“Stop Spreading Information!”
Readers of my blogs (writing) may be familiar that I had been increasing my participation at the local newspaper’s blogs until increasingly I was subject to continual personal insults and attacks from thinly-veiled serial “anonymous” bloggers who for sometime now have dedicated their entire existence to my destruction. There have always been people like that on the periphery of my life -- invariably so incensed that I’m allowed to “get away” with doing whatever violations of contemporary mores they wish they had thought of first. That was to be expected.
But the author of the blog demanded that I not quote any other source but himself and what I read in the newspaper as the sole source of information -- which is not unlike the “journalistic” control of the discussion, that increasingly seems so heavy-handed and doomed to reveal their lack of brilliance, if not competence and accuracy.
This is the point at which I have to make the decision to either go for the larger readership or maintain my own standards of integrity and value in being a doorway to “all” the information, and not just what the “powers” that want to be or continue to be, want us to know to further continue to exploit and manipulate us desire. It’s a pretty easy call -- and one I’ve never been reluctant to make.
Creating another venue for information distribution is easy to come by but losing one’s integrity and judgment, is pretty much an eternal damnation that ensures that one will have lost their way forevermore. If one is not clear in what they are doing, then it is easy to get lost and follow the path not worth taking.
That is the reason one sees so many misshapen and deformed people working in these fields -- with a look of contempt and sneer of resentment perpetually etched onto their faces. One can start with the beauty known as Helen Thomas as the poster girl for “The Look” journalists all over the world seem to have inherited from their gene pool. That ugliness is just the external visage of a much greater horror inside that seems to be the DNA of all such master manipulators now -- of which the mass (media) demagogues are simply the most visible and obvious.
Those still left in the fields of journalism, education and liberal politics should start to exit from those positions now -- before it is too late for them to save themselves, let alone the nonsense of saving others (or the world (Al Gore’s Disease, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, etc.)).
The peculiarity of their demands is that their is nothing in it for me if I comply with their demands except for my own abnegation which they expect I should trust in their “good intentions” to advise me of. What’s required is a blind trust in authority -- and authoritarian figures, that is a distinctive feature of (public) education (indoctrination) in Hawaii. That’s how we all go along to get along and is the cultural blindness that prevents us from seeing things clearly -- as independent people do so easily and naturally.
posted by Mike Hu @ 6:28 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Most of that which is good these days comes from the private sector -- while most of the problems come from the public sector and their institutions whose major purpose anymore is to perpetuate themselves in a world that increasingly doesn't need them.
This is a very difficult reality to have to accept -- since one's whole meaning and purpose for being has been built on the old co-dependency model of human identity and society.
It is Karl Marx's famous justification of society to exploit one another -- which is its inherent failing. Under those premises and assumptions, societies have to fail and be dysfunctional -- because there is no healthy basis for human relationship and interaction. That is the flaw in Marxism -- a flawed justification and explanation of society, until at the end, society evolves to where it doesn't need the heavy hand of government.
Social change, or any change, is not gradual but sudden and discrete. One does not hope to change some time in the future but must change presently in this moment, for change to be meaningful, effective and actualized.
Those who do not want change but are actually the defenders of the present status quo, will insist that change must be slow and gradual -- which is really to say they want no change.
One will never stop eating so much gradually -- or in the future; one will never start living and exercising right sometime in the future. One must actualize it now as best one can -- and that is the only reality, and that reality tells him what is eventually possible.
Otherwise, one has all these fantasies about what one intends to do some time in the future -- but in the present, persists with their thoughtlessness and insensitivities.
The more I read the newspapers, the more I'm convinced that their sole purpose for being anymore, is to spread ignorance -- to create "a need" for information (news) -- in an age in which the greatest danger, is being overwhelmed by information that is not true, or is irrelevant.
Avoidance of such sources of rumors, insinuations, gossip, propaganda, manipulation and deception, has now become the highest priority for those who want to optimize their time on earth.
There is literally no end to the concerns that can engage one's time and passions unproductively -- while the many things one could be usefully attending to, go neglected and unnoticed.
Many newsroom are also pondering this challenge -- and denying their logical conclusions in thinking that what is needed at this critical juncture, is just more of the same (because they don't know anything else) -- rather than a quantum leap into the next generation of information(-sharing), which would mean creating it.
The old regard for information, was as the means of control, determined by the exclusivity of that control, which obviously breaks down when there is access to nearly all the options, pretty much for free.
While problematical for "old" media, it is the opportunity for "new" media -- of which the main difference is how they value information, whether it is priceless or worth nothing, and therefore worth whatever one can get for it.
Everybody participates in the information process -- but some do it much better than others, not because they are self-designated "professionals," but because of superior inherent interpersonal skills that serve them well for these purposes.
That transcends the professional training -- and the reason there are superior communicators (reporters) and observers in every field, and not just those who claim the "turf." In fact, the great battlegrounds in the emerging new consciousness and culture, is when those extraordinarily-gifted meet those who are merely designated professionally competent -- because as many teachers and coaches have observed, "Talent cannot be coached." It is something one has to bring to the table.
So good coaches and teachers know to look for those who have the greatest natural aptitudes as the most fruitful and fulfilling primary task for both the pupil and the teacher. Some may argue that that is not allowed (political correctness) but that is done anyway -- because that is the smart thing to do -- to address oneself to the most proficient and astute in any audience, rather than the least, or all equally. One is just not foolish enough to pronounce beforehand that that is what one is doing -- because that produces the self-consciousness that is the chief obstruction to any learning.
This is distinguishing (discrimination) of different aptitudes enables one to adjust to the appropriate approach to the audience, without being patronizing or condescending -- rather than presuming beforehand on the unvarying inappropriateness of one's delivery.
Because of the interactive and organic nature of communications now, information changes and evolves with the communication of it -- rather than remaining unchanged, in the previous mass media model of one-way communications from an elite to the masses. Many have not embraced these new possibilities of improved and enhanced communications -- but continue to do the old ways with the new capabilities, that of course allow that as well as a lot more.
Those with natural abilities, have a huge advantage in adapting such changes -- over those who have to learn the new without those natural gifts for it. That is the most notable difference one will see amongst all the communications now -- that some will do it quite effortlessly and effectively, while many others, will continue to struggle to say even the most obvious of things, in a garble of words, thoughts, feelings, and intentions -- compounded by increasing hopeless complexity, that should not be a result of true information and communications.
Virtually all the problems of the world have already been solved -- by somebody, somewhere. The difficulty lies in properly identifying that one in a billion -- who may not be given the attention they deserve. Instead, those who do get the most attention, may actually be the most confused and clueless persons -- if for no other reason they to demonstrate the power of that medium to make or break nobodies at their caprice.
People have long been fascinated by power -- because they have not had it so readily available to them. When even power becomes abundant, the danger is in abusing it or using it unwisely because the wisdom of its evolution over millions of years, has been to conserve and appreciate those scarcities. When scarcities become abundance, entire new strategies have to be devised to deal with those challenges -- or we have the problems of overconsumption producing the emerging problems of contemporary societies, including that of those who merely fabricate as many problems as possible for others to exploit.
http://newsbusters.org/node/14086
Record Dow a Downer on the Networks
Posted by Julia A. Seymour on July 13, 2007 - 18:16.
A new stock market high is good news, right?
“In stock market terms alone, this is now the longest consecutive uninterrupted stock market rally,” said Lawrence Kudlow on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on July 13.
“It started in early 2003, so that’s four and a half years. And it’s incredible how much wealth is being created out there and it’s unfortunate, really – almost tragic – that the president just doesn’t get any credit for it at all because he’s got a lot to say on the economy.”
While Kudlow found the record worth cheering, the three major networks supplied "some worries" and "some dark clouds" to viewers on July 12. Each one offered its own spin of gloomy news following the record high closings of the Dow and S&P 500.
"There are still some dark clouds looming over this market," said correspondent Dan Harris on ABC’s "World News with Charles Gibson." "The housing market is in a slump, interest rates are rising and gas prices are ticking back up."
But of course, CBS had its own take on the news and could not be outdone.
"There are still some worries out there," said CBS correspondent Anthony Mason on "Evening News." "The housing market is still slumping. We’ve had close to a million foreclosures since January."
And not wanting to be left out was NBC "Nightly News."
“[W]e’ve heard this good news on Wall Street,” said “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams. “It is despite the fact that a lot of homeowners in this country are under tremendous stress right now. According to RealityTrac (sic) [RealtyTrac], that’s a company that sells mortgage data, foreclosures across the country are up a staggering 87 percent over this very same time last year.”
All this bad news accompanied the stock market's largest gain in nearly four years.
Downplaying good economic news, especially the stock market is nothing new to the network news. Reporters have a history of pressing other economic factors like gas prices and housing, then threaten these pressures would sink the economy.
Fox News Channel host Neil Cavuto devoted a portion of his July 13 program to viewers complaining about media outlets that had ignored or downplayed the historic stock market high.
By suppressing information like the foregoing, the media doesn't allow one to know about which economic/financial choices are working, but convinces instead, that anything one can do is futile and hopeless, and that nothing is working.
At all times, therre are things that work and things that don't, but when our informants exist just to deliver into the hands of the worst demagogues, then consuming their information is the source of all one's problems, and they deservedly should be extinguished. Those ARE the problems of the present time -- the suppression of information that is useful and helpful -- in favor of that which makes one dysfunctional as the new advantage to play the system.
BBC in more trouble over edited pieces
By Patrick Phelvin , Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 5:14pm BST 15/07/2007
The BBC was involved in a fresh row about doctored footage yesterday after it admitted mixing up the chronology of a documentary about Gordon Brown. Just days before Director General Mark Thompson is hauled before the BBC Trust to explain the royal fiasco, it emerged that the sequence of a Newsnight film had also been altered.
The Treasury has complained to the corporation that the 12-minute piece, on attempts by documentary-maker Jamie Campbell to secure an interview with Brown during the leadership contest, unfairly portrayed the PM and his staff.
Featured on the flagship news programme on June 26, it showed Treasury Press officer Belshan Izzet clashing with Campbell as Brown arrived in London to talk to Muslim leaders. He then suggests that the next time they met the civil servant recognised him and summoned police, insisting they question him under anti-terror laws. But the two events happened two weeks apart, and in reverse order.
In the latest row about deceit in television, Newsnight stands accused of wrongly portraying the press officer as abusing her position and doctoring footage to make Brown appear less accessible. Treasury oficials have also raised concerns that a hidden camera was used to record a bodyguard, without his knowledge, describing Brown as “shy and introverted”.
Newsnight’s deputy editor Robbie Gibb admitted that a sequence had been shown out of chronological order but said it made no difference to the meaning.
The disclosure of the complaint follows the row over footage of the Queen which apparently showed her storming out of a photo shoot. The BBC subsequently apologised after admitting that the sequence of events had been shown out of order.
But Mr Gibb said the Newsnight package was different to the item on the Queen. He said: “(The Treasury) were unhappy with the film in general but directed their complaint at how the film portrayed a Treasury press officer, claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.”
The BBC insisted there had been no intention to deceive. “The commentary does not suggest that the two are chronological and that one led to the other,” a spokesman said. “The sequences would have had the same meaning if we had run them in the reverse order. “It has been suggested that the filmmaker may have employed dishonest tactics in filming, using a hidden camera. “The camera was visible at all times and the film-maker was completely open about his intentions.”
The latest complaint about editorial propriety comes after a wave of criticism for television programme-makers and journalists. BBC1 controller Peter Fincham’s fate is likely to be decided after Wednesday’s meeting between the Director General and the BBC Trust, the governing body tasked with ensuring programme quality.
This week also sees the release of a damning report on rigged quiz show phone ins. Written by Richard Ayre, former chief executive of BBC News and now a board member of watchdog the Office of Communications, it is expected to sharply criticise TV companies for practices such as drawing up shortlists of winners before phone lines close and asking TV staff to masquerade as winners.
Earlier this month the BBC was fined £50,000 for persuading a child guest in the Blue Peter studio to pose as the winner of a phone in competition. The Treasury declined to comment.
What part of honesty and integrity don't these propagandists/lobbyists understand?
What part of honesty and integrity don't these "journalists" understand?
It's inevitable that there is a downgrading of status in a world in which the playing field is inexorably leveled.
Kings, queens, and other royalty didin't like it either -- as well as other contemporary elitists, including doctors, lawyer, politicians, university professors, etc. That's why there is a desperation and paranoia to the current defense of the status quo -- by the self-anointed of every field. Chief among them are those (self-) appointed to sit at the right hand of God because of their "objectivity."
While individuals may exhibit greater merit for their impartiality, members of any group don't possess it in greater abundance than every other -- as far a anyone has been able to detect. As such, the most astute observers of every field, are those who should be reporting on events and developments in their respective fields -- and not merely those without a real understanding of anything but pretending to fool others into believing so as part of their basic indoctrination.
That won't work in a more "discriminating" world -- and that's a good thing. The opposite of discriminating is to be hopelessly prejudiced, biased, and bigoted -- while they of course, would like to confuse the difference, and think they only see the "objective."
Reporting on the media itself is probably the most pertinent thing to be reporting -- rather than fabricating controversy elsewhere, and particularly blaming everything going wrong in the world on one person -- even if it is the President of the United States.
People aren't that stupid anymore -- and it is an insult to everyone's intelligence for the mainstream (mass) media to persist in their tactics of deception and manipulation in this obvious manner. Then they go out and hire a consultant or ombudsman to fool people into thinking they intend to correct these shortcomings -- but who instead, are vested in denying that these things can be happening, and it is the public that needs further brainwashing to be convinced of their infallibility.
They just can't get over the delusion that they're not the smartest people in the world -- who should be telling everybody else what to think.
The "media" itself cannot stand up to the closer scrutiny they like to impose on everybody else as their "freedom of the press."
That was fine as long as they were the ones who could control those inquisitions -- and allow no other. But when everybody becomes a node of information and validation, a lot of the "information" in the past, are revealed to be mostly a fabrication of the reporter themselves -- and a projection of their prejudices, their biases, their bigotry, their hatreds, their manipulations, their deceptions, their ambitions, their handicaps and limitations of understanding.
There's a reason they don't normally show these people on television -- except the few like Helen Thomas with their faces contorted in permanent, ugly rage.
Some though, like Alan Colmes and Keith Olbermann have their own seldom-watched shows. Check your public access listings.
They don't all start out looking that way -- but they all seem to end up looking that way, if they remain in that occupation all their lives.
It's product of controlling, manipulation, deception, and contempt for others that is not healthy for any human being.
The prototypical editor/publishers are the comic book characters of "Perry White, Jonah Jamison, and Ellsworth M. Toohey." It's mental illness to be such a control-freak.
The worst though, are those who aren't professional journalists but just "get off' on their personal power trips. The anonymity of the Internet allows even more possibililities for these derangemeats to grow unchecked -- in a way that "real" interactions might correct, or at least restrain.
Unchecked, they inevitably result in some spectacular murder-suicide as a final cry for attention.
A lot of people don't realize that they're serving a larger purpose than just their own personal winning at every chance they have.
The amount of information available to all equally -- is the value and usefulness of "culture," and not just culture as old information and ways of doing things that must be perpetuated for its own sake.
That kind of "culture" is meaningless but is still the enculturation in schools -- of everrything that might have been considered important to know at one time. But what is important to know, is the information useful to live life as best one can in the present time and circumstances. That is the value and usefulness of culture (information).
Knowing what is not essential to know, is not any proof of intelligence, fitness or whatever else one thinks is meaningful to do compulsively.
Post a Comment
<< Home