"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
