prolegomenon

according to nietzsche, mankind is not only incapable of learning the truth--we are held captive by our perception--but also cannot handle it. as creatures w/ "an unconquerable urge to let themselves be deceived," nor would they want to. foucault takes a similarly pessimistic view, arguing for the existence of a "truth industry," in a sense, where one faction's truth competes against another's for dominance. the existence of two opposing organizations, media matters and the media research center, each covering the foibles of their enemies (and only their enemies), surely gives some credence to foucault's theory. in the face of all this, it is perhaps easy to sympathize w/ orwell's fear over the disappearance of objective truth.

for me, what's most chilling is the oss analysis of hitler's methods, b/c they seem frightfully similar to the modus operandi of talk show hosts, media outlets and political parties in this country today: agitate the public; deny error; villainize the opposition; find a common enemy; refuse blame; manipulate the truth. take for instance, this story, rush limbaugh denying he ever compared cindy sheehan to bill burkett. one sees how careless his initial statement is; at the same time, one sees just how carefully prepared his response is, offering his supporters to grab on to, viz. that he never said sheehan lied about having a dead son. (just as careless and careful is the rove/plame case: initially, bush answered "yes" when asked whether a leaker would be fired; later, he said a leaker would merely be "taken care of.") yet he maintains this in the face of existing audio evidence--and, well, what is one to do? i

the reason i'm focusing on the "new" media, by which i mean cable news and talk radio, instead of, oh, spending a day w/ the times (new york, l.a., and washington) is this question of accountability. the new media gets it both ways: their stories often make into the mainstream press and onto the "big three" broadcasts, a demonstration of their power and influence, but, at the same time, when they make mistakes, the response, if there is one, is along the lines of "oops, my bad." (in the case of matt drudge, he can merely pull a link off the front page. unless one has a google cache going, there's no audio or video to turn to.) it's not just what they say, though, that interests me; the methods are equally important, the way they communicate the message (and who communicates that message), how they couch and prioritize the issues--i'm even interested, to a lesser degree, in their commercials.

but, like the later orwell, i'm optimistic. i think that, just as one can debase it through lies, one can recover the truth through a careful use and, in the case of this project, examination of language. pat robertson's "take him out" and george w. bush's "taken care of" are vague terms--though robertson's antecedent, something he can't wiggle away from, is "assassinate"--which need to be clarified, and this is why we have a media (who seem to be springing back to life). diane sawyer had an interview w/ president bush post-katrina in which the president said, "i don't think anyone anticipated the breach." instant outrage! what do you mean no one anticipated a breach? there are all of these warnings and articles and reports and fema said this and a university said that. factcheck.org, though, carefully parses what bush said:

Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.

Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:

Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be breached.

And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a possibility worth examining.

the word to note is "technically." speaking of technically, lest i seem to be indicating that republicans have a monopoly on spin, here is, really, the apotheosis of obfuscation, courtesy of former-president clinton:

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

one must, i believe, confront the convolutions of their leaders' speech w/ clarity (alliteration optional).

through this project, i hope to draw attention to the new media and draw parallels w/ the established media. i know many of my enlightened friends and peers don't have televisions, which i respect; i know the great majority of them wouldn't be caught dead listening to conservative programs; but i think--no, i don't think, i know that this, really, is the future of news (i also know that liberal sources are just as bad; perhaps it only seems to the contrary b/c of the party that's in power). "one ought to recognize," orwell wrote in 1946, "that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end." by starting in front of a television and radio but using verbal ends, i hope to do my small part.

posted by fred [link] 7:17 PM 0 comments -----