Marco, Lawry, Roger, Gavin and y'all:
It seems that people's views about media say as much about the people as
they do about the media. Let's look to the MOQ for an answer, shall we?
When we talk about the media, we're talking about corporate news
organizations with an increasing emphasis on "corporate" and a decreasing
emphasis on "news". And the so-called journalists who work for these
mainstream organizations are celebrities rather than genuine investigators
for the simple reason that star-power translates into high ratings, which
means more money and investigation costs money. (The weekly news magazine I
subscribe to, THE NATION, is non-corporate and authentically liberal, but
less than .005% of the population reads it.)Further, corporate news
organizations can hardly afford to anger or upset the advertisers. Also, the
time constraints inherent in commercial radio and TV don't allow for the
expression of complex ideas and consequently there is only room to say what
is immediately recognizable. They can only say what you already know. In
short, mainstream news is about celebrity and money. Its about fame and
fortune, not information.
I'm pretty sure that Pirsig doesn't discuss the news media, but I don't
think it takes a rocket surgeon to extrapolate from the things he says about
corporations and celebrity. What inferences would you make to the following
quotes?
"Phaedrus had always believed science is a search for truth. A real
scientists is not supposed to sell out that goal to corporations who are
searching for mere profit. Or, if he had to sell out in order to live that
was nothing to be happy about." P219
"This (New York City) was the brain center of that corporate network,
surrounded by other networks; financial networks, information networks,
electronic transmission networks. That's what all those tiny bodies were
doing up there suspended so many hundreds of feet up in the sky.
Participating in the Giant." P219
"None of this celebrity has any meaning in a subject-object universe. But in
a value-centered universe celebrity comes roaring to the front of reality as
a huge fundamental parameter. It becomes an organizing force of the whole
social level of evolution." P256
"In fact you can measure the quality of a university by comparing the
relative strengths of the celebrity patterns and the intellectual patterns.
You can never get rid of the celebrities, even at the best universities, but
there the intellectuals could ignore them and be in a class by themselves."
P257
Roger wrote....
I read somewhere (if memory serves) that over 90% of journalists in the US
describe themselves as liberal.
DMB responds...
I'm very skeptical about these kinds of claims and would be interested to
know the source of such information. It's worth pointing out, especially for
the benefit of the MOQers who live outside of the USA, that there has been a
concerted effort by reactionary forces to paint the media as a bastion of
liberalism. But the more honest among them have also admitted that this
depiction isn't really very accurate and is perpetrated for political
reasons. Bill Kristol and others have come clean on this point several
times. In fact FOX news justifies its own right-wing bias in the name of
balancing out this bogus "liberal media elite".
Roger wrote...
I believe O'Reilly's point is that people have confused rights of citizens
for protection from the government with acceptable standards of treatment of
non-citizens that are trying to destroy the country. A reasonable complex
organization needs to be able to recognize the difference between a part of
itself and an external pathogen.
DMB bites his tongue and says...
Yep. Satire is dead. O'Reilly is hilarious all by himself. I always feel
like I'm watching a comedy skit when he's on. And, unfortunately, he's
typical of the "journalists" at FOX. Anyway, the issue is not whether or not
the "detainees" at camp x-ray are protected under the U.S. constitution. The
issue is whether or not they are protected under the rules of the Geneva
Convention, not to mention the iother international standards of justice and
human rights. In any case, they are entitled to due process and have not yet
been convicted of any crime. Geography and citizenship in irrelevant to
these rights. Apparently, O'Rielly presumes their guilt and only has the
foggiest idea of what human rights are all about. But its interesting
because he so clearly demonstrates what Pirsig says about the relationship
between social level values and right-wing political views. They're more or
less identical.
Roger wrote...
The Constitution is full of rights to protect citizens from government. It
is
not intended to protect the rights of terrorists to destroy the society.
They
are two very, very different things. I am certainly no apologist for
O'Reilly, but I must concede that his point seems both valid and
non-threatening to tourists.
DMB...
Really? It seems like you are his apologist, at least in this case. It sure
sounds like you presume the guilt of the detainees as well. I hope that's
not really what you mean to say. You don't think we ought to suspend human
rights based on our fear or their nationality, do you? To give up on these
rights in the name of security is to put social values over intellectual
values, is it not? Fundamentalist wackos have rights too, you know? Like it
or not, for these rights to have any meaning they must be extended to those
we like the least.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST