I get a kick out of the twisting and corkscrewing and phrasemaking in order to understand "actual ideology of our political press."
You think in such three-dimensional terms.The American press hasn't got an ideology of its own. The American press shares the collective, consensus, state capitalist ideology of the ruling class of the American state. (Presumably, Jay Rosen thinks that Democrats and Republicans are ideologically distinct.) Rather than asking after the press' ideology, the question should be: what is the purpose of the American press? Better: what is its use?
-The Borg Queen
The answer is simple enough to satisfy the law of parsimony. The purpose or use of the American press is to buttress the legitimacy of the American state.
From this basic statement we can derive its diverse range of fundamentally subsidiary functions: to promote the fictions of honest debates between honestly oppositional factions; to depict military aggression as defensive or, at worst, mistakenly reactionary; to further the false characterization of our "democratic" government as flawed but fundamentally participatory; and, related to this last point, to further the fiction that the state's legitimacy is exogenous to the mechanisms of the state itself and its governing mechanisms and endogenous to "the people," whomever they are. (And obviously, that list isn't exhaustive.)
Seen correctly, everything about the American press makes perfect sense, becomes almost comically straightforward. Oh, okay, the press isn't an entity independent of the state; it is one more mechanism of state control. As some of our dimmer commenters are fond of pointing out, usually in a tone that suggests they believe themselves to be The First Person Ever On The Internet to achieve this brilliant height of reason, in "An Anarchy" (double-LULZ), the gang with the biggest baddest guns will swiftly take over. (As another wise commenter pointed out, this, more than anything, proves that anarchy isn't Utopia; it's the here-and-now.) The purpose of the American press is to assure us that this is not the case, that the state's monopolistic claims to legitimate use of force arise paradoxically from a source (younz and me) that simultaneously constitutes the actual composition of the state and yet remains external to it, and that because no governed person may withhold his consent to be governed, he has therefore given it.
24 comments:
Flunking social studies.
yeah the Other Anarchy is the same, but with defensive military aggression turned inward.
PS: IOZ, here's another "t" to help buttress your argument. ;)
But Chomsky is crazy.
I heard it from Alan Dershowitz.
One, it warms my heart that Rosen and Crispin Miller and the gang are among the closest to the mark. Two, it chills my heart that all of the smart people in this country either willfully delude themselves or are too afraid of their conclusions to go all the way. Three, I fucking hate metaphors with "heart." fuck.
Anarchy isn't about getting everyone to leave everybody else alone. It's about getting everybody to play the game, bullshit though it is.
@LaRana
"Too afraid"?!?
I only give thee 1789, 1917, and ottoman realm 1915-1925.
Anonymous fails analogy 101 at 11:30 AM.
Brillo!
"This other group of people tried anarchic revolution once, and it didn't turn out well for 101% of the population, so obviously anarchy is doomed for everyone everywhere every time."
Once I tried to travel to the Yanomamo people with electric Norelco razors, trying to get them to give up the old tribal grooming methods. They loved the look and ergonomic feel of the electric razor, but they lacked electricity.
Clearly, Norelco razors aren't good anywhere, then. Anonymous says so!
So, NPR stands for Nazi Public Relations. Si?
Noisy Pablum Repeatedly.
The thing I find fascinating is that US journalists genuinely believe that they are upholding standards of excellence. How exactly does that come about? I wonder if journalists in the USSR felt the same way or if the knew they were hacks just collecting paychecks.
The descendants of revolutionaries always look to other, failed revolutions as proof that we need no more change or that change really isn't possible to begin with. Might as well accept what we've got, because um, France, and Russia, and Somalia, or something.
@CFO
Spoken like a true Progressive!
That's me at 11:30. -Capt'n O
Progress is all. Without progress we die.
--David Michael Green, "professor" at some binkley junior college in upstate NY.
upper right corner, in green, below the nice doggie.
Capt'n O
Here is an unusual and instructive case where a mainstream journalist (Alex Perry of Time) reacts (hysterically) to a refutation in FAIR:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/07/02/times-alex-perry-responds-to-fair/
I laugh my ass off every time you use 'younz' ironically. Or unironically.
The thing I find fascinating is that US journalists genuinely believe that they are upholding standards of excellence. How exactly does that come about?
Ben Kenobi's "truth as certain point of view" theory in action. They're doing exactly what they've spent years being trained to do.
In "An Anarchy", Pittsburgh-based bloggers will swivel willy-nilly between "younz" and "yinz".
(This, more than anything, proves that anarchy isn't Utopia; it's the here-and-now.)
Residents of the Ohio Valley area realize there are inflection differences responsible for the "younz" versus "yinz" distinction.
West of Wheeling WV there's more of the "younz" and less of the "yinz," and it's reversed when you head east of Wheeling.
All that, and a tray of fries from the Dirty O.
National Puppet Radio
OMG, are you coming close to realizing that even if the world were run the way you want to be, it'd still be a stupid world?
I mean, if you did that, you'd totally be the first person on the internet to do so.
The problem, IOZ, is that you respond to those that know better by knowing better. But you don't know better. NO ONE KNOWS BETTER. You're not mad that we have a king. You're mad cause you're not king and damn it, you're smart enough to be! You know about thermodynamics and everything! You like opera, you're so damn kingly!
Congrats on being a cynical libertarianish kind of guy. It's a rare flavor of stupid, indeed! And well put, at that!
Ladies and gents,
NoT,
High after smelling his own toes.
Hi, NoT!
Capt'n O
Oh, I don't know, I sort of enjoy being told I'm not as smart as I think I am by someone whose relationship to what the fuck anyone is talking about is functionally equivalent to my relationship to the game of cricket: jealous of the fancy dress but wholly perplexed by the rules.
Somalia improved under anarchy. That's not thanks to any anarchists though, the state collapsed and no faction was strong enough to take its place. And even if you want to include America (more a case of local elites severing ties the imperial core, as the Confederates later did) that still wouldn't be example of a revolution that were any improvement.
Post a Comment