Of Palestinians rejoicing

[Paul Mackin]

Yes, we know, Doug. Think I'll continue to rely principally on the Post and
Times as my daily papers. You must do what works for you.
                P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Millison" <nopynching at yahoo.com>
To: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Of Palestinians rejoicing


>
> With all due respect, Paul, you don't seem to have
> much insight into the process of journalism and
> publishing, and how ideology is necessarily reflected
> in that process. Having worked as a professional
> journalist for nearly 20 years, and having taught
> journalism, I have studied this issue in some detail.
> It's safe to say that the NYTimes and Washington Post
> reflect the ideology of the established authority and
> commercial interests in the U.S., and you don't have
> to be located anyplace specific on the political
> spectrum to make and support such a statement.   These
> newspapers certainly don't come any where near
> publishing anything that could be properly described
> as "objective" i.e., untainted with political bias.
>
> To get anything like an objective or complete picture
> of what's going on, a reader needs to gather
> information from a wide variety of sources, you need
> to take into consideration the obvious political
> biases of each, and put together a mosaic that comes
> closer to an accurate portrayal of events than any
> single publication can provide.  The classic example
> is the one that taught it to me first -- waking up in
> the morning in Paris and reading yesterday's news
> through the lenses of the various daily French
> newspapers, each reflecting a different perspective
> related to the politics of the parties they each
> represented, ranging from l'Humanite (voice of the
> French Communist Party), through Liberation and Le
> Monde (progressive left and Socialist), to Le Figaro
> and others center right and right wing.  We don't have
> so rich a spectrum of political discourse reflected in
> major daily papers in the U.S., of course, but a
> reader can pull together a pretty good view of things
> if she's willing to invest some time in reading across
> a spectrum of viewpoints.  That presupposes an
> interest in getting a more complete picture, of
> course, and way too many people in the U.S., in my
> opinion, don't have that interest.
>
> What is a "fact"?  You might find it fruitful to
> explore the assumptions that are built into this
> simple-sounding concept, and move on from there to see
> how presenting "factual information" (your term) in a
> newspaper is quite a bit more complicated, and fraught
> with opportunities for bias, than you seem to imagine.
>
> This is a good topic for discussion on Pynchon-L,
> given the way that Pynchon plays with perspective,
> narrative strategies, and so forth.  Given your
> staunch defense of each PoMo concept that comes down
> the pike, Paul, I'm surprised that you don't think to
> apply some of that same kind of analysis to the
> newspapers and magazines you read and the broadcast
> news you watch.
>
> Most of the stuff I've been excerpting and posting
> from other Web sites have been opinion pieces
> (buttressed by their authors with "factual
> information") anyway, so your comments are off-target
> in that respect in the first place.
>
> -Doug
> www.Online-Journalist.com
>
> --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote: [...]
> >  This is something one
> > cannot do with the selective
> > facts presented on the type of Internet site that
> > (forgive me) you, Doug,
> > all to often in my humble opinion,  promote on the
> > p-list. It's of course
> > your right.
> >
> > But back to the Times and the Post and the many
> > other good (or at least
> > fair) daily papers in the U.S. and throughout the
> > world. Hope this doesn't
> > sound insulting to anyone but one needs to KNOW HOW
> > to read The Times and
> > The Post. A typical sequence of national news goes
> > like this. Some momentous
> > crisis occurs that the Administration in Washington
> > is implicated in in some
> > way and must react to and manage. The first attempt
> > to spin things the
> > Administration's way goes out in practically
> > minutes. The next morning the
> > front page stories in the two papers will pretty
> > much tell things the way
> > the Administration says they are. Nobody believes a
> > word of it of course.
> > Why do the papers bother? Well  in the first place
> > THEY haven't had time yet
> > to discover what might really be happening. Also I
> > think they realize the
> > power they truly have and feel obliged to give the
> > government the benefit of
> > the doubt at least for a decent interval. Next day
> > however a few doubts are
> > cautiously expressed. Some reliable but unnamable
> > souce within the
> > administration has revealed this or that. By the
> > third day all stops are
> > out. The big time reporters with inside sources are
> > fevrrishing competing to
> > pick holes in the official truth. By the fourth day
> > even the official truth
> > has changed. And this process goes on until the
> > events creating the news are
> > no longer relevant. Or something more momentous has
> > come alone.
> >
> > Anyway. And, Doug, I'm not trying to get you to
> > change. Don't even want you
> > to change. I love the p-list too much just the way
> > it is.
> >             P.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Millison" <nopynching at yahoo.com>
> > To: "Phil Wise" <philwise at paradise.net.nz>; "Paul
> > Mackin"
> > <paul.mackin at verizon.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 2:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Of Palestinians rejoicing
> >
> >
> > > Sorry, but you're dreaming if you think that
> > manstream
> > > newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post
> > (and
> > > major broadcast news organizations) don't "advance
> > > specific partisan views" as a result of the way
> > they
> > > select, edit, and present news stories and images.
> >  It
> > > is, in fact, impossible to put together a
> > journalistic
> > > narrative without imposing an ideological slant --
> > > from the moment that a reporter chooses to ask
> > this
> > > question or that question, or to quote this person
> > or
> > > that person, or to include this "fact" or that
> > "fact",
> > > all the way through the editing process,
> > reporters,
> > > writers, and editors make judgements that reflect
> > > ideologies.  That the NY Times and Washington Post
> > and
> > > major TV networks don't appear to do this can be
> > > simply explained by noting that their ideological
> > > perspective fits well with the ideological
> > perspective
> > > of a large number of people in the U.S.
> > >
> > > In the past I've taught journalism students and
> > now
> > > I'm teaching my son how to read a variety of
> > > publications - -mainstream and niche -- in order
> > to
> > > put together the widest possible collection of
> > facts
> > > and interpretations, to better put together a
> > balanced
> > > picture of what's going on out there in the world.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The point of the highly selected "facts"
> > > > deseminated on this type site is
> > > > > not to provide generally applicable
> > information
> > > > but to advance  specific
> > > > > partisan views. Nothing wrong with that in
> > itself
> > > > but let the buyer
> > > > beware.
> > > > > The New York Times and Washington Post depite
> > > > criticisms one might make
> > > > have
> > > > > of their inclusions and ommisions DO in any
> > case
> > > > provide generally useful
> > > > > informaton with which to think about things
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any
> > phone.
> > > http://phone.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
> http://phone.yahoo.com