as usual”. What can you tell me about the Guardian’s “usual” output, from reading this board? Very little, as the Eds only highlight examples one-sidedly. Incidentally, even the Eds do not claim the Guardian was pro-war. If the Guardian had gone out of business in 2002, a lot of factual information (pretty much damning the war over and over) would have gone down with it.
Cheers
Walter
Responses: