CDR: Re: Gullible Journalists
Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : John Kelsey wrote... For some reason I've never been able to fathom, many journalists seem to be remarkably gullable, when they're told something from the right kind of source, especially a government agency or other official source. The net effect is that by and large journalists have become a cheerleading squad when what is needed is a vigorous and independent critical facility. That is if we are to retain some degree of the of, by and for philosophy. Maybe nobody wants that except for a few malcontents. Chomsky (dig around on http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm) and others have commented on this quite a bit. What it seems to boil down to is a sort of natural selection. Basically, it works like this: 1) Government is releasing some cool smart-bomb commercials, erh I mean video to a few select news sources. 2) NBC sends a questioning, smart, well-informed dude to said press conference. 3) During said smart-bomb footage notices the Arabic word for Hospital on the top of the smart-bombs target, and asks Is that a hospital? 4) Government takes NBC off list of cool insider info: Can't be trusted, not playing ball 5) NBC, now out in the cold, assigns said informed journalist to covering Ruwanda or other low-profile stuff, and assures military officials that they'll send someone a little more cooperative next time. I'm exagerating for effect here of course...there's possibly not as much conscious decision making, and supposedly this kind of list-making happens for much quieter, insider stuff (not smart bomb footage). But clearly, there's got to be SOMETHING like this happening. -TD It's not entirely one-sided and coercive. I think there is a desire on the part of most people to identify with the winning side. This may induce a similar airheaded cheerleading effect without coercion even being necessary. Simple human nature. The desire to be led. Mike
Re: Gullible Journalists
Tyler Durden wrote: For some reason I've never been able to fathom, many journalists seem to be remarkably gullable, when they're told something from the right kind of source, especially a government agency or other official source. Chomsky (dig around on http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm) and others have commented on this quite a bit. If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, I suggest you read some of Vin Suprynowicz's columns, or his book, _Send In The Waco Killers_. He's been a working journalist for decades, and so can describe first-hand how this process of co-opting journalists works.
Re: Gullible Journalists
Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : John Kelsey wrote... For some reason I've never been able to fathom, many journalists seem to be remarkably gullable, when they're told something from the right kind of source, especially a government agency or other official source. The net effect is that by and large journalists have become a cheerleading squad when what is needed is a vigorous and independent critical facility. That is if we are to retain some degree of the of, by and for philosophy. Maybe nobody wants that except for a few malcontents. Chomsky (dig around on http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm) and others have commented on this quite a bit. What it seems to boil down to is a sort of natural selection. Basically, it works like this: 1) Government is releasing some cool smart-bomb commercials, erh I mean video to a few select news sources. 2) NBC sends a questioning, smart, well-informed dude to said press conference. 3) During said smart-bomb footage notices the Arabic word for Hospital on the top of the smart-bombs target, and asks Is that a hospital? 4) Government takes NBC off list of cool insider info: Can't be trusted, not playing ball 5) NBC, now out in the cold, assigns said informed journalist to covering Ruwanda or other low-profile stuff, and assures military officials that they'll send someone a little more cooperative next time. I'm exagerating for effect here of course...there's possibly not as much conscious decision making, and supposedly this kind of list-making happens for much quieter, insider stuff (not smart bomb footage). But clearly, there's got to be SOMETHING like this happening. -TD It's not entirely one-sided and coercive. I think there is a desire on the part of most people to identify with the winning side. This may induce a similar airheaded cheerleading effect without coercion even being necessary. Simple human nature. The desire to be led. Mike
Re: Gullible Journalists
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:59:58AM -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: The net effect is that by and large journalists have become a cheerleading squad when what is needed is a vigorous and independent critical facility. That is if we are to retain some degree of the of, by and for philosophy. Maybe nobody wants that except for a few malcontents. Right. See what I sent to Politech today: Does Richard Clarke know what he's talking about? http://www.politechbot.com/p-04403.html More on Richard Clarke and root servers misstatement http://www.politechbot.com/p-04405.html Richard Clarke misstates Canadian elections cancelled? http://www.politechbot.com/p-04404.html Anyone think that Clarke is going to return my phone calls anytine soon? It's human nature not to like criticism, and to shun (or, if sufficiently annoying, to attack) your critics. As another example, I got a call today from one of the popular Sunday morning talk shows. They wanted my advice on whom to invite on. I recommended someone, and they reminded me, Um, didn't you watch the program recently? Our host has been critical of that [person]. There's no way we'll get someone from [that organization] on the program. Sigh. -Declan
Gullible Journalists
John Kelsey wrote... For some reason I've never been able to fathom, many journalists seem to be remarkably gullable, when they're told something from the right kind of source, especially a government agency or other official source. Chomsky (dig around on http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm) and others have commented on this quite a bit. What it seems to boil down to is a sort of natural selection. Basically, it works like this: 1) Government is releasing some cool smart-bomb commercials, erh I mean video to a few select news sources. 2) NBC sends a questioning, smart, well-informed dude to said press conference. 3) During said smart-bomb footage notices the Arabic word for Hospital on the top of the smart-bombs target, and asks Is that a hospital? 4) Government takes NBC off list of cool insider info: Can't be trusted, not playing ball 5) NBC, now out in the cold, assigns said informed journalist to covering Ruwanda or other low-profile stuff, and assures military officials that they'll send someone a little more cooperative next time. I'm exagerating for effect here of course...there's possibly not as much conscious decision making, and supposedly this kind of list-making happens for much quieter, insider stuff (not smart bomb footage). But clearly, there's got to be SOMETHING like this happening. -TD _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Gullible Journalists
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:31:35AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: I'm exagerating for effect here of course...there's possibly not as much conscious decision making, and supposedly this kind of list-making happens for much quieter, insider stuff (not smart bomb footage). But clearly, there's got to be SOMETHING like this happening. You're not very far off the mark. Be too critical and lose your sources. Happens at the White House and every federal agency, and is one of the tragedies of modern political journalism. I've written about this before in the context of the Justice Department antitrust suit. Washington Babylon is a good book that hits on this topic, I recall. -Declan
Re: Gullible Journalists
test On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:13:16AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:31:35AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: I'm exagerating for effect here of course...there's possibly not as much conscious decision making, and supposedly this kind of list-making happens for much quieter, insider stuff (not smart bomb footage). But clearly, there's got to be SOMETHING like this happening. You're not very far off the mark. Be too critical and lose your sources. Happens at the White House and every federal agency, and is one of the tragedies of modern political journalism. I've written about this before in the context of the Justice Department antitrust suit. Washington Babylon is a good book that hits on this topic, I recall. -Declan -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Gullible Journalists
Tyler Durden wrote: For some reason I've never been able to fathom, many journalists seem to be remarkably gullable, when they're told something from the right kind of source, especially a government agency or other official source. Chomsky (dig around on http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm) and others have commented on this quite a bit. If you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, I suggest you read some of Vin Suprynowicz's columns, or his book, _Send In The Waco Killers_. He's been a working journalist for decades, and so can describe first-hand how this process of co-opting journalists works.
Re: Gullible Journalists
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:31:35AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: I'm exagerating for effect here of course...there's possibly not as much conscious decision making, and supposedly this kind of list-making happens for much quieter, insider stuff (not smart bomb footage). But clearly, there's got to be SOMETHING like this happening. You're not very far off the mark. Be too critical and lose your sources. Happens at the White House and every federal agency, and is one of the tragedies of modern political journalism. I've written about this before in the context of the Justice Department antitrust suit. Washington Babylon is a good book that hits on this topic, I recall. -Declan
