Monday, June 09, 2008

You Mean . . . You Didn't Shoot that Jackalope?

The Washington Post's continued effort to validate its own cheerleading for the Anschluss is noteworthy, but not, as many would have it, because it represents a decline in the power of the dread EmmEssEmm, nor yet because, as the WhatLiberalMedia? progressive crowd would have it, because it exemplifies the Media "not doing its job." Clearly it represents the Media doing exactly its job, which is to disseminate and sometimes amplify the governing consensus of the ruling class of the United States. What's remarkable is just how thoroughly invested is the WaPo in particular in the tale of its own fatuity. That, after all, is what "bad intelligence" is all about. Having been presented with a steaming mountain of bullshit, the paper uniformly failed to display the slightest perspicacity or skepticism, and now, since the US Senate admits to the same essential imbecility, everyone is excused! Maybe I'm unique among men--but I think not--in my reluctance to admit to, much less be proud of, the fact that I've been roundly rolled and bullshat.

16 comments:

Montag said...

this is the dilemma according to the post:

when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence

what threat? 'the system' hallucinated/fabricated/imagined a threat where there was none.

ps: every player mentioned in the article: bush, rockefeller, the dissenting republicans, the intelligence community, even the washington post, as IOZ points out, are all part of 'the system' and necessarily incapable of objectively "criticizing" 'the system.' the w.p. couldn't do it without setting up the next play, mentioning "Iran's nuclear program" in the final paragraph there.

Mr.Fundamental said...

You know Dude, I myself dabbled with
pacifism at one point. Not in Nam,
of course--

Anonymous said...

Hiatt's performance is only one example. Between yesterday and today the WaPo op-ed page exceeded even its own impressive quota of rank horseshit. Check out Armitage's BizarroLand hand-wringing about how civilization might end if the next administration doesn't get every deputy assistant undersecretary sitting behind a desk ASAP.
-- sglover

Dunc said...

Maybe I'm unique among men [...] in my reluctance to admit to, much less be proud of, the fact that I've been roundly rolled and bullshat.

Yeah, and most people wouldn't be proud of having no teeth either. However, to a certain subset of those who make their living sucking cock, it's their USP.

In this case, credulity is their product.

Anonymous said...

Shut the fuck up, Donny.

Thomas Daulton said...

You'll just have to wait until Phase #16.875 of the Congressional report comes out, sometime in 2164 they're projecting, which will answer the question, "Why did everyone fall for such obvious transparent bullshit?"

Fortunately I have already been leaked the Executive Summary, which consists of one sentence and a couple of photos: "Because we thought the war would be pretty fucken' kewl."

MandT said...

There is simply some 'rolled' we will not eat!!

Batocchio said...

IOZ, good thoughts, but one distinction. There are indeed liberals who truly believe it's the media's job to report things at least somewhat accurately. In fact, most of the public believes this as well. However, many liberals I know - certainly in the blogosphere - feel that reporting things accurately should be the media's job, but are well aware it really isn't. It's profits, it's selling a newsy product with that newsy taste, it's selling a lot of bullshit. Your dispute is in some cases merely semantics. If you want to press for more accuracy or precision, I'm all for it, as well as disavowing folks of what you view as cognitive errors. However, I think it's also good to note that many people who you claim disagree with you actually agree very much with you, only they express it in a different way. The general liberal critique of the media and push for reform has always included a strong attack on corporate consolidation and general establishment bullshit. There's also the question of how best to accomplish reform given the general public's expectations, and opinion, of the media. I've read you enough to know that you do possess substantive disagreements with liberals in places. However, surely pushing for media reform isn't a bad thing, even if some of people working for it express their jaded cynicism about the system in a different flavor than you do. Hey, we can't all be IOZ. Peace.

Anonymous said...

I don't think reform is what the solution IOZ has in mind. As always, LURK N' LURN.

Mr.Fundamental said...

I sincerely doubt your dedication to Sparklemotion.

Christopher said...

God, what a pile of self-serving bullshit.

Okay, I have two questions:

First, do people really want to buy this product, being that it's repetitive bullshit?

I mean, Jesus, aren't people tired of this shit by now? All the idiots who have supported the Iraq War have already told us how they had no choice and how it seemed like a really good idea at the time.

I've heard it before. From, basically, the entire ruling class. Are people really clamoring for more of this nonsense? Does it sell more papers?

Second, who the hells wants this job? What kind of person does it take to say, "I'm going to try to sell whatever bullshit my boss wants to feed the public, no matter how incorrect it is and how much it contradicts the principals laid out in all my previous statements"?

Obviously people are willing to do it, but I'd think it would be completely soul-crushing.

The Promiscuous Reader said...

batocchio, "There are indeed liberals who truly believe it's the media's job to report things at least somewhat accurately. In fact, most of the public believes this as well." Sure, liberals want the media to report things at least somewhat accurately, unless things reflect badly on Democrats and liberals. Ditto for the public: even when the MSM are at their most fawningly complicit with the State, polls show that the people think it's too damn antagonistic to the Gummint and the President.

I get the impression, though, there'd be a considerable overlap between the "Don't pick in the Gummint" faction and the "Why doesn't the Jewish-owned media report the Truth about the Bush conspiracy to stage the 9/11 attacks, or the fake moon landings, which were actually videotaped in Arizona?"

Dunc said...

Q: What kind of person does it take to say, "I'm going to try to sell whatever bullshit my boss wants to feed the public, no matter how incorrect it is and how much it contradicts the principals laid out in all my previous statements"?

A: A Journalist! [rimshot]

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week...

Anonymous said...

there seems to be the misconception running through this thread that newspapers make their money by selling newspapers to "the public". in reality, subscription fees don't even cover the cost of delivery. the money that any news company makes is by selling advertising space in the newspaper. as the person who buys the newspaper (and looks at the ads) you are not the consumer, but the product. the customer, especially for international news organizations like the times and washington post, is the ruling corporate class.
it is no wonder, then, that the ruling corporate class gets what it likes between advertisements.

Batocchio said...

The Promiscuous Reader, as I said in my original comment, of course there are liberals who basically want the refs to call things their way. But all of them? No offense to you personally, but that's hogwash, and a gross oversimplification, a pox on both their houses, etc. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, and I agree with you about the utter loons, but I find your other characterization both inaccurate and unhelpful. Someone can actually be an advocate for a cause but still try to call things accurately and fairly, and succeed at that quite often. It's actually pretty easy, and quite common. No one calls things correctly all the time, but Bruce Reed had a great essay a few years back about the wonk-hack divide, which as he argued matters much more than any Democratic-Republican divide. And personally, I've always thought that class and power are often the overlooked key paradigm in many political squabbles.

One of the anonymous commenters makes a good point, too, which is similar to a key distinction between films and TV shows in their marketing. For films, the audience is for the most part the target of the advertising (although there's product placement, tie-ins, etc.). For TV, the audience is primarly a commodity being sold to the advertisers. For TV news shows, there is a need to deliver some of that newsy flavor in their product, but ever since TV news shows were expected to make a profit, and by such and such a margin, the game significantly changed (although there was always some measure of bullshit and not some ideal, golden past).

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Suggested replacement for the term"mainstream media"


1) corporate media


2) "the media wing of the MICFiC"

M ilitary
I ndustrial
C ongressional
Fi nancial
C orporate Media Complex

- a conspiracy to use, abuse, and confuse the people, to "milk, shear, and slaughter the sheeple", figuratively speaking - except the slaughter is literal.