Asymmetrical Polarization

[Mark Kohut]

Thanks. Lots of agreement here, I think.

yes, "much blame lies with the media".....

I like 'supposed to hope" and "almost no information"...and "appeared to
lose interest".....

and much truth-telling.

See Mason & Dixon for this in 'symbolic form".

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Thomas Eckhardt <
thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 05:05:28 -0500
>  Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thomas Eckhardt:
>>
>
> TE:
>> "For me these people are warmongers who sell regime change wars to the
>> public." [ well, a clear statement that you will believe what you want to
>> believe despite paying lip service to 'fact-finding and reporting". I like
>> the surfacing of reality here]
>>
>
> I don't call it a fact. It is my opinion, yes. If you are aware of Michael
> Gordon addressing this or similar allegations, I would be interested to
> listen to his explanation. The NYT has issued a mea culpa:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the
> -times-and-iraq.html
>
> Here are some readers' reactions:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/opinion/the-times-and-iraq
> -a-mea-culpa-and-a-debate-9-letters.html
>
> And "the general impression one gets" etc. shows another bit of honesty:
>> TE's impressions are not actually measurable without further definition of
>> sources of information, facts, judgment of what is mainstream and why.
>>
>
> That is why I used "impression." I don't think, however, that I have to
> justify my opinion. It is those who now once again trust journalists that
> have been used (to use your benign explanation) to channel government
> propaganda to the public in the past who need good reasons for this. Fool
> me once etc.
>
> My opinions and impressions are based on reading articles by, for example,
> Stephen Kinzer and Patrick Coburn. Both are experienced journalists whose
> opinions can not easily be discounted I assume. Both are on record as
> stating with regard to Syria that they have rarely witnessed propaganda on
> this scale:
>
> "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful
> episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in
> the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why."
>
> "Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight
> the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to
> hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the
> 'moderate opposition' will win.
>
> This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing
> it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals,
> or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media."
>
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are
> -misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
>
> "The nadir of Western media coverage of the wars in Iraq and Syria has
> been the reporting of the siege of East Aleppo, which began in earnest in
> July and ended in December, when Syrian government forces took control of
> the last rebel-held areas and more than 100,000 civilians were evacuated.
> During the bombardment, TV networks and many newspapers appeared to lose
> interest in whether any given report was true or false and instead competed
> with one another to publicise the most eye-catching atrocity story even
> when there was little evidence that it had taken place."
>
> "All wars always produce phony atrocity stories – along with real
> atrocities. But in the Syrian case fabricated news and one-sided reporting
> have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the
> First World War."
>
> https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n03/patrick-cockburn/who-supplies-the-news
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20171218/28cf3ea6/attachment.html>