From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 18:05:50 GMT
Excellent illustration Ant,
One of my starting points is all "information" starts (and ends) with
"intent", political or otherwise.
It also illustrates for me the power of the much maligned "meme" concept.
The Sun expresses an idea (of doubtful truth or worse).
It gets made commonsensical / becomes received wisdom, simply by being
quoted in whole or part in other contexts.
Unstating the original mis-information at source doesn't reverse this
process - time is irreversible.
The cat is out of the bag, the rabbit is running, the damage is done.
A classic toxic meme.
(Massive problem in this world of mass comms, where rabbits run and produce
bunnies at the speed of thought.)
Hence Quality ...
It's the interaction of the information object (say, news text) with the
subjects - the publisher and the reader.
The point is not what does the text say, but
What is the publisher's motive in publishing it, and
What is the reader's motive in reading it.
The only "thing" of any real significance (truth / semantic /
epistemology-wise) is the whole triplet, the interaction.
(Or in this case the whole quintuplet, comprising the two triplets ... all
layers, have three layers etc ... but I digress.)
When communicated, the motives must be transmitted as well as the selected
words.
Words without context have very doubtful even completely ambiguous meaning /
truth values.
No truth of any value anyway
Sun readers are also much maligned, but they're not (all) as daft as one
might think.
Their motive in reading it is comic entertainment and voyerism, only the
stereotypical reader really thinks the point is to gain information, truth
or knowledge.
Of course some people read the sun in order to gather evdence that it's full
of lies, a real easy but pointless motive it has to be said.
For Platt's benefit, we have an axiom here "Sun = Lies" That's the point of
the Sun :-)
Each to his own.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:16 AM
> Subject: MD Understanding Quality And Power
>
>
> > Mark Steven Heyman made the pertinent comment on January 9th that:
> >
> > I consider the WSJ ["Wall Street Journal"] to be an excellent source of
> > information, except for their editorials, of course. For example, by
> > reading the Journal, I learned a lot about what the passage of NAFTA
> > would mean to American business. People who read such papers,
> > primarily investors, require and expect accurate information. But
> > this is off-point...
> >
> > I don't think there is such a thing as a politically neutral
> > observer. Everyone's world experience shapes and colors their
> > opinions. And, in the case of the profit-driven mass media a new
> > level of skepticism is warranted. This is why it's important to
> > examine the full spectrum of opinion, from a wide variety of sources.
> >
> > Ant McWatt states: Yes, this is an important ideal - as I will show in
> the
> > illustration given below.
> >
> > Platt Holden remembered accurately:
> >
> > Awhile back I cited an article in a British newspaper reporting on
> > the sad state of their National Health System only to be told by
> > someone (Anthony McWatt as I recall) that the newspaper I drew the
> > information from was totally unreliable.
> >
> >
> > Ant McWatt comments: The so-called UK "newspaper" that Platt referred to
> is
> > called "The Sun". If you visit their website at: www.thesun.co.uk that
> will
> > give a good flavour of what the typical daily edition of this
publication
> is
> > like i.e. cheap and facile.
> >
> > Anyway, they actually apologised to Liverpool - as a city - last year
due
> to
> > a seriously mis-leading article of theirs (ironically titled. "The
Truth")
> > that reported on a disaster that occurred at a football stadium where 96
> > Liverpool people lost their lives.
> >
> > Andrew Coombes of an "independent" news group provides the background of
> the
> > story [anything in square brackets is an addition made by me]:
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The Sun has again apologised for its "The Truth" story, made a few short
> > days after the [1989 Hillsborough} disaster [in Sheffield] that
eventually
> > claimed 96 lives. Yet the Sun's apology will not cut much ice with those
> on
> > Merseyside. The Sun stated in its editorial on July 7th [2004] that it
is
> > has apologised in the past for its reporting of the disaster, and that
it
> > has no hesitation in apologising again. However, such apparent
contrition
> is
> > only window dressing when there is no analysis provided on how their
> > dreadful "The Truth" story did more to set back the cause of justice
than
> > perhaps any other single event in the aftermath of the disaster.
> >
> > "The Truth" was, ultimately, one of the most mendacious pieces of
> journalism
> > ever committed to print. The piece reported that fans urinated on police
> > attempting resuscitation. It brazenly stated that Liverpool fans raided
> the
> > pockets of injured and dead fans. It reported that Liverpool fans leered
> at
> > the exposed breasts of a female fan who had been mortally injured in the
> > crush. It referred to the Liverpool fans as being a drunken, seething
> mass.
> > And, crucially, it reported these unsubstantiated allegations as fact.
> This
> > appalling journalism (if such a tag can be applied), was not just a
slight
> > slip-up that a simple "Hands up, Guv" apology will ameliorate.
> >
> > 96 Liverpool families travelled to Sheffield for inquests on their lost
> > loved ones with the full knowledge that Britain's best-selling
> ["newspaper"]
> > had effectively criminalised them. One would like to suppose that our
> legal
> > system would remain largely untainted by the sweeping statements of a
> > tabloid newspaper looking to sensationalise an already emotive event.
But
> > then, one tends to underestimate the power of the media in shaping
popular
> > attitudes, amplified when a few handy regional stereotypes are there to
> peg
> > a fallacious story on. In the courtroom, stereotypes were again
intrinsic
> to
> > the way that the inquests were steered. Fans were described by several
> > police officers as an uncontrollable mass, only intent on gaining entry
to
> > the ground to watch an FA Cup semi-final. Tellingly, blood alcohol
levels
> > were referred to at length at the inquests, an unprecedented move that
no
> > doubt was influenced by the kind of reporting that the Sun pushed as
> > "truth".
> >
> > The reporting that was made by The Sun became commonsensical, and
> > hence public figures who were largely unqualified to speak on the events
> at
> > Hillsborough were faithfully given column space - from Bernard Ingham [a
> > Conservative politician] (who referred to "a tanked up mob" as being to
> > blame) to Brian Clough [a rival football manager], the overwhelming
> negative
> > statements concerning the events at Hillsborough and those about
Liverpool
> > residents were faithfully relayed. Granted, the Sun did not report many
of
> > these statements themselves, but it was largely responsible for
> promulgating
> > an environment where mythic assumptions around the disaster and the city
> > could be played out, and rehearsed as fact. 15 years later, the families
> of
> > the Hillsborough dead have still not received the justice (and the full
> and
> > comprehensive inquest) they so deserve, and to a large extent because of
> the
> > powerful outside pressures that infiltrated the courtroom and affected
the
> > decision making processes made therein.
> >
> > The Sun states in its editorial "The Sun of 2004 no more deserves to be
> > hated on Merseyside than Wayne Rooney [a football player who has
recently
> > moved outside Merseyside] does". Such bleating shows the Sun
> > does in fact not care about the Hillsborough families one jot, and only
> > illustrates that it has failed to grasp the depth of hatred that exists
on
> > Merseyside for the effects that its false reporting provoked. The Sun
> > conveniently plugged into a set of assumptions about the behaviour of
both
> > football fans and Liverpudlians, and with those assumptions helped
> engineer
> > an untruthful dominant ideology that, left unchecked, caused immense
hurt
> > and suffering. For the Sun to give a mawkish apology behind the image of
a
> > football prodigy is a further insult to the Hillsborough families. In
> 2004,
> > the newspaper seems to have forgotten that the hundreds of families torn
> > apart by the Sun's abhorrent reporting 15 years ago had nothing to hide
> > behind. The Sun stole the innocence of those killed or injured at
> > Hillsborough.
> >
> > But above all this, The Sun obviously feels it has paid for its mistake.
> Its
> > editorial states that 15 years is a long time - nine years longer than
the
> > Second World War. To which the people of Merseyside will say - 15 years
is
> a
> > hell of a long time without justice. For The Sun to say that the old
staff
> > have cleared their desks and that now there are new faces at the paper
> > betrays a failure of understanding that the disaster's aftermath has on
> > Merseyside, and thus makes the latest apology distinctly hollow.
> >
> > In short, The Sun needs to offer more than an apology in the tone of a
> > petulant child that feels that its after-school detention is up. It must
> now
> > step forward and demonstrate a full understanding of the real events of
> the
> > disaster and its aftermath, from its own journalistic failings to the
> > mendacity and evasiveness of South Yorkshire Police. A full and truthful
> > context must be given to The Sun's readership. The 96 innocents who
never
> > came home from a football match deserve nothing less.
> >
> > Andrew Coombes July 7th 2004
> >
> > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2004/07/295149.html
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Ant McWatt comments:
> >
> > I know Platt wasn't aware of the above issue but he might now see why
> > someone as myself with close links with Liverpool was not very impressed
> by
> > his referencing of "The Sun" in order to support his argument against
> public
> > national health systems.
> >
> > And, the owner of "The Sun" (the "bright light of the UK media")?
> >
> > Well, maybe it comes as no surprise that it is Rupert Murdoch - also the
> > owner of Fox news which is termed the "The Most Biased Name in News" by
> the
> > "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" website (www.fair.org). Of course,
> it's
> > always easier to accept the status quo line of Murdoch (which will
always
> be
> > one of the "best promoted" political lines) rather than spend some time
> and
> > care to assess a wide variety of sources beyond the status quo that he
> > represents. This lack of care is a bad mistake, and, as seen in "The
Sun"
> > can have serious long term repercussions in the upset it causes.
> >
> > So ends today lecture.
> >
> > Anthony.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
> > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
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 : Fri Jan 14 2005 - 18:46:47 GMT