![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Another shining moment for the New York Times
I would also like to add that I have met a surprising amount of people who rightfully laugh at the idea of the Democratic Party being "progressive" yet stubbornly defer to the New York Times as a bastion of journalistic integrity that serves as a check against the bias of the corporate media that has been bought and paid for by Rupert Murdoch.
In some Orwellian brain pretzel-twist people keep thinking that The NYT actually covered the war in a way that could be considered something other than spin. Hey, rememeber the Mea Culpa, their post facto "self-critique" that was positively channeled from Soviet Party meetings where such "day late and dollar short" wrist-slapping was a sine qua non?
When I saw "The Battle of Algier" last winter I was struck by the portrayal of the French media in the film. During the press conference scenes the reporters, um, do their job and examine Lt. Colonel Mathieu, the fictionalized counterparty of General Massu, demanding answers about his policies of repressing the insurgency, which include illegal arrests and torture. The reporters are aggressive, confident and hold the Lt. Colonel accountable for everything he says. On August 23rd 2003 Pentagon held a special screening of this film as a part of their Special Operations training program, designed, I guess to educate about urban warfare in the context of acolonial military occupation in Iraq, I mean Algier. The screening was advertised with a flyer that read "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.". Obviously they learned a lot from it. Kind of my like my ex-boyfriend learned that revisionist history is totally cool and very useful from the copy of 1984* that I misguidedly lent to him. But anyway, my point is, as long as this film is being used as an educational aid, the people who could stand to learn something from it are the White House Press Corps and the Associated Press at large. United they could stand. Divided they will all be Dan Rathered for whatever atavistic inklings to "report" that may stir within.
Incidentally, in my ongoing masochistic reading project, the Left Behind series, one of the first things the Antichrist does is eliminate independent publications and instead establishes a global press network that is part of his all-encompassing Global Community (that is based out of New Babylon, natch). All the reporters can write is Antichrist´s spin. This is one of those freaky "strange bedmates" Venn diagram points of overlap between the progressive left and the Fundies, kind of like when the Fundies mark down the proliferation of Walmarts in the "apocalyptic signs" category in their Rapture Index. I mean, the reporter who bucks this new Antichrist system in the seires (and his name is Buck, people! Buck!!) is, like, an amalgam of Woodward and Redford and Mr. Smith in Washington. Except that, you know, he is a 30-year old virgin.
*This relates both to my idea of "poisonous books" and to my firmly held belief that people should have to undergo personality testing before being allowed near certain books. Or at least be carded. I mean, I don´t think anyone under 35 should be allowed to read Nietzsche. And teenagers who only read Marx must have their reading lists supplemented, otherwise you will get an ideological equivalent of that Ray Bradbury short story, "The Veldt" where the kids in the future have a special bedroom that can morph into any place the kids imagine, and the kids get stuck on playing in the African veldt for so long that the parents get concerned and try to shut down the room, but the kids lock them in the room and the African lions eat the parents. Any questions?
I would also like to add that I have met a surprising amount of people who rightfully laugh at the idea of the Democratic Party being "progressive" yet stubbornly defer to the New York Times as a bastion of journalistic integrity that serves as a check against the bias of the corporate media that has been bought and paid for by Rupert Murdoch.
In some Orwellian brain pretzel-twist people keep thinking that The NYT actually covered the war in a way that could be considered something other than spin. Hey, rememeber the Mea Culpa, their post facto "self-critique" that was positively channeled from Soviet Party meetings where such "day late and dollar short" wrist-slapping was a sine qua non?
When I saw "The Battle of Algier" last winter I was struck by the portrayal of the French media in the film. During the press conference scenes the reporters, um, do their job and examine Lt. Colonel Mathieu, the fictionalized counterparty of General Massu, demanding answers about his policies of repressing the insurgency, which include illegal arrests and torture. The reporters are aggressive, confident and hold the Lt. Colonel accountable for everything he says. On August 23rd 2003 Pentagon held a special screening of this film as a part of their Special Operations training program, designed, I guess to educate about urban warfare in the context of acolonial military occupation in Iraq, I mean Algier. The screening was advertised with a flyer that read "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.". Obviously they learned a lot from it. Kind of my like my ex-boyfriend learned that revisionist history is totally cool and very useful from the copy of 1984* that I misguidedly lent to him. But anyway, my point is, as long as this film is being used as an educational aid, the people who could stand to learn something from it are the White House Press Corps and the Associated Press at large. United they could stand. Divided they will all be Dan Rathered for whatever atavistic inklings to "report" that may stir within.
Incidentally, in my ongoing masochistic reading project, the Left Behind series, one of the first things the Antichrist does is eliminate independent publications and instead establishes a global press network that is part of his all-encompassing Global Community (that is based out of New Babylon, natch). All the reporters can write is Antichrist´s spin. This is one of those freaky "strange bedmates" Venn diagram points of overlap between the progressive left and the Fundies, kind of like when the Fundies mark down the proliferation of Walmarts in the "apocalyptic signs" category in their Rapture Index. I mean, the reporter who bucks this new Antichrist system in the seires (and his name is Buck, people! Buck!!) is, like, an amalgam of Woodward and Redford and Mr. Smith in Washington. Except that, you know, he is a 30-year old virgin.
*This relates both to my idea of "poisonous books" and to my firmly held belief that people should have to undergo personality testing before being allowed near certain books. Or at least be carded. I mean, I don´t think anyone under 35 should be allowed to read Nietzsche. And teenagers who only read Marx must have their reading lists supplemented, otherwise you will get an ideological equivalent of that Ray Bradbury short story, "The Veldt" where the kids in the future have a special bedroom that can morph into any place the kids imagine, and the kids get stuck on playing in the African veldt for so long that the parents get concerned and try to shut down the room, but the kids lock them in the room and the African lions eat the parents. Any questions?
