Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Journalism in the mass consumer media has always had an obsession with political figures, following the lead of state and party propaganda, in (re)producing a cult of authority (charismatic or otherwise). A particularly vivid example is the tendency to substitute statements and stances from politicians for real, independent journalism. For example, following the recent terror bombings in London, how many internet and television stories have been headline as "Bush expresses solidarity with British" or "Blair condemns the atrocities in London" etc. etc. Why does the media feel the need to serve as a public relations firm for the leaders? How exactly is it newsworthy to highlight the fact that Bush is in "solidarity" with the British? or that Blair condemns the bombing? Did anyone think that Blair would be gleeful about it? Just after the attacks, there were headlines that read, something like, "Blair is calling the four bombings a 'terrorist' attack." Does the news media really think that its audience is so stupid as to be unable to categorize such incidents without Blair's assistance? How can statements by politicians that convey no factual content nor even specify policy choices be considered news as opposed to political advertising?

I can see 2 reasons for this. I'm uncofortable in writing them out because they seem obvious; and I'm also a bit thick so I don't know if your questions were rethorical or not.

Anyway.

First, there's lobbying. When the red guards of China rebelled against the Maoist government, for example, and were exterminated by the Chinese army (the red guards, by the way, was an experimental army composed of orphans who begun training at a very young age, and most of them were still young children at the time), the affair wasn't mediatised simply because Nixon was about to pay an important visit to China, and because the economical and political repercussions would have been very unpredictable if China was criticised at a time when it wasn't "supposed" to be. Information is also a tool used by politicians, and other people in places of power.

You can make a lot of money out of information, and you can make people do anything if you handle it correctly. Therefore, information isn't to be taken lightly. That's why the press doesn't systematically show an overview of what's going on. Because if they did, things wouldn't be as neat and ordered as those on top want it to, and because the People would probably be uncontrollable.


The second reason is money. Why was such event on such news channel tonight, even though it seems utterly useless and boring?
Because in order to have a news channel, you need an audience. And to get that audience, and to make sure that a maximum number of people is going to watch your news channel, and not some other news channel, you'll be a lot more successful by repackaging the news a certain way, rather than by exposing the naked truth.
Example: why waste 10 minutes on the 30 minute Sunday night news on GWB, or whoever else, expressing solidarity for Tony Blair for the London bombings? Because it's a big thing, and because everyone knows about it now, and feels at least indirectly concerned about it. Wether something's in the report or not, wether people are more informed or not afterwards doesn't matter. What matters is that it's something that everyone will be watching, and that every extra minute the report will last will be an extra minute of massive audience time.
Another very good example for that is CNN broadcasting the 9/11 thing over and over again. By letting people induldge in the horror or whatever negative emotions they generate when they think of 9/11, and giving them a suitable inlet for this indulging, they found yet another way to make big bucks.

There might be other reasons too, but I think those are the 2 main ones.

You can make a lot of money out of information, and you can make people do anything if you handle it correctly. Therefore, information isn't to be taken lightly. That's why the press doesn't systematically show an overview of what's going on. Because if they did, things wouldn't be as neat and ordered as those on top want it to, and because the People would probably be uncontrollable.

Propaganda down to a science. Freud's nephew a man called Bernaise. Put freud;s anthropological theories about man's nature to good use. He is called the father of the public relations industry. That german dude goebbels had a couple of Bernaise's books on the shelf. Rove the genuis behind bush's brain. Judith Miller case, yesterday the first time I have heard his name mentioned, Novac must have co-operated, god love him. Not much just a glimmer of hope, a story that won't go away. I like the idea of the vice president of the united states in prison.

ramble about technology and cultrual change

Because they are Chicken Shits, that's why......




H

A lot of chicken shits
go along to get along
watched the hearing on Public Broadcasting Debate. Senate seems pretty determined to put the money back. I count on NPR BBC, sometimes listen to Pacifica. There are still some people working not chicken shits, Thinking about the Editor for Forbes Russian edition who was murdered in Moscow. This Valerie Plume (spelling ?) case a good opening for corporate journilism to redeem itself. To leak a cia operative name is against the law. case closed. For months the identity of the leaker in Bob Novack column has been speculated on. Now it is confirmed. Rove. Do you think he is prison bound, poor boy?