From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 17:59:02 MST
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Lee noted:
> <<My other theory is that the left has inherited a tradition,
> or aspects of a tradition, that goes all the way back to Lenin.
> In revolutionary Russia, Lenin and his followers labeled
> themselves the Bolsheviks, or "Majority". It was a conscious
> political move to (evidently) subtly affect the semantics of
> the discourse, so that they'd retain a psychological advantage.>>
>
> Lenin also said: "Probe with a bayonet. When you strike steel,
> withdraw! When you hit mush, dig in!" This explains the success of
> Rightist media, which identifies itself, without aprobrium; and a
> Leftist media which hides behind centrist, or middle of the road,
> identification. Let us look at the liberal record on foreign policy,
> and see what has been accomplished? In fact, the Bush the 1st record
> on foreign policy, even considering the idiotic handling of Saddam,
> after his disengagement from Kuwait is worth criticizing. Not only is
> the old media leftist, but the State Dept is also thus. It, being a
> subsidiary of George Washington University. I am not sure who the
> State Department represents, but it doesn't appear to be most
> Americans, either liberal or conservative. Ah! a point of unity mayhaps?
>
> Mitch
Who owns the major media? You may consider them leftist, but I consider
them more opportunist. Certainly the policies of the owners of the
media are not liberal. If they condone a liberal voice in the
publication, it is not out of affection for the message, but in order to
1) keep control of what can be said, and 2) earn money selling papers.
Most ostensibly liberal publications will suddenly turn very
conservative when recommending who or what to vote for. (I didn't say
centrist, because that wasn't what I meant.)
This assertion is based, I admit, on much to small a sample to place
much reliance on it, but it fits everywhere I've examined things (except
the small presses... and the chains of small papers are being purchased
and also having their policies dictated from a more central location).
I haven't looked for better evidence, because it's what my model of how
society operates would predict, so I only check sporadically. But one
expects capital intensive operations to be owned by someone with a bunch
of capital. And one expects such a person to be rather conservative.
And, given the low rate of return of most newspapers, one expects most
of the owner's attention to be given to more remunerative enterprises.
So I feel that any assertion that things work in a different way
requires extra proof. (What encouragement do you require to annoy the
person who signs your pay check, and evaluates you job performance? One
would normally assume that it would require significan cause.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 18:04:29 MST