Posted by Michael Hardiman on November 6, 2009, 1:11 pm, in reply to "The central point"

So what do you say to the BBC man who says "We had Chomsky on, of course we permit a wide range of discourse." --Previous Message-- : I'd like to try and register a very central : and specific point here. When nominally : permitted, Noam Chomsky appears in and : amplifies his thoughts via the mainstream : media, which, as with other serious left : writers, is fine and commendable. : : But Noam Chomsky also makes it his : determined and dedicated business to : criticise and expose the mainstream and : liberal media, whether from outwith or : within it. : : That's the key issue here. There's no : essential argument against any serious left : voice having their say in the pages of the : Guardian, on BBC Hardtalk or anywhere else. : : The question is: in what ways does leftist : 'participation' there serve to neutralise : dissident voices in their willingness to : challenge that media and the massive : corporate worldview it supports? Isn't : that what we're supposedly trying to : counter here at ML - in promotion of a : serious alternative media? : : That, in essence, is all that's being asked : of regular Guardian columnists like Monbiot. : (Klein's many fine pieces are of a more : syndicated nature, but the same issues : apply.) : : Note also that Chomsky generally doesn't do : much open challenging from within the US : mainstream, because, as he's often said, : he's virtually ignored there, for obvious : reasons. : : John : : : --Previous Message-- : I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to : start thrashing Noam Chomsky. I saw him on : the BBC via youtube doing a Hardtalk : interview. That clearly makes him an agent : of evil because he was on a channel which : supported the atack on Iraq and which is an : agent of the most vile propaganda from the : UK's government. Clearly Chomsky is an utter : SCHILL!!! : : Excuse the sarcasm. No, Chomsky, as another : poster commented, was not speaking to the : BBC, he was speaking to people and trying to : get a point across, something he does : tirelessy and constantly to anyone who will : give him a platform. I think he deserves : support for this attitude. The criticism of : people like Naomi, Monbiot etc is bunk, : totally bunk and not only bunk but evident : of a negligent and thoughtless extremism. : THEY ARE TRYING TO GET A POINT ACROSS JUST : LIKE CHOMSKY WHO FOR SOME REASON EVEN THOUGH : HE HAS PUBLISHED IN THE GUARDIAN IS ABOVE : CRITICISM FOR IT. : Excuse the caps but stepping out of the : editors skewed logic on the subject and into : the world of rational thought analogoies are : kind of futile. But in the spirit of the : thread here's one. : A British government official today turned : whistleblower and told the world that the : government was selling arms to children in : Africa as a way of getting to the diamonds : more cheaply. "The government realised : we could get damonds from the kids in : exchange for Milky Bars" he said. : However, since he's working for the : government let's slag him off, ignore the : relevance of what he said and launch a media : campaign to get him to resign and go on the : dole! : That is an analogy. : --Previous Message-- : Seems to me the analogy isn't bad. I think a : key point is that it is not just prominent : writers - like Klein and Monbiot and others : - who should be asked to consider the costs : as well as the beenfits of appearing in the : corporate media. Readers and less prominent : writers should also be challenged. Are : readers and writers of the Left collectively : doing enough, making efficient enough use of : the resources at their disposal, to create a : more effective, more visible alternatibe to : the corporate press? Are we pooling our : resources effectively enough? How often is : the question even being raised? Not much, : which goes a long way towards answering it : in my opinion. : : --Previous Message-- : Firstly, everything in this query of mine : depends on the correctness of my : understanding of the ML criticism of lefties : who regularly publish in mainstream media, : e.g. George Monbiot (GM). : : If anyone chooses to respond, they might : need first to correct that. : : My understanding of the criticism is this: : GM (and others, e.g. Naomi Klein, Mark : Thomas) publishes articles which, by : mainstream standards, posit very radically : left-wing arguments in The Guardian. : This plays into the hands of The (corporate, : conservative) Guardian because, using such : smidgens of left-wing analysis, they can : argue, ‘Look, we are not a supine, : establishment- and corporate-friendly body : of homogeneous journalists; we are diverse, : dissenting and combative.’ (But, of course, : the opposite is the case.) Therefore, GM is : effectively providing cover for this : deception. : And this successful deception encourages : complacency within news-consumers because, : consequently, they feel that they do not : need to go beyond ‘left-wing’ papers (e.g. : Guardian, Independent) to be able to read : left-wing analyses. Therefore, disastrously : (for the causes of justice, poverty, peace, : species-survival, etc.), they are not : exposed to full-bodied left analyses to be : found elsewhere, e.g. ZNet, Counterpunch. : : Assuming that is a correct understanding, : then is the following a fair analogy? : : Charities are often criticised by the Left : for analogous reasons. For example, the Live : Aid campaign will contribute nothing overall : to alleviating poverty in Africa. Indeed, it : plays into the hands of the UK government : (UKG) because it (UKG) can give massive : support to that campaign, using it as cover : for the claim that it does indeed care about : ‘eliminating that scourge from the : continent’ (as Blair put it, I think). This, : then, conveniently obviates the need for our : government to implement policies which : really +could+ alleviate poverty there – : policies that would outlaw: arms deals, : asset theft by corporations, mercenaries, : unjust terms of trade; that would impose : low-prices on pharmaceutical corporations; : etc etc. Thus, overall, a campaign like Live : Aid exacerbates rather than alleviates the : problems that it claims to want to solve. : Live Aid conveniently (to the UKG) helps to : distract people from real solutions because : it gives the impression that real solutions : are already being pursued. : : Thus, it seems that criticism of charities : by the Left – for being embedded in popular : culture and the culture of ‘the government : fully supports these fine efforts’ – is : analogous to criticism of left-wing : journalists for being embedded in mainstream : corporate newspapers. : : : : : : : :

 Post a Response

Posted by rippon on November 5, 2009, 5:05 pm, in reply to "Re: Is this a fair analogy of ML criticism of Monbiot et al?"

That sounds fair, Bern. You seem to make a convincing argument that ‘embedded’ is entirely inappropriate, abusive even. I was treating the word as synonymous with ‘employed by’ (the mainstream media), which, I concede, might not be valid. I also thought that the label, ‘embedded journalist’, had a much longer history than merely the 2003 Iraq invasion; and that, therefore, while it might have pejorative connotations in this century, overall it was a neutral term which merely indicates the journalist’s constraints. But, from what you say, that might be a mistaken belief. Now, even if I’m right about the ‘dictionary definition’ of ‘embedded journalist’, you’re right, Bern, about the +reality+ of people’s negative perception of the label; therefore, it shouldn’t be applied to Monbiot, because his status at The Guardian is nothing like that of journalists embedded with the army in Iraq. (Does anyone have an argument to refute this “nothing like” assertion?) So yes, the unfair application of ‘embedded’ to Monbiot distracts attention from the question posed: Is criticism of charities (who ‘popularise’ crises, thereby distracting attention from how to +solve+ those crises) analogous to criticism of left-wing journalists employed by mainstream media (because those journalists naturally avoid criticising their employers who are very much part of the problem)? Now that I frame it like that, with more suitable language, what is your response to the question, Bern?

 Post a Response

Posted by John Hilley on November 5, 2009, 5:15 pm, in reply to "Re: Is this a fair analogy of ML criticism of Monbiot et al?"

Easy, Bern. We're discussing an analogy here, not the absolute application of a word. In that context, the comparisons between journalists' relationship with their military overseers or their media employees seems an appropriate one to explore. I think you'll also find that the term "embedded" goes back much further than 2003. I, at least, distinctly recall the whole embedded corp reporting their dutiful bit from the Falklands. In practice, virtually all mainstream reporting from war zones is of an embedded nature, whether it's Mark Urban out and about with the military or straight-repeated press statements out of the Green Zone or equivalents. Sometimes, we'll get more 'daring' dispatches on the failings or/and error of the war. But rarely, if ever, any direct criticism of the military itself or its criminal enterprise. That, again, seems akin to the ways in which even critical journalists will circumvent open criticism of the media for whom they work - and avoid any more general criticism of the media. Again, there's no abuse intended. It's an analogy about psychological behaviour and how people are conditioned into understanding and practicing that service to power Cheers John --Previous Message-- : rippon ( and John) : : thanks for your replies. : : rippon, You first agree that embeddedd is : "a bad choice of words given the : context....", but then go on to invent : a "legitimate" use of it to : describe Monbiot. : : This you say is "in the neutral : non-perjorative intent...: : : But there is no such thing. : : Words have origins, meaning and context. : "embedded journalists", does not : have a variety of meanings you can pick and : choose from, or make up yourself. It was : first used to decribe journalists, in 2003, : when many were send as part of the armies : that invaded Iraq. That is where the meaning : of the term as it applies comes from and no : where else. It has no other source or : meaning as far as I am aware. : : If you use it, it can only be understood as : meaning : "embedded" like the journalists : who went to the Iraq war and took their : instructions about what to report directly : from the military. : : A moments reflection will confirm that. From : the standpoint of the anti-war movement, the : embedded journalists, were regarded as mere : clerks to the military machine, and their : reports with little credibility. Anti-war : activists obviously do not regard : left-wingers writing in the msm remotely in : that way. : : Even at fever pitch, I've never before seen : anyone suggest such a thing at ML. : : To describe Monbiot, Klein etc. as : "embedded" in the Guardian", : or elsewhere, carries with it all the weight : of disapprobation of its original use. In : other words, you cannot avoid readers : understanding in that way; and you : certainly cannot avoid left wing journalists : understanding it as introducing a new level : of hostility to them publishing in the msm. : : John is doing more or less the same thing. : " : �Embedded� is, thus, not, to : my mind, used as an abusive or personal : term, but as a way of recognising the : institutional and self-imposed constraints : even well-regarded journalists work under. : " : : Even based on what you say there, it simply : doesn't make sense to use such a : description. Why? Because the : "constraints" are entirely : different (as in fact you partly point out). : : And do you seriously believe that "well : regarded journalists" you describe as : "embedded" will understand what : you say as anything else but abusive? I : don't believe so. : : What we probably need is more thoughtful and : convincing ways of developing the ML : arguement. IMO we don't need to develop our : name-calling skills. : : cheers all : Bern : : : : : : --Previous Message-- : Yep, you're right. 'Embedded' is a bad : choice : of word, considering the context within : which it is commonly understood to apply : (journalists accompanying invading armies). : : I've just picked the word up osmotically and : used it myself. But I wasn't aware that it : was considered a term of abuse. To describe : a journalist as 'embedded' with British : forces in Afghanistan simply means, surely, : that his reports will necessarily give an : incomplete picture of the war; surely not : that he is necessarily an apologist for : British army crimes. But his livelihood does : depend on maintaining an affable : relationship with a criminal enterprise. : : In this sense, i.e. in the neutral : non-pejorative intent behind words, it seems : reasonable to describe Monbiot as 'embedded' : because, similarly, he presumably needs to : manage his behaviour in such a way to : maintain an affable relationship with the : criminal operation, The Guardian (criminal : in the sense of failing its journalistic : duty to expose the lies behind the Iraq : holocaust, global warming, etc). : : :

 Post a Response

Posted by dereklane on November 6, 2009, 10:19 am, in reply to "Re: Is this a fair analogy of ML criticism of Monbiot et al?"

"The notion, for example, that the handful of left-wing writers in the msm are somehow the problem/ obstackle to that doesn't seem to me to be convincing." Hi Bern, It often doesn't appear that way, no. But a lot of people put, for example, the compliance of the west's poor majorities with governmental ideologies down to a finely tuned system of 'just enough'. Revolution, for example, seems to happen when the very fundamentally basic needs are not met. Here in the UK, except for a few very poor (combined with poorly educated) people, most get *just* what they need (and not a drop more). The comfort levels are, for many, just over the level that excludes serious agitation against the government. Its why many people seem to mistake our current system (I think) as being socialist already, or the leaders who make these decisions as benevolent people wishing to do the right thing by us all. If you withhold too much (at once) you lose the game, because the people fight back. I see it as the same thing in the media (a very significant chip in keeping the people from agitating - what you think about and how you think about it are the key elements behind any revolution or lack of it). You might say that the good journalists in the media, the ones speaking [albeit moderately] for *us*, are the media equivalent of the NHS or the welfare system. They're our proof that we don't need revolution. You don't want to see them disappear (God forbid), but even so, you do feel the need to point out that *if* they weren't there, we surely wouldn't have put up with the state of things for so long and may be now on a more rapid trajectory to something better. Of course, some might cite the US in that (which has neither NHS or significant welfare), but the circumstances are different there, slightly. Its a more militaristic country, drug use, crime, punishment for crime, etc, are all more prevalent. Active disunity amongst the poor and dispossessed keep them in check (along with paranoia and guns in the slightly better off), as does the promise that everyone's good old American dream is something anyone can achieve, no matter how low they sink. You end up with a different framework, which can be managed without social welfare (just, though its touch and go, I think), but you do also end up with a nation more predisposed to agitation (as Chomsky and others constantly assert - I can only go off what these people say). Anyway, the point is that we shouldn't be able to say just the one or other. It *does* seem to be true that these good writers*[see below, even applies for them imo] unwittingly, or perhaps more fairly, altruistically, legitimise the persistence of the establishment vision, just as the myriad health workers and welfare system (what's left of it) ensure the lower classes don't revolt. It's also true, I think, that both of these things are useful (some more than others - I'd see Monbiot go long before I'd wish the govt to proceed with US style obliteration of health and welfare). But we probably need to get away from the perspective that because we criticise the concept of a fig leaf journalist, or their insistence that the MSM is the best place to be (as Pilger, I think, described *himself*, so at least he is obvious aware of the problem) we are criticising the journalist themselves. cheers, Derek * "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England," he wrote, "is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for any official ban." He did not explore the reasons in any depth, merely noting the control of the press by "wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics," reinforced by the "general tacit agreement," instilled by a good education, "that `it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact." As a result, "Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness." As if to illustrate his words, the preface remained unpublished for 30 years. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199811--.htm

 Post a Response

Posted by rippon on November 6, 2009, 11:17 am, in reply to "Re: Is this a fair analogy of ML criticism of Monbiot et al?"

There’s a degree of straw-man to your arguments, Bern. You say you’re "not happy with the focus of so much argument on how to characterise left-wing participation in the msm. Is this really the most important issue?" Well, it's certainly an issue, but no one is focusing on it "so much" (unless they choose to prioritise contributing to this thread over all others) and no one is asserting that it is “really the most important issue”. Even the Editors only assert that Monbiot writing radically in The Guardian is +one+ of the bars on our cell. Now Michael Hardiman (above) correctly points out that Chomsky appears in mainstream media (msm), and you correctly point out that it may well be very silly to examine left-wing participation in msm according to some overarching “theory”, because the relationships and overall picture is too complex for such simple-mindedness. But when I proposed my analogy I had the very recent ML piece in mind, where they criticise Monbiot’s very recent piece in which he calls for arresting Blair. The ML argument is that this is exactly the kind of radical writing the msm love, because it focuses on individuals and personalities while conveniently skirting the root issue of oppressive power structures which those very msm serve. ML say, correctly, that it makes no sense to discuss culpability over Iraq without discussing the decisive role of msm – which is what Monbiot does (discussing merely Blair’s culpability, ignoring msm culpability, e.g. The Guardian). Monbiot chooses not to rebut ML criticism (as far as I’m aware). But surely the rebuttal should be: ‘I +do+ discuss msm culpability; I +don’t+ shy away from criticising The Guardian. But I don’t discuss all relevant issues simultaneously in a single article; in this instance I chose to focus on Blair. For my discussion of msm culpability, see my articles [1], [2], [3], … .’ Of course you’re right that any outlet, including (or maybe even +especially+, considering their reach) msm, should be exploited for getting a message across. And, of course Chomsky, Pilger, Lindsey German, George Galloway et al, do appear on msm for that purpose. The pertinent questions include: 1) Do any of those people compromise their message to make their appearances more palatable to msm? 2) Do such appearances merely serve msm by providing a fig-leaf of diversity (like an employer recruiting a single black man just so he can tick the diversity box, thereby enabling his company to cloak its essentially racist nature)? Of course every left-winger is at risk of 2); that’s a difficult one to control by the interviewee. For example, a good argument could be made that Chomsky’s appearance on Hardtalk +did+ serve msm in this way. But 1) +is+ under the control of the interviewee. Presumably, ML criticise Monbiot but not Chomsky because they judge that Monbiot +does+ compromise the essential message (culpability of msm) but Chomsky doesn’t. To reiterate: the rebuttal to ML should be, ‘No, you’re wrong. You clearly haven’t been paying attention. See these Monbiot articles [1], [2], [3], … .’ In the (apparent) absence of such rebuttal, and without having monitored the record of output from Chomsky, Monbiot, Pilger et al myself, I assume ML are reflecting reality fairly when they suggest that Monbiot basically never criticises msm for culpability in today’s crises.

 Post a Response

Posted by Michael Hardiman on November 6, 2009, 7:16 pm, in reply to "Re: Is this a fair analogy of ML criticism of Monbiot et al?"

Good point well made! --Previous Message-- : : The origin of the term at the time of the : Iraq war seems be simple fact. Why such : highly structured censorship was imposed : then is another question. : : My guess is that it directly relates to the : breadth of anti-war opposition. The war was : so strongly opposed in public opinion : (uniquely so before and at the time of the : invasion), that even with a self serving : msm, the war conspirators feared a dam would : burst, and the propaganda machine might not : function as required. After all, the : conspiracy to fabricate the case for war, : took place almost exclusively in the US/UK. : So they battened down the hatches. : Naturally, the anti-war movement fiercely : attacked "embedding" and rightly : gave it the odious connotations which it : still has. : : It's also obvious that some journalists have : performed some such similar role in previous : wars. I'm not certain what the arrangements : were in the Falklands war. Quite clearly, : only reporters were sent with the convoy of : warships, who could be identified as : gung-ho, super patriotic jingoists, with : some literacy. Max Hasting comes to mind, as : one of them, who has been hugely rewarded by : the establishment for the job he did. : : ....................... : : But to tell the truth, I'm not happy with : the focus of so much arguement on how to : characterise left-wing participation in the : msm. Is this really the most important : issue? : : A basic point that occurs to me is that : left-wing writers who get their material : into the msm have a large variety of : different relationships with those media. : Freelance, occasional, regular columnists, : then the tiny handful of full timers (there : seem to me a disproportionate obsession : with those at the Guardian). Most of them : are specialists, and also write and lecture : voluntarily for the medias of the dissenting : organisations they support. : : Their media activity is never exclusively : either msm or left media, which is a point : that never seems to be acknowledged. : : In other words, there are as many : distinctions to be made as similarities to : be noticed from the standpoint of the : writers themselves. : : Also important to the overall equation is : whether the conflict between participation : in the msm in any form, and the urgency of : widening knowledge of an issue, can ever be : seen to be resolved positively in favour of : participants. : : If there is sometimes merit in publishing in : the msm, then perhaps a case by case : approach is required. That then becomes a : political judgement, and desn't easy fit : into an overarching "theory". : : Again, I don't think this is seriously : enough acknowledged. Lip-service is : frequently given to the good writing done by : left-wingers, but it is invariably the : "fig leaf" that gets the last : word. : : For what its worth, my opinion is that a : more relaxed attitude to left-wing writers : in the msm, and at least resisting heaping : more simply abuse on them, could result in : more focus on the inner functioning of the : corporate media system. Like society : overall, the media is in a process of : upheaval and change, effected by both the : corporate economic crisis of which it is : part, and by the political storm that is : gathering. It might also, for example, : shift the focus to some theoretically worked : out ideas about the potential for : independent media, and help bring it : forward. The notion, for example, that the : handful of left-wing writers in the msm are : somehow the problem/ obstackle to that : doesn't seem to me to be convincing. : : : cheers : Bern : : :

 Post a Response