Crises of credibility/WMD

June 25, 2003

It is my hope that this will be a relatively short post. When consuming my daily dose of media, I’m considering an issue that troubles me greatly, and this is that the representation or just plain raw data available to administrators and the public. This can be seen in the case of faulty intelligence regarding WMD, media staging of the Jessica Lynch rescue, and the apparent fabrication from the Georgia representative that she accused GW of knowing beforehand of 9/11.

Although the instances I cite deal with many different terms, they present the issue of credibility all the way from the government to the Fourth Estate. For example, if the press is not ethically driven to uncover the facts, or if governmental powers seek to shield and distort facts as not seen for many years, or if the source information is overtly faulty in the first place, the idea of factual communication becomes increasingly subjective. This is not to say that in any communication does not have its biases, but the end result in my scenario is that two factors come to bear in the construction of credibility.

These are:
1: the ability to use the media more effectively than others, and
2: the ability to repeat the message more than any other organ, thus reinforcing the appearance of its credibility.

This becomes an orobouros in which the concept of the ‘fact’ becomes increasingly subjective, and the organs of ‘factual’ transmission become increasingly opaque, leaving little ability for the individual to discern verifiable information from propaganda., or bias from same.

My problem becomes in the way organs such as the Experimental Party is able to comment upon our civil society if the information which is known only to a select few is fatally flawed by the time it gets to the reader. Therefore, the foundations of what is being discussed becomes very ‘fluid’ and the nature of what constitutes factual representation becomes highly problematic.

However, resources such as the Internet still offer sufficient ways for the seeker to find enough points of view in which a sort of baseline of truth can be determined and thus a fairly objective standpoint can be determined.

However, most individuals are being increasingly stretched by obligations intrinsic to contemporay society, and this lessens the ability to read and inform one’s self and necessitating the need for reliance on often flawed soundbytes. I believe that what you might see here is another form of mass media control, and I will not quite go as far as invoking the pop cultural mem of ‘The Matrix’, but my point is that in many cases the masses are being increasingly forced to rely on media sources that are more and more subjective in their acquisition and presentation of ‘the facts’.

Of course this is a form of mass control, and an issue I need to ponder more before commenting further.

-patrick

recant and radical depolarization

Suddenly I realize that in two entries that I have conversely stated that freedom of speech should be taken to the limit, then complained about the abuses of same by writers such as Ann Coulter. Have I contradicted myself? Of course I have! Therefore, I believe some level of contrition is in order then clarification.

The issue here is not that of a double standard in free sppech, as I have all but defined in my previous two notes in this thread, but a key issue relates to the plethora of prolems that polarization brings. In the case in which Dubya all but stated that you are either part of the solution or part of the problem, he invokes popular Texan mythology of drawing the line at the ALamo. One point is that this event is largely mythology, another is that polarization of discourse is a brilliant methodology of control. It sets up a binary in which there is no ‘in-between’; no room for discussion.

Herein lies a key breakdown of public discourse, or shoudl I say, _civil_ discourse. This is the dark underbelly of the First Amendment. With the freedom of speech, there is also the freedom to polarize the discussion tot he point where there can be no mention of a or b, black or white, etc.

Perhaps one form of civil disobedience is a polite refusal of the poles; to constantly be picking out the issues and problems, playing a form of rhetorical ‘Breakout’ game with the current power structure. Perhaps this is merely a reiteration of ‘third ways’ suggested in differnt forms from Krishnamurti to Deleuze to Clinton, but the current form of rhetoric oin the US is such that critical thinking is actively discouraged.

In this way, perhaps this is what I am suggesting rather than a freedom of speech, but rather a freedom of thought that chooses to hold circumspect the dominat order tand consoder alternative ways to frame our society as it stands.

I hope that this is clearer.

Lying: A Government Institution

June 15, 2003

There is an alternative to governmental lying. It is to tell the truth. Or, if need be, to remain silent.

David Wise

I, for one, believed Bill Clinton, when he publically stated he did not have sex with “that woman.” And I will not forgive him for lying to ME. When I look back on that TV moment, I can’t help but laugh at my staunch defense of him. His ego and his office took in both Hillary and me. I was naïve (she was in denial).

My fellow liberal friends tried to counter my anger by detailing all the good social programs he initiated during his presidency. But I can’t forget that one special social program. Presidential lying to the American public is unacceptable.

I have always thought that Watergate was a watershed when it came to the public’s trust of government. When someone like my father (a born Democrat who, back then, was morphing into a conservative Republican right before my eyes) started calling, first Nixon, then all politicians “crooks,” I knew something had changed.

Nixon, however, was neither the first nor the last to misinform. In today’s Washington Post, David Wise (author of The Politics of Lying) gives us a brief history of recent presidential deceit.

Explain Yourself, Mr. President

June 10, 2003

Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises.

Robert Byrd
United States Senator

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written a letter to President Bush asking him to explain why he cited forged evidence on Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction in his State of the Union Address in January of this year:

The allegation that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country was first made publicly by the British government on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a front-page article, one of the two “chief new elements” in the report was the claim that Iraq had “sought to acquire uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear weapons.” According to the Washington Post, the evidence included “a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger.”

It wasn’t until March 7, 2003 that the world learned this evidence was false when the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, released the results of his investigation into the allegations. Apparently, it was fairly easy for the IAEA to discover this information was forged via rudimentary Google searches.

Waxman states the State of the Union address is always a well-crafted speech that takes months to write. Fact checking is mandatory. He suggests that this lends credibility to the notion that the White House knew this information was false and that the President purposefully mislead Congress and the American people when he made his case for going to war.

Truth seems to be as elusive a commodity in this affair as the discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction is in Iraq. It should go without saying that, given the state of the world today, Americans deserve honest risk assessments. And the people who are being asked to support our world power status (both in the military and on the homefront) deserve to know the truth. At the very least, we shouldn’t be mislead. Hyperbole is not very attractive in the early 21st century. In fact, it can be very dangerous.

Mr. Waxman, please let us know when you get a response from the President.

Related Story: Is Lying About the Reason for War an Impeachable Offense? by John W. Dean

Freedoms of Hate?

June 07, 2003

As of late I have been wondering about the nature of the First Amendment, and over the past couple of decades the trend in the excercise of this constitutional right has been inverted in a rather sinister fashion. For instance, one could argue that violent talk shows, pornography, softcore pop TV (that illustrates surreal sexual models), video games that circumvent other regulation of content to minors, etc., and tobacco ads to children have all been argued at one point or another as protected by this right. And except in a couple cases in which threat speech is linked to the (in)direct harm of others, such as the juvenile tobacco marketing, most of this has a strong basis in fact.

But the above is a somewhat digressive in which is a bit of what seems to be the stated inclusivity inherent in the 1st Amendment. For example, in the 1990s there was a bit of a neo-conservative backlash in terms of a reaction to the “political correctness,” or so certain groups, of the 1980s, call it. This backlash continues into the 00s.

Much of the anti-PC backlash is seen through the neo-conservative Right through media personalities such as Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannerty, and echoed by Fox News and statements of many in the Republican Party, although such polemics are not limited to Conservatives or Republicans.

However, from the aforementioned group, and after three paragraphs the crux of my point, is that a largely conservative demographic, including the new trendy Republican Youth (obviously nostalgic for Michael J. Fox in Family Ties), and writers such as Ann Coulter have taken to use the 1st Amendment as a shield for rebellion against civility through the creation of vitriolic insults to nearly everyone outside of this ideological base.

The response to the call to diversity, multiculturalism and inclusion has been for a polarization of society through lenses of religion, nationalism, homophobia, and racism. One example is best seen in the dictum of Duya suggesting that if one is not against the terrorism that one, by default, is then a de facto terrorist. Being that such a polemic sets up a wholly unacceptable argument in the first place, excluding any semblance of debate, the argument then acts as a shield for the hate speech of groups such as Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

To take only one example, am I suggesting that Ann Coulter is the same as a Klansman? I was going to say no, but actually not too far off. But then, many on the Left are sounding close to that of the Weathermen, but they are currently far less visible now, and thus less germane to the discussion. What is “relevant,” if I dare use that word anymore after the Second Gulf War, is that writers such as Coulter are taking a stance so arrogant as to call her “opposing camp” as lying, sniveling, treasonous weasels who she has even hinted at wishing their demise. And, the response when challenged for the strength of the remarks is a, “Oh please, lighten up!,” as if hate speech were some sort of sharp comedy.

What is problematic is that in such an atmosphere, there is less and less room for compromise, civility, or agreement in discussion, which suggests a possible coming time of confrontation, which is alluded to in the recent Texas Democratic Secession of 2003.

The problem is the range of debate of what is permissible by law versus what defines a healthy democracy or society for that matter. Can it be said that although law protects the vehement polarization and ìextremeî rhetoric, what does it accomplish? How is it productive or destructive towards society, and what responsibility are those using that form of rhetoric taking for their share of power in that society? I think you can see where my bias might lie, but what I would wish for is a rise of the ‘moderate majority’ who claim to be sick of hearing the inflammatory rhetoric from both sides, but seem ineffectual in taking any action against it.

Currently, I have no solution, as the parameters for resistance seem to polarize themselves into action and apathy, which are frustrating in themselves. Perhaps in this age, a measure of Jamesonian self-reflexiveness, in that those of us fighting the polemic understand that it might have to be engaged in, but at tangential angles in order to change the shape of the discussion. At least that’s what I’m trying to do.

And for one, I am getting tired of being asked to be part of the solution or part of the problem. I believe that Bartleby had it right when he stated that he would ‘prefer not to’ be part of the process, but create his own process that has a profound impact on others, although atypical.

But to wrap up with another slightly tangential statement, I’m tired of engaging in behaviors merely in that they are lawful that exhibit equally repugnant behavior to those which they oppose. Much like the argument in Jurassic Park, being able to do something lacks the foresight to understand that it is beneficial to do so. Personally, I’ve been tired of many kinds of determinism, and I have added rhetorical determinism to the list.

I hope that we can work to eliminate the desire for the immense hatred in American society today, because I’m tired of it.