Of Palestinians rejoicing

Sat Sep 29 21:33:20 CDT 2001

Doug, don't you quit with that alternative news, now. Please! I'm learning things,  making bookmarks. I want all the perspectives I can get. I know what mainstream media is feeding me.  I can taste it now clearer than ever. 
But, Paul, how could you pick on Doug and let David Morris slide? Geeze! What was that one he posted? "Muslim-Americans Hate Country"? Remember how that wide-sweeping claim was supported? a single interview with a 14-year-old Palestinian-American boy.  Good Heavens! I was gonna say something then, but then I remembered I wanted all the perspectives I could get, so I clicked delete. The Palestinian boy, the angry New York journalist, David Morris for seeing fit to post it--they're all perspectives I wanna know about. But I dearly hope they get overshadowed (at least in my little mind) by the likes of Doug and our fine progressive friends out in the world and on the Internet. 

--- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Mackin 
  To: pynchon-l at waste.org 
  Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:58 PM
  Subject: Re: Of Palestinians rejoicing

  I'd never want to maintain newspapers like the Times and the Post don't have
  viewpoints and push them. Also they don't print everything one or the other
  of us might think is important news. Who can be sure that on occasion there
  is not actual suppression of information though given the competition among
  their writers for Pulizers this would require quite an elaborate conspiracy.
  Frankly I don't think it happens much but of course I can't prove it.  Much
  more often in my experience a "story" will not be given any or much space
  because after an effort to check it out it is found to be lacking  a
  verifiable  factual basis. Some investigative reporter, say, may think he
  has discovered the CIA has been deliberately planting dope in Watts to
  demoralize and neutralize its citizenry. But reliable witnesses of actual
  instances of doing this can't  be found. How  a reporter would like to write
  such a story if it were true. But he has to prove it to his editor. This
  story in fact COULD be true. But no one in a position to really know has
  talked. So the story gets dropped from reputable papers.

  This really doesn't get at the point I was trying to make this morning,
  which was simply that the mainstream press despite its faults DOES provide a
  large enough variety of factual, or as factual as is known, information
  about happenings in the world so that an assiduous reader can form  his own
  conclusions and opinions. 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20010929/0894f995/attachment.html>