"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

Reply via email to