Re: nettime War profiteers in art (Biennale di Venezia, 2007)
I am not sure if there are two Benjamins or one (I copy pasted emails that did not appear on the list) ? I forward these emails to Nettime ana benjamin wrote: interesting points on an ever-open issue. consider that without mass-media, would it be possible to say that very few people would hear about the grievances of the world? news spread without media, gossip is still faster than the press if so it could be said that the mass-media is both guilty of supplying information and more often than not, yes - they live on that first of all. imagine no war on the planet for a year: CNN becoming a peace station - falling number of the public - loosing jobs war reporters. no brave prefix to journalist heroes leaving it's observers totally helpless towards being able to influence. on the other hand; in following a story, the observer is able to satisfy their caring impulses by being able to express their concern with other sharers of the mass's global information media - to neutralize such impulses through passive engagement in the materials without which there would have most probably been no issue in the first place. yes entertainment for the compassionate soul? what can we learn of humanitarian impulses when drawing a distinction with say sexual impulses for example? mean like eros and thanatos consuming. but these images are different in peace and war society. afterthought: what differences and similarities lay between the mass-media of a country with a functioning economy and working public, and the mass-media of a country which does not have this stability?... pacification/motivation ? i don't think it matters. advertising and propaganda do function the same way, only goals are different. Benjamin Geer wrote: The night they showed POWs and the dead soldiers, Al Jazeera showed them, it was powerful, because Americans don't show those kinds of images. In most of the news, America won't show really gory images, and this showed American soldiers in uniform, strewn about a floor, a cold tile floor, and it was revolting. It was absolutely revolting. It made me sick at my stomach. And then what hit me was, the night before, there had been some kind of bombing in Basra, and Al Jazeera had shown images of the people, and they were equally if not more horrifying, the images were. And I remember having seen it in the Al Jazeera office and thought to myself, 'Wow, that's gross. That's bad.' And then going away and probably eating dinner or something, and you know, it didn't affect me as much. So the impact that had on me made me realise that I just saw people on the other side, and those people in the Al Jazeera office must have felt the way I was feeling that night. And it upset me on a profound level that I wasn't bothered as much the night before. I found this very strange. Why was it different for him to see dead American bodies than to see dead Iraqi bodies? The only explanation I can think of is nationalism. Nationalism makes you feel compassion for some people and not others. But that is media intoxication. Show him ANY body not telling the nation and ask how he feels and you can see only two things: a human or a psychopath. If the second - deal with care... So you're right that showing dead bodies isn't necessarily going to make any difference. But the media play an important role in constructing people's nationalist feelings, in teaching people that some dead bodies matter more than others. That is the actual calculation with death, but media is supporting that as if the number matters!!! No number matters as those are persons, and for their families only some matter. The calculation of numbers of dead people is really, really necrophiliac. But what matters are their families - so what you have at the end is families of 8500 people and it is natural that everyone tries to find some meaning in death (a big deal of the civilization based on that quest). And when none recognizes their lost it is what you get. First one that say it was not without reason are getting them into more and more of troubles, nation is one explanation, it can be religion too, social explanation But, the worst is that after becoming a number - they are used to provoke a new conflict which probably they would not approve themselves if they would be alive. If there were no news about the war, nobody outside Iraq would even be aware that there's a war going on. One may give the opposite argument: if there would be no report on war on Iraq it would never been used in different campaigns so - less evil would happen. I don't understand. What campaigns? Do you mean the anti-war campaigns? Also war campaign. Here in Egypt where I live at the moment, nearly everyone seems to watch Al Jazeera. I watch it, too. Practically every evening, the lead story is about the dead and wounded in Iraq or the occupied Palestinian
Re: nettime War profiteers in art (Biennale di Venezia, 2007)
the role of the war reporter that has emancipated indicating a cultural Well, the text not immediately on that, but... need for the distant trauma in public Sometimes it's not so distant. People in Iraq do watch TV news reports about the war going on around them. Good if they have the electricity! Not quite common for war zones. But, reporting within a war serves for the immediate civilian function, but war reporting for people that do not do anything about the war - but only watch it on a daily base (see Sontag: Regarding the pain of others) actually turns out only into an adrenaline provoking to the society of the spectacle. So the difference is TO WHOM you are reporting: to people you save immediately or to those that will just browse channels / or walk through an exhibition. You can simply see the number of CNN public and see how many of people do see those news and do nothing about it. And it is indeed a difference of the owner of the media for whom you are reporting as it can also make much more of damage, becoming a propaganda for getting new elections of a single person, for example. As as most of the media is owned by interested owners they turn out to propaganda, which is the question FOR WHAT purpose. It indeed reminded me of plenty of conferences on war topics in which speakers were caught in war for a day, having all kinds of bullet-protection jackets and who had only made troubles to local police that had to cover them up instead of taking care for children, old people and women in danger that would not be able to escape, as these reporters A lot of reporters have been killed in Iraq, and quite a few of them have been Iraqis: http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3 Yes, it is sad for any person, but in the amount of people getting killed over there that would stay anonymous. To get a sense of why some journalists risk their lives to cover wars, you could have a look at the BBC documentary Control Room, about Al-Jazeera's coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, perhaps especially the part about Al-Jazeera journalist Tariq Ayyoub, who was killed by an American air strike on the Al Jazeera office in Baghdad, and the statement by his widow, in which she implores a gathering of journalists to persist in telling the truth about the war. One question, the same one: has that truth helped to Srebrenica? I am sorry for enforcing this issue but it happens now and the media seems to be interesting only when the massacre was going on: media has abandoned them. I do not expect to be corrected in theory there or numbers of killed journalists, no number of those that got killed should ever server for another ones to suffer, as that is actually the war logic. It is a matter of doing. Ana # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nettime War profiteers in art (Biennale di Venezia, 2007)
On 11/06/07, Ana Peraica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am thinking again on the role of the war reporter that has emancipated indicating a cultural need for the distant trauma in public Sometimes it's not so distant. People in Iraq do watch TV news reports about the war going on around them. It indeed reminded me of plenty of conferences on war topics in which speakers were caught in war for a day, having all kinds of bullet-protection jackets and who had only made troubles to local police that had to cover them up instead of taking care for children, old people and women in danger that would not be able to escape, as these reporters A lot of reporters have been killed in Iraq, and quite a few of them have been Iraqis: http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3 To get a sense of why some journalists risk their lives to cover wars, you could have a look at the BBC documentary Control Room, about Al-Jazeera's coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, perhaps especially the part about Al-Jazeera journalist Tariq Ayyoub, who was killed by an American air strike on the Al Jazeera office in Baghdad, and the statement by his widow, in which she implores a gathering of journalists to persist in telling the truth about the war. Ben # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nettime War profiteers in art (Biennale di Venezia, 2007)
Good if they have the electricity! Not quite common for war zones. Some people apparently have electricity often enough to make scathing comments about what they see on TV; blogger Riverbend is an example: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ good one! I actually believe more can be done with personal not the institutional insight (see bellow) reporting within a war serves for the immediate civilian function, but war reporting for people that do not do anything about the war - but only watch it on a daily base (see Sontag: Regarding the pain of others) actually turns out only into an adrenaline provoking to the society of the spectacle. But, OK, but how do you know which viewers are going to do something and which one's aren't? By the time that is passing after something had happened as an event and years after that things haven't changed. There are media exhausted topics... Then you can count those topics and what is the real impact factor. Someone must have done it. Don't you think what people see on the news sometimes inspires them to act? Rarely, it more inspires (rather; makes them) those that feel close to victims - starting with close/distant relatives, friends... So - networks of friends / colleagues are rather more efficient than those of unknown to the unknown. Or at the very least, makes it possible for them to consider doing so? Compassion. But one should have it without images of destruction, death and corpses which only shock (that actually stops any action). Or it may be the world is arrived to the state victim needs to give harder and harder evidence of not lying? There were wars before that amount of images of death and destruction and people were helping each other, seems even more... It seems to me that before you can act, you have to be aware that there's some reason to act. When you are normal person you don't need a day by day argument people are in need. This tells something else... If you need 100 days report to say something and nothing had happened... Or you need more people to get killed for someone to understand? I am sorry but how do you judge the public that doesn't get the clue after 100 days? Idiots or indolent people? Or they are not important at all? If there were no news about the war, nobody outside Iraq would even be aware that there's a war going on. One may give the opposite argument: if there would be no report on war on Iraq it would never been used in different campaigns so - less evil would happen. This has indeed happened in the case of wars waged secretly by the CIA: by the time Americans found out what their country had done, it was too late to take action; the war was over, the victims were dead. And did reports on war in Iraq reports stopped them? you save immediately or to those that will just browse channels / or walk through an exhibition. So the difference is TO WHOM you are reporting: to people Unfortunately the people who can end the war are not in Iraq; they're in the US. And they live out of media reports, campaigns (they or their opponents) Put them less on TV and they will loose the campaign. So the media aren't saving anyone immediately. But global public opinion does affect the outcome of wars, and the media do affect public opinion. Opinion on victims? that is really really cold. It is not a game you play and then you change sides - being media intoxicated and then detoxicated suddenly (or re-intoxicated) of the owner of the media for whom you are reporting as it can also make much more of damage, becoming a propaganda for getting new elections of a single person, for example. As as most of the media is owned by interested owners they turn out to propaganda, which is the question FOR WHAT purpose. And it is indeed a difference Here it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that people who watch TV news don't take any action about what they see. On the other hand, you say that TV news propaganda is effective in making people act, e.g. by voting for a certain candidate in elections. That is not in the contradiction: victims are USED when interpreted in any sense. To amuse, to illustrate, to whatever. killed over there that would stay anonymous. Yes, it is sad for any person, but in the amount of people getting I simply meant that war correspondents are not as safe as you seemed to believe. well, there are different ones, actually, some are provided with more safety and others are sent almost to be killed. Depends for whom they are working. Some people do get kill for others for 10 dollars and then famous reporters sign them as their own. I am sorry for enforcing this issue but it happens now and the media seems to be interesting only when the massacre was going on: media has abandoned them. That's not an argument for the uselessness of the media; it's an argument for making better media. again the
