“… The media is little better than an adjunct to 'business as usual' rather than a fourth estate….” – Neil
All too true Neil. I have been contemplating this a lot recently. The best conclusion I can come up with historically when it comes to the last century or two in the West is that the major (“main stream”) media has been at least partially supported by “business as usual” thus reflects and is representative of it. This would have included 1) advertising, 2)ownership, 3)writer & readership (visual presenters & viewership). So far, there are no surprises. Even unique and apparently independent printings of leaflets and booklets in the past has, on the whole, been relegated to those educated enough to be able to write and who have access to the printing presses. So, in a way, such presentations would on the whole appear to be representative of the elite. Today, even though we have blogs on the internet, what dominates the bandwidth is the commercial sites as far as I can tell. So, when it comes to opinions, the voice of the ‘common man’ seems to miss being recorded historically overall. My guess is that this has always been the case. As an aside, other than for some concert compositions based upon popular melody and song, even for music this has been the historical reality! On the other hand, as a child, I do remember the protestations about maintaining the independence and objectivity of “a fourth estate”. In my circles, I remember an ethos that, at least gave lip service to this. Whether it was a way to cover the fact that the papers were voicing agreed upon views or not is another issue. Over the years Neil, we have questioned how to bring about change in this and other areas. Other than my perhaps naïve start above, do you think it deserves a separate topic with further analysis? Upon further review of your last post, I see that you have the ability to quite succinctly address numerous points in a rather holographic way. IF I could do this in a better informed way, I would. Currently, going to the specific and dissecting it seems the best I can do. On Oct 2, 6:16 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Democracy clearly isn't just about voting occasionally for parties we > probably think are corrupt. In the UK we have slipped to the cynical > position that all candidates are broadly the same, self-interested > jobsworths - I used to hear this regularly in years gone by and think > it was a very unworthy position - now I believe it is the sensible > position, though only if we genuinely want to change the system. The > changes needed are 'big' but not impossible or ideological. It's > obvious our main political parties do not want to take part and are > really only interested in 'business as usual'. > Our government is focused in Westminster and one has to wonder why > this has to be the case given electronic communication. There is no > real way to monitor what our MPs do or to get rid of useless or > corrupt ones. My guess is that most of them are both and that this is > inevitable because of the party system, but I would stress I don't > know this as the information for informed decisions is not generally > available to us - we have to make 'guesses'. The media is little > better than an adjunct to 'business as usual' rather than a fourth > estate. > > I want to see a smaller State. We have massively expanded the public > sector - so much so it is impossible to gauge the real size as we have > all kinds of off-balance sheet finance initiatives, QUANGOs and > charities providing basic services. Sweeping this away would almost > certainly cost 2 million jobs and I have no belief private sector > entrepreneurialism can fill the gap - this kind of economics has long > been a lame duck itself. My guess is that 6 million people are > already unemployed and many others under-employed. There are massive > deficits in our pensions and welfare and at the same time we have a > very large body of jobsworths on very high salaries adding to the > pension burden. The answers are miles away from any proper public > dialogue. > > On 2 Oct, 13:16, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Great point, rigsy. The structure of government and function of > > leadership of any group should be determined by its developmental > > needs. I think what Chomsky is calling for is more purity in > > democracy, less corruption, more voice for citizens and organizational > > opportunities for subgroups. Democracy in the true spirit of > > democracy. The challenge, is to create a form that will serve the top > > and bottom levels of development for citizens, those self motivating > > and sustaining, those not. Chomsky's view isn't new but it is > > timely. The American transcendental poets each spoke of > > individuality, freedom, citizenship and the mandates of democracy and > > were a big influence on the politics of their time. > > > Souvenirs of Democracy. by Walt Whitman > > THE business man, the acquirer vast, > > After assiduous years, surveying results, preparing for departure, > > Devises houses and lands to his children—bequeaths stocks, goods—funds > > for a > > school or hospital, > > Leaves money to certain companions to buy tokens, souvenirs of gems > > and gold; > > Parceling out with care—And then, to prevent all cavil, > > His name to his testament formally signs. > > > But I, my life surveying, > > With nothing to show, to devise, from its idle years, > > Nor houses, nor lands—nor tokens of gems or gold for my friends, > > Only these Souvenirs of Democracy—In them—in all my songs—behind me > > leaving, > > To You, who ever you are, (bathing, leavening this leaf especially > > with my > > breath—pressing > > on it a moment with my own hands; > > —Here! feel how the pulse beats in my wrists!—how my heart’s-blood is > > swelling, > > contracting!) > > I will You, in all, Myself, with promise to never desert you, > > To which I sign my name. > > > On Oct 2, 12:00 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Citizens can be content in empires and monarchies, as well, if there > > > is peace and security, fair taxation and laws, accepted social strata > > > and freedoms, etc. A vote doesn't mean much if you are saddled with a > > > corrupt government/politicians and call it a democracy, republic or > > > the city council. And if nations decide to defeat trade rivals by > > > unfair practices, they are probably asking for wars/war monger > > > dictators who appeal to the basic needs/wants/resentments of their own > > > citizens. > > > > On Oct 1, 10:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Exactly the issue Neil…’we’ cause the problems and on many different > > > > levels. However, I’m not sure it is due to lack of democracy…not > > > > saying this is not the cause, just not sure. > > > > > The ‘old’ unions had their function and arose in a different time > > > > based upon specific needs. All such things change. And is it really a > > > > mystery as to why specific characters arose to power? I’m not sure > > > > this is a puzzle at all. > > > > > On Oct 1, 3:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Indeed Orn - there is definitely a baby in this bathwater. I would > > > > > hope never again to experience the 'Zil Chill' of the former Soviet > > > > > states or the grim feelings I've had elsewhere away from these shores, > > > > > though we need to understand we cause many of these problems by > > > > > failing to achieve more democracy. I'm an old union man, but don't > > > > > want to see a return of the old unions - however, a new form of > > > > > insured representation for all is possible. If 'democracy' could > > > > > produce Hitler we need to know why and how - even Mugabe was once > > > > > voted in for real. > > > > > > On 1 Oct, 17:41, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > As critical as I am of the ‘democracy’ that I know, mostly with the > > > > > > intention of retaining and/or improving it, I am quite thankful that > > > > > > this lifetime was not spent in Cambodia or other such countries. The > > > > > > current experiment is preferable when a comparison to what is is > > > > > > conducted. And, when compared to the codified words “…in order to > > > > > > form > > > > > > a more perfect union…”, the ongoing process is seen and must be > > > > > > recognized. I do. > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:26 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > We like to think of the UK Parliament as the 'mother of > > > > > > > parliaments'. > > > > > > > We are much the same in sport - always resting on our history of > > > > > > > inventing the games others now beat us at! Most civilised > > > > > > > countries > > > > > > > seem more democratic than Britain, but I only ever visit or live > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > them as an alien. In France, in the late 70's I discovered my > > > > > > > illusions were just that as police and troops laid waste to a > > > > > > > shanty > > > > > > > town with bulldozers and I found out how casual labour was > > > > > > > treated (I > > > > > > > was undercover on a drugs bust). The US has always seemed so much > > > > > > > more democratic with all kinds of elections we don't have - yet it > > > > > > > generally is not. > > > > > > > I actually find a lot not to like about democracy - the Athenian > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > had a privileged Demos and practised ethnic cleansing of an > > > > > > > economic > > > > > > > kind we see in Domesday Books all over the world - and there are > > > > > > > obvious problems such as asking the uninformed to make decisions. > > > > > > > This latter is a key problem as it lets in charisma and all the > > > > > > > old > > > > > > > techniques of persuasion because we can always rely on the > > > > > > > majority > > > > > > > not to be able to follow the argument. The Germans were probably > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > best educated, most scientific, most cultured people on the planet > > > > > > > when they voted for Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler may have seized > > > > > > > power illegitimately, but Germans voted for him in droves in > > > > > > > elections > > > > > > > around the country. Other countries had their own Nazis in > > > > > > > considerable numbers. We will vote for any dross - this should > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > us rethink democracy. > > > > > > > > On 1 Oct, 17:00, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sadly, I couldn’t get tickets to hear Noam here in Portland this > > > > > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > And, I have found that he gets much of what you say we should > > > > > > > > fear > > > > > > > > right Neil. He just isn’t quite as charismatic in his brand of > > > > > > > > ‘evangelism’ as some though. > > > > > > > > > I fear we in the Colonies are at the cusp of yet another Civil > > > > > > > > War… > > > > > > > > only not so ‘Civil’. The ‘best’ political action my > > > > > > > > disillusioned > > > > > > > > brain can imagine at this time, other than a true ‘new’ tea > > > > > > > > party, is > > > > > > > > to fulfill the ancient cry of ‘Throw the bums out!’. I was > > > > > > > > skeptical > > > > > > > > about the actuality of the BO regime from the start and now > > > > > > > > that the > > > > > > > > ‘party in power’ has vetoed health care for we the people and > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > reinvested in the demonstrated failed practice of sexual > > > > > > > > abstinence as > > > > > > > > well as a continued hegemony, it really is time for change. > > > > > > > > Eisenhower > > > > > > > > was much wiser. > > > > > > > > > As a sort of Paul Revere of the day, I call upon ‘we the > > > > > > > > people’ to > > > > > > > > see that every political person in power is replaced...with 3rd > > > > > > > > party > > > > > > > > individuals if possible. There is no other way to gain political > > > > > > > > attention today. This even though I fully embrace Noam’s notion > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Anarchy: > > > > > > > > > “…Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the > > > > > > > > burden > > > > > > > > of proof is always on those who argue that authority and > > > > > > > > domination > > > > > > > > are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful > > > > > > > > argument, that > > > > > > > > that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the > > > > > > > > institutions they > > > > > > > > defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
