Thursday, October 28, 2010

Joe Blow Walks In Tall Clover

In many ways it is always nice to know that there are others out there in this world that share similar experiences as you - both good and bad. So, when I read Glenn Greenwald's latest article, More on the media's Pentagon-subservient WikiLeaks coverage dealing with The New York Times' John Burns and his non-story about the latest WikiLeaks revelations: WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety, I began to wonder if some of our local Opinionators were taking lessons from John Burns.

Glenn Greenwald deals with the same kinds of issues as I have and he lives in Brazil. I guess not everyone thinks he's a "media critic." Glenn updated his article with this comment:

I don't have much to add to what either reporter said there, as I think my critiques stand on their own, and I've already addressed most of the excuses offered. I will, however, note two points: (1) one the cheapest, most slothful and most intellectually dishonest methods for refuting an argument is to mockingly slap the label of "conspiracy theory" on it, as though the argument then becomes self-refuting; that's virtually always a non-responsive strawman, and that's exactly what Burns does in purporting to address my criticisms even though, manifestly, nothing I said qualifies as such; and (2) it's a very significant -- and positive -- change even from a couple of years ago that these reporters are not only loudly exposed to criticisms of their work, but feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding.
Sound familiar?

The picture? That comes from Wikipedia and the Study of Saints, "Hagiography." Glenn explains:
"Hagiography" is exactly what the American establishment media does, when it comes to powerful American political and military leaders.  Slimy, personality-based hit pieces are reserved for those who are scorned by the powerful ..."
"Powerful." Like local newspapers, their reporters and Opinionatores that "feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding" to their critic's "criticisms of their work"? Glenn's point, if they had any personal integrity or loyalty to the truth, they wouldn't need to defend themselves, now would they?

1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition.

No comments:

Post a Comment