Rage, rage against the dieing of our fame!
Posted by aogWednesday, 08 March 2006 at 20:06
TrackBack Ping URL
It seems like I read something like this story about selective quoting, misrepresentation and flat out making things up by the Old Media in order to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA1. I still can’t quite understand why, though. I have come to the conclusion that it’s not about the enemy du jour, they are simply a convenient tool to use. It’s also not about President Bush, although he is a lightning rod as a target of the effort. What is left?
Is it pure cowardess? Is it because the USA is a soft target — one that doesn’t strike back and openly admits its faults? Is it Logo-Realism and thence from fact that the USA admits that it is imperfect while other nations, far more despicable, claim to be morally superior that those countries are morally superior? Is it simply narcissitic rage at a nation that very obviously could easily get by without the chatterati who fill Old Media?
I can’t explore this much myself, because I have only one friend who is involved at all as a journalist and she suffers from only a mild case of BDS and otherwise is non-loony. I also have too few friends to alienate them over what is likely to be a futile effort (I just avoid any political discussion when we get together).
But it bugs me, because normally I can construct models for other people’s behavior, even if I don’t agree with it. I have utterly failed to construct such a model for the Old Media types who spin and distort with such effort.2
1 Other posts / stories in this vein:
2 Politicians and pundits are easy — both are using such beliefs to further their own interests in power and / or money (e.g., it’s obvious what Michael Moore gets out of his distortions).
Friday, 10 March 2006 at 09:11|
Michael - Your theory falls to the inconsistency of leftist rhetoric and action:
— You say they believe in equality “in the most obvious sense, material”, but actually the most obvious sense is power, and they seek the greatest possible inequalities of power — themselves in charge, and everyone else submitting. I propose it is not an ability to see beyond the obvious that leads to their focus on material goods, but rather that they have found that proclaiming the equality of material goods appeals to the greed of those who have little while providing a shield to attacks upon their own lust for power — it is hard to criticize those who declare loudly and often for “equality” as seeking to establish inequality.
— You say they think “it is a sin to treat two people differently,” but compare how leftists at universities treat liberals and conservatives — differently.
— You concede that their is no evidence (at least no “obvious” evidence) for a theory that America is the source of all evil, but you insist that leftists use rational logic is used to deduce this position (a logic accessible only to “their great intelligence and high education,” and never made public to the rest of us). Isn’t a simpler theory that the hatred for America comes first, and the illogical and unevidenced “reasons” are merely rationalizations?
— You say the media “who deliberately distort the news … are, in their minds, merely exposing … what it truly is” — your assumption is that they are, in their minds, seekers after and publishers of truth. But then, when truths are uncovered that contradict their “deliberate distortions,” why do those not get published? It seems more sensible to infer that they deliberate distort the news because they want to propagandize, not because they want to expose the truth.
— You say leftists assume that power is evil, and weakness is virtue, but leftists seize as much power for themselves as they can get, and are ruthless toward the weak who are in their power, suggesting that they declare power to be evil only in a competitive environment, and primarily as a device for diminishing the power of their competitors.
In short, your theory is a mix of leftist propaganda which you half believe, and contradictory theses which you’ve inferred from evidence. Consider carefully: is it really possible to “deliberately distort the news” and “merely expose what truly is” in one and the same action? The first is what you’ve inferred from leftist actions, the latter what you’ve accepted from leftist propaganda, and the two contradict one another.