From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 17:01:06 GMT
Hi Sam,
On 19 Nov 2004 at 16:19, Sam Norton wrote:
On 16 Nov 2004 at 21:59, Sam Norton wrote:
I was interested with something you said (while I was lurking and
occasionally reading the archives) re Chomsky, to the effect that he
didn't comment on other countries, he just wanted to make the US
better. I think that's right - although the context which he ignores
does need to be reapplied in decision making.
>
> msh says:
> Well, this isn't quite what he says... <snip>
> I think Chomsky sees his work as an attempt to
> provide a badly needed counterpoint to the prevailing winds.
sam:
I didn't think what you wrote did disagree with my point (which I was
assuming was actually *your* point originally! Don't we get inward
sometimes?)
msh says:
I know. I wasn't defending so much as adding a little more detail,
fyi.
sam:
Chomsky is concentrating his criticisms on the US, his own country,
for very valid reasons. My point was that those in positions of
decision-making have to get dirty hands; that is, it can sometimes be
the highest Quality decision available to carry out a course of
action which in and of itself is profoundly flawed.
msh says:
I knew this was what you were getting at, but figured I'd wait for
you to come back. In fact, I believe I can argue that NC and other
critics of American foreign and domestic policy base their analyses
on the full spectrum of available information, rather than ignoring
certain context as you suggest. I'm not convinced this can be said
of the so-called decision-makers.
Do the decision-makers really make the highest quality decision in re
everyone they're supposed to represent, based on ALL the available
evidence? I'd suggest that they consciously avoid or ignore evidence
that does not justify their actions, in order to pursue their
agendas. In fact, sometimes, they manufacture and disseminate
disinformation for the same reason. We saw this very thing occur in
both the Bush and Blair governments in their decision to attack Iraq.
For example, the only people who were surprised that no WMD were
found in Iraq are people who's world views are shaped by the
commercial mass media. How is it that the decision-makers were
"surprised" if they were considering all the information available to
them? Isn't it more likely that disarming Hussein was a pretext for
doing something they've really wanted to do, in fact, for a long time
before 9/11?
Another question to ask ties in with the Myth Of The Liberal Media.
If the commercial mass-media are truly "left-of-center", why were
consumers of mass media so ill-informed about the so-called threat
posed by Saddam Hussein? Why did the NYT, supposedly the bastion of
the left, run countless articles enforcing the notion that Iraq was
poised to launch WMD against the US at any time? No one who's view
of the world is informed by left-leaning, non-commercial sources,
ever believed such nonsense.
So, again, the obvious answer is that these are not left-wing
institutions at all. They are huge corporations, usually part of
still larger multi-national conglomerates. It may be that the
average reporter or photographer or camera-man leans slightly to the
left, maybe supporting abortion rights, or cutting the military
budget to build more schools or something. But these people have
nothing at all to say about what actually shows up on the front page,
or is broadcast over the networks. There the view is quite
different, and reflects the leanings of the corporate owners.
Anyway, we can pursue this if you want...
sam:
I would put many of the decisions in WW2 under that heading.
msh says:
I would agree, and so would NC. Nobody sane wanted the Axis Powers
to prevail in WW2. There's plenty of room to argue that Dresden and
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not absolutely necessary to win that war,
and that the terror effect of these actions was deliberate, not just
to finish off the Germans and Japanese, but to show the Russians a
thing or two. But there's good argument on the other side as well.
However, please keep in mind that WW2 was a unique event in modern
history, and in no way justifies violence over diplomacy in the many,
many incidents of brutal imperialism and state-sponsored terrorism
before and after.
<SNIP>
sam:
But your point about the 'prevailing wind' is an interesting one. I
know many commentators who say the 'prevailing wind' is leftwards (eg
in the media) rather than rightwards (other institutions?). Is there
any way that you know of for assessing that? (Other than
'Manufacturing Consent', of course).
msh says:
See my comments above. The commercial media ARE the right-leaning
business institutions. As for sources debunking the Myth of The
Liberal Media, here are a few places to look:
1) Anything and everything by Robert McChesney
http://www.robertmcchesney.com
2) Anthing and everything by Normon Solomon
http://www.normonsolomon.com
3) Anything by Ben Bagdikian
The Media Monopoly
The New Media Monopoly
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bagdikian/Ben_Bagdikian_page.html
Here's his page at ZNet:
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=139
Znet, BTW, is what a REAL left-leaning news source would be like.
4) For a focus on the British media, you can't do better than the
great work being done by the two Davids (Edwards and Cromwell) over
at MediaLens. http://www.medialens.org
That should keep you busy! :-)
Best regards,
Mark
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 20 2004 - 17:22:53 GMT